In the Face of Ethics...

Hey all, happy Veteran's Day! I know it's cliche, but let's not forget to be thankful for all of those who have helped this country while we have a day off...

Anyways, this is something that's sorta new to my mind, but it's just been bugging me a bit so I thought I should give it a whirl... As most of you probably may know, ethics is one of the things that I find most interesting... Even though I don't know too much when it comes to these things, I find it really fascinating to listen to everyone and get their viewpoints. It's one of the things that I like spending many hours into the night just thinking/talking over, just because there is so much to everything... Of course, this doesn't mean that I don't have my own viewpoints, or that I don't hold strongly to them, but I feel like it's good to try and see the world from many perspectives and not just one... Also, if you ask others of their opinions and viewpoints, you form a stronger bond with them, and they are more prone to talk and listen to you, and vice versa...

Well, my interest in ethics developed in high school, junior year. We had a new teacher named Mr. Wessling. As you Valley people know, this isn't the counselor Wessling, but his son Mr. Wessling. Essentially, this guy was fresh out of college with a major in philosophy and thought he would give teaching a shot. One of the first things he said is, "It's ok that you believe whatever you believe. Just make sure you have a good reason for it." This was really big to me, and it furthered my crazy trains of thought that had already started developing. Any subject that we tackled I found interesting, even though most I also found horribly confusing. And, as many of you can guess with ethics, a clear cut answer is not always there...

As time went on, I discussed more and more with my friends ethical views and why they do what they do. It wasn't only ethical views, but just in terms of personality and what not, too. Most of us agreed that there things aren't always black and white, but they still held on to some things fervently, or at least they said they did. There was comfort in knowing that I wasn't alone in my viewpoints in the sense that I wasn't overly cautious or conservative. Please don't take the idea that I'm saying I only believed in my ethical viewpoints because there were others that did so as well, but that there is comfort in that fact. Somewhat confusing, but not exactly the same thing.

Fast forward a few years, and you get most of my friends starting college... And here, the social environment is a lot different than Valley... Not only is it a chance to start anew, but where almost anything as seen previously as being socially unacceptable by Valley is something that is viewed as normal by some, and thus there is no judgment attached with it... And thus, people are able to go for things that they may previously have feared, and all of it becomes a new norm...

Now, please don't think I'm ragging on college kids and what not. Valley is overly conservative, and sometimes the options that become available in college may or may not be a bad thing. Yet, the title of this post is the main idea: What happens when your ethics clash with what you want..?

Like I said, so many of my friends seemed to have a fixed position on many issues. These things weren't things that we considered to be hard to tell if they were right or wrong, but I mean set on viewed as wrong. Yet, so many of these things, whether they be personality or ethics, seemed to be broken once they had the opportunity to experience them. For example, I remember someone had a hatred towards overly public displays of affection. Yet, once they actually had a relationship, that's one of the things they became known for... Other friends were strongly against using others, getting drunk, and other things... Yet, once they actually had the ability to do the things that they were so strongly against, it became right to them. They just did it because they were no longer inhibited by the environment Valley had created...

So many people say things. And yet, those things are likely to change. A sign of being adamant is so likely to fall away when one is able to come into the face of desires. Thus, do people have ethics simply because it's something they can't acquire at the time? People seem more adamant towards the things they can't have, yet they internally desire... When they are actually able to obtain these desires, all of these ethics break down. Thus, what they merely purport is something that they do in order to hide their desires... Sometimes people do change what they view as wrong to being acceptable, and that may be true in some cases. Yet, there are those who view what they do as questionable, yet they still do it because their want to is so great. I wonder, am I just the same sometimes..? Do I hold onto something so tightly simply because I haven't been placed in the situation where it's available or where it seems as more of a plausible option? It's just something that's been on my mind lately, and stuff good for self-examination not only for me, but for whoever else may read this as well...

Well, thus ends the general version of the world. And yes, I mean general. Maybe I'm just overly optimistic, but I would like to believe that there are those who would stick to what they deem their ethical standards on clear-cut issues, whether or not they are presented with a situation in which they can have what is against their ethics. To some, this may seem overly cautious and judgmental, for I know there are some who say that you can't judge/be against something without ever having tried it. True, there are some people who are very fixed to what they believe and refuse to accept or look at other positions, but that's not the type of person I'm referring to. The interesting thing to note is that this is sort of a judgment in itself, and there are ways to know about things without having tried it. In fact, that's something I'm probably gonna write on later. But for now, those with truly strong ethical character and principles are those who have examined the possibilities of the spectrum and decide to stay true to what they view as right, even in the face of desire. Again, it is somewhat hard to always know what is right, since many things can be shades of grey, but it is still admirable to see someone to stick strongly to their beliefs without being close-minded. I know this is a little bit confusing to understand because I am finding it hard to write most of this, but hopefully y'all will be able to get at what I'm saying. Ethics themselves are just very crazy to think about... Oh well, food for thought... Farewell

Time Be Still!

Hello hello... I got a moment to think while at work, and now that I have a break (temporarily!) from midterms and what not, writing sounded good to me. I originally was thinking of writing on experience and existentialism, but a new thought sorta hit me when I was grabbing dinner. It sorta relates back to chess. Joey, in fact, teaches chess to kids for his job, so maybe that's why I thought of it (how do you like that, Dave! Joey's my reference this time hahaha. Well, to be fair, Joey and I talk mainly about the psych stuff I post, I just usually don't reference him. So, oh well!).

If anyone has seen official chess matches, two opponents do intense death stares. Well, not really, but the tension is crazy high. Also, they're usually timed... Each person has a set amount of minutes, such as 30 or so, that they have to make all their moves in. Everytime their turn goes on, they have to hit the buzzer thing to end their turn and to stop their clock from ticking down even more. It's pretty crazy to watch and also brings up ideas...

It is somewhat unrelated, but I used to think of my actions, if not all actions, sort of like moves on the chessboard... You play your part and what not, and then your opponent has to make a move. Yet, when your opponent is deciding their move, you also have time to decide your next move... Time is at a weird form of a stand still, where no matter what you think nothing's going to happen. Yet, as many of you can guess, simply, life isn't that way...

I was talking with a friend the other day, and how our actions influence others. After many forms of dialogue exchange, I got to the point where I said I didn't want to do some things/take some actions because I didn't know the outcomes they would have; whether they would be good or bad essentially... Yet, my friend pointed out something that's so easy to see in hindsight yet not easy to accept at first. They pointed out that even if you spend a whole lot of time thinking, that still takes time. And, that time is something that will pass for everyone. Even if you spend a whole lot of time thinking about what is right to do, or whether or not you should do it, that's hesitation. And, simply put, hesitation is a decision in itself.

Hesitation is a decision in itself... Oh man, that's something I don't like to hear or admit... You all know me... I'm so hesitant and indecisive when it comes to something big concerning not just myself, but those around me. I try to be able to help when I can, but when it's something I have to actively choose and not lead people to, that's when I get really tripped up. I like to think it over and guess at the possibilites of what may happen as a result of any decision that I may make. Yet, this process in itself is something that takes time... And with that hesitation, comes a decision made in itself... In fact, that's what the title is a reference to. It's something that Mr. Kitaniji (from The World Ends with You) says, plus I was looking for a nerd reference haha... Hum, bother bother...

I guess this is a lesson that can be applicable to all, but to say that the strict reason I wrote this was for that reason would be lying. This is something that I sorta wanted to write about since it's something that I've been doing a lot lately... I just keep myself busy that it's hard to be so sure of big things I have to think about that I indirectly put them off for huge periods of time... I know there are a few friends that I shoulda helped/been there for/talked to, yet I hesitated wondering whether or not it was something that would result in what is best in the end... So to all those that may have been a result of my actions (or lack of I should say haha), I am sorry... I hope to learn from my actions, even though that won't change the past, but hopefully it'll be able to guide me in making the right decisions next time the chance may come around...

Adding Insult to Injury...

Holy cow, has it already been two months? Man, I'm so bad with this consistency thing hahaha. Well, needless to say, school and work have started up again, and both are doing a good job of keeping my busy. I've got 15 units, which is the standard amount, but I am working quite a bit plus doing some ministry/club stuff on the side. Overall, it just adds up and take a good chunk out of the week...

Anyways, one of the ideas that was just sorta drifting around in my head was how to deal with an inconsistency of ethics. Uhm, that's not the best way to word it, but I'm having trouble of thinking of how else to say it, so let's go to a story example...

A few years back when I was talking with Dave (Dave's usually somehow involved in these stories haha), probably around my senior year, he was talking to me about how people change as time goes on. Yes, this does seem simple and kind of a dumb statement to make, but even though we have the head knowledge for it it's just weird to actually see things change over time. His main point did pertain to people, though. People are highly variable, especially as time progresses. It's easy to see one person who you originally thought was so strong, whether mentally, physically, spiritually, etc. start to feel the withering effects of time come upon them. Case and point, my brother's friend...

I don't know her name, and even if I did it sorta would be a violation of confidentiality, so yeah, no names... But, this friend of Dave's was a high school friend, which means Valley Christian High School. My writing is primarily geared towards that went to Valley, but just in case if you didn't, Valley had a huge emphasis on living a Christian life/ideal, hence the name. Unfortunately, when something like this is forced, you can run into some problems... Two of the most obvious are that people rebel like crazy and go completely against the rules and institutions that are set up. I don't really think this was a problem for the years that I was here, so we'll just sorta ignore that thought. But, the problem that was most noticeable to me was that a double life starts to become the norm. People are able to put on their Christian face when teachers and other classmates are around, yet do what they want once they are alone/with other friends. Once people hit college, they realize that this facade is no longer needed and they don't need to keep it up anymore. Of course, please don't think I'm saying that this happens to everybody, everybody does this, or this will happen. It's just a few of the possible situations that may arise due to the setting of a Christian campus...

Anyways, one of the things that is also sought out and very negatively looked upon at a Christian campus is hypocrisy. Well, it's not only true for a Christian campus, but I always felt that it was more prevalent in that setting. Well, as mentioned, Dave happened to run into an old friend that was from Valley. At the time that he had met her, it was around her second year of college, maybe slightly earlier or something (my memory is failing, sorry). They were catching up, and Dave recalled to me how this girl was always one of the most charismatic Christians on campus. They would always be the one to lead rallies, participate in Christian stuff on campus, and anything else that you can think of a stereotypical Christian school. Well, as they were catching up about life, one of the things that the girl happened to mention is that she was a single mother now and raising a kid. To most of those that know Christian doctrine, this is when red flags would be going off. Valley had a heavy emphasis on no premarital sex (even though I doubt everyone followed...) and also against being a single mother. In an ideal world, a girl and boy were supposed to wait till marriage until they procreate. Yet, as most of you know, that doesn't typically happen... haha

Well, Dave let her keep her privacy to herself so he doesn't know how it happened (well he did, but you know what I mean), but he just talked to her about what the life of a single mother is like, and how other things were going for. Dave told me that it was kinda strange to think that one person that had appeared so adamant for their faith had done something that was contradictory.

At this point, Dave noted that one of the first things that come to his mind was a note of her hypocrisy. It should seem so natural to point out that one of the strongest, or apparently strongest, did something she herself advised against. It would just be so easy to disdain her for her actions, label her as a hypocrite, and simply leave her at that.

But, Dave isn't one to do typical things of course... He said something that kinda struck me. Dave said something to the degree of, "You know, she probably had already gotten enough flak from her friends or family... She did something that most people wouldn't have guessed that would happen to her. Yet, can you imagine how hard her life must have become after it did happen? Not only did she have to raise a child by herself, but she was probably being criticized from friends and family, but hopefully not all of them. At that point, haven't they suffered enough and learned from their actions? The most that you can probably do to help them is just listen and hear them out, since that's something they probably don't get too much..."

Of course, Dave's words are kinda ringing and contrary to what we may instinctively feel. Why do we feel that way? Well, I sorta think that goes back to the idea of belief in a just world. I did write on this before, I believe, but for those of you that don't remember/didn't read so, but essentially this idea states that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. This second part is what most people use to justify why they don't help those that are in need (such as homeless) or why they can disregard those who do things that are viewed by others as wrong. In this case, people may naturally feel as disregarding this girl and saying that she brought it upon herself so we can easily disregard her and her situation. Ironically, though, she's one of the ones that may need more of our help than others, not our disdain. And isn't that part of what we are called to do? Show love to others that are in need, and not just to those who we are comfortable around? Even if you think you may not be able to do something to show your love for another in need, listening is a big thing to help them out. I know I say this a lot, but really, just having someone to talk to can really help build bonds and help others figure out what they need to do. I know this is a tough message and a lot easier said than done because it's something I also struggle with, but just being aware of it helps us to make one step closer to being able to help out others that are in need...

This is where the healing begins...

Hey all, sorry for not writing for a while. There's been a lot of stuff on my mind and I seem to be having a bout with insomnia or something, so my thoughts might be pretty scattered when I write this... In fact, this actually came to my mind last night when I was laying awake for who knows how long trying to fall asleep...

During the drives to and from summer school, I would listen to Air1 a bit. In fact, that's where the title of this miniature writing comes from. The song always struck me as interesting, so it figures I would write on it one day... It might have been right after listening to this song or the same day, a pastor came on and spoke, which is something Air1 typically does. Well, the pastor started off his one minute message with the story of a girl he had recently talked to who was having trouble on what to do about her pregnancy. From what I remembered, the girl was a teenager who was afraid and pushing towards abortion, yet her parents were pushing her more towards having the child. The pastor himself was against abortion, yet he didn't just straight out tell her to keep the child. If I remember he said something to the degree of this: "When I talked with this girl, I didn't come preaching to her from the start. All she needed was somebody to talk to and have listen." He also mentions that she broke down some point in their conversation, and he was just there to comfort and listen to her. In the end, she decided to keep the baby, which was what the pastor would have gone for, yet didn't preach to her.

Hum, I wish I could remember the exact wording the preacher had used, but my memory is fuzzy, so I guess I'll stick with the paraphrasing. Basically, when people are in trouble or are in need, they're not always looking to get preached to. Some might, but in the general situation, I'm gonna assume no. Why am I stating this? Simply because it's something that we seem all too often to forget or something...

Even though this might sound heathenish, I'm gonna say it anyways... I haven't seen a horrible amount of cases, so I could be wrong, but many people that are in need aren't exactly looking for a sermon. True, there is comfort in knowing that "God always has a plan" or "God is always looking over you," but it is not what people are looking for at the time. These responses almost seem to convey a holier-than-thou mentality by simply shooting scripture at one who is in physical pain or need. It always seems like such a detached response...

Please don't get me wrong, since this is a very hard idea to convey, but sometimes shooting scripture or spiritual facts at someone in pain is not always the best way to go about it. In fact, one that might be in pain may be having spiritual trouble or doubt, and by stating scripture it can make one feel more doubtful or guilty. Even though this may not be the original intention of the one trying to help another in need, it may be what it indirectly comes off as...

So yes, when someone is in need, all they may need, or even want, is someone to talk to. Even if you can't physically help, sometimes just being heard out is all someone needs...

Control Freak..!

Blech, more not writing has been going on. I blame my lack of energy to actually sit down and type something up on school. I have actually been writing a little bit here and there when we have breaks, which is how I got the idea for this post, but otherwise I just haven't felt like sitting down to unleash some thought... Anyways, I'll be done with school in about a week so maybe I'll feel more up to writing once that comes around. But, for now, this post length is just going to be variable...

Anyways, this idea isn't originally mine, but I'm actually building off of Danny a little bit. Basically, we were walking about Quicksilver just talking about things that were coming to mind and what not, and one of the things that came up was replaying conversations in one's head. In the case of Danny and Devin, they do it silently. But thanks to a certain brother of mine (I bet Alex knows what I mean haha), I tend to do it out loud which can make for certain awkward social situations... Anyways, not only do we all play out old convo's in our head, but there's the idea of planning/predicting what the person is going to say in the future as well. This may seem a bit weird, but I do wonder if anyone else does it as well...

Anyways, Danny came up with an idea for why this might happen. Basically, from what he has observed, he believes that this isn't really a thing that the previous generation did as much (as in terms of parents and what not), but is more common for our generation. In order to explain this, Danny pointed out that video games today have a huge aspect of control/redo to them. If you go back to the beginning of gaming and what not, it was mainly simple things like Pong. Yet for today, video games are a lot more complex. You can save, replay multiple times, restart and go with a different path, keep on going till you have achieved everything that was programmed, etc. Thus, there's a huge array of things to do and how to go about doing them. With this new aspect of how we can now play video games, it affects how we go about life as well. Thus, in terms of social situations, we replay them in our heads in order to try and find the best one since that's the one we could typically do in games and what not...

Well, even though I do believe that Danny may have a point that video games can lead to this control freak mentality (hence the title/reference to teen titans), I believe that there may be more to it then that. I mean, not only video games have changed over time, but lots of forms of technology as well... With televisions, you have DVR's which allow for saving, speeding up, slowing down, and recording any program you want. Even though there are probably other forms of technology that would help out as well, I see television and gaming being probably the main factors if even so. Iono if really does have an effect or not, but it is something interesting to think about. I mean, it does seem to line up on interesting aspects of technology just being able to allow more control over what you want to do with life. I guess it could transfer over to a social aspect and try to instill a sense of control in that well. I could just be completely wrong and it's something that only a few of us do, but I figured I'd just share my thoughts anyways. Oh well, off I go. Farewell...

Innate Morality

Well, as a few friends have noted, I haven't really posted anything for a while, so I figured I should try to write something. I've been out of school for more than half a month, had vacation, had my wisdom teeth out, and now I have Spanish in summer school. It's about 25 hours a week, not including personal studying time, which is a good amount of time. I'm not doing as well as I would like to just yet, so that's something I'm gonna be studying more as the weekend progresses. Yay for holidays!

Anyways, back before we left UCLA, one of our Bible Study sessions brought up something I found kinda interesting. I don't remember how it started, but we got to a point where we were talking about one's conscience and being good, which I'll define as having strong ethical character. Strong ethical character can be somewhat ambiguous itself, so in this sense I'll say it is something to the degree of following the ethical code/conduct established in the Bible. Yet, this is something that I don't even think is the best definition, because it might imply that only those that follow the Bible are of strong ethical character, but that's sorta what I want to write about.

Well, to state things to the point, I don't believe those that are Christians are the only ones that can have strong ethical character. In other words, I do believe that those that aren't Christians can also have strong ethical character, and it has something to do with innate moral character.

My answer is going to be directed towards a Christian audience, so I am going to try and base my answer off of Scripture, or at least my interpretation of it. Those that don't believe in the Bible may disagree with me, but like I said, this answer is supposed to be more towards a Christian audience.

To get to the point, I believe that everyone is born with an innate morally good character. There are some who follow this innate character, while sometimes one's view of what is morally good may become clouded and confused. Thus, some may stay true to this nature their whole lives, whereas others may become confused towards what is right and wrong. On a personal not, please do not think that I'm trying to attack people that may do something that is ethically questionable in the sense that it is hard to tell if it is right or wrong. I am trying to speak in very general terms and such and trying not to attack any specific issue/person.

Now, lots of Biblical terms may come to mind, such as conscience or the Holy Spirit, and his role in ethical character. I believe that these two are very related, but not exactly the same. For a Biblical reminder, the Holy Spirit came down upon the apostles gathered during Pentecost. They were bestowed with Spiritual Gifts and what not, as seen in Acts. Yet, if I remember correctly from the Gospels, Jesus talks about the Holy Spirit later coming down to everyone that believes, or in other words everyone that does become a Christian. In other words, everyone now that is truly a Christian has the Holy Spirit inside of them. The Holy Spirit is important in terms of morality for, if I remember Scripture correctly, there are a few references to him as being a helper/keeper of moral character.

How does this differ from one's conscience? This is somewhat confusing, so I hope I can explain it well, but I believe one's conscience is the innate moral character I was referring to earlier. In other words, everyone is born with a conscience, and thus they are knowledgeable of what is right and wrong. One of the more interesting questions one may have is where one's conscience may come from. Due to this being a biblical answer, I believe that one's conscience is a part of the character of God that we are formed after. Genesis states that we are formed in God's image, which I believe we (our Bible Study) concluded was more than just an image in terms of seeing, but being, so to speak, which includes moral character. Thus, everyone has this innate character of God in them.

Why may this exactly be significant? Because I believe that it states that everyone has the capacity to be good (in terms of morality), even those that aren't Christian. If everyone is born with the innate moral character of God, then everybody does have the ability to be good. Of course, this is assuming that the moral character of God is good, but that is a part of being a Christian, so that is something I'll readily assume.

At this point, some of you may be wondering what the Holy Spirit's role is, then, if one's conscience is the innate moral character of God. Well, to answer simply, not everybody chooses to listen to their conscience, or their conscience becomes clouded/distorted as time progresses. The Holy Spirit acts as a refresher/cleaner of one's conscience, thus making one more inclined/able to listen to it. In other words, it makes one's conscience more powerful, so to speak. Even then, that doesn't sound like the right wording, so don't use my words for that...

This is somewhat confusing, so I'll try to make a nice concluding section for it. Basically, everyone is born with a conscience, which is something that I view as innate moral character. Thus, everyone has the ability/option to be good, whether or not they are actually Christians. Of course, this does not mean everyone does, but they have the ability to be good. Then, there are those that become Christians that receive the Holy Spirit, and thus their consciences are refreshed by the Holy Spirit, and thus they are more prone to follow it. This would somewhat explain why those that are Christian are typically seen as the ones with high ethical standards, but this also means that those that aren't Christian can have a strong ethical character as well. Thus, anybody can be good in terms of morality. This may be a simple point, but it is something that seems to be forgotten all too often for Christians... Oh well, food for thought! I'm not sure when I'll be writing again, but hopefully somewhat soon. But until then, farewell!

Do We Have a Deal?

Ah, the infamous words of the Aeon Yojimbo. For those of you who aren't as nerdy as I am (which is probably everybody that actually reads this), Yojimbo is a summon from FFX. And yes, I do like to use nerdy references to introduce my topics since my mind seems to work that way... Also, these topics don't seem to be as long as before, so this should be good news to those that have shorter attention spans haha

Yes, today is somewhat of a reference to economics, hence the whole deal thing in the title. In fact, Yojimbo himself would only attack if you paid him, so I find that funny as well.. Anyways, the topic has to do with deals and what not. Again, I'm gonna be assuming that most of those who read my entries took Malek. But, just as a refresher (or information for those that didn't take Malek) one of the main things that Malek pushed for was there is no such thing as a rip off. Basically, people have the option whether or not to accept the price that is given/offered to them. Malek would always give the example of a man in the desert dying of thirst and having a water vendor come along. The vendor would charge $1000 for the bottle of water since the man was in great need of it. Thus, there's no rip off since the man agreed to it and he was so desperately in need of it. Of course, the point that there is no such thing as a rip off is debatable in itself, but not something that is currently in my head. Thus, we are just going to accept that for now and we can debate later.

The thing that we are going to talk about, though, is the finalization of a deal. The situation that Malek typically mentions is not something that would be favorable to be in. Even if the situation is extreme, my point is that it can apply to other "deals" in our lives, such as college tuition (which is extremely applicable to basically everyone who reads this haha). The thing that bugs people most is that they're not getting a "fair price" (Again, something that can be debated later) for what they're paying for. Thus, they try to compensate it by other means. I've heard that in order to get a "good" education" you have to pay ridiculous amounts and thus students should be entitled to a bit more than their education. I've heard this rationale used to justify a bit of behavior, especially in the dining halls. Some people who take things from the dining halls say that they're paying so much that they are entitled to take something, whether it be more food, silverware, or even soy sauce bottles.

Sure, I can understand where this is coming from. It's annoying to get a renowned education and something for a "low" price college wise. Yet, I'm still against this. The thing is, a deal has already been established. It seems highly unethical to agree to a deal and all its provisions then go against one of those provisions. It's probably like an ethical equivalent to lying, for agreeing to a deal and then going against its provisions means that you agree to something then go against it, meaning that your agreement to the deal is false. I mean, it wouldn't be cool to sell something to someone for $100 and then they decided that they wanted more for it since $100 is too much, even if it is something they already agreed to. It is something that is hard and annoying to keep to, though. Paying around $100000 can really get to some people, especially for something that is a form of prestige haha. Well, all in all, I guess it's just important to remember what you agreed to in deals and what not and also just to analyze your own actions. Yeap yeap... Food for thought!

Phat and low

Sorry for not writing for a while (again). Being home was very amusing and all, and I touched the computer for only about 20 minutes overall. Also, I forgot what I was going to write till I got back to school, so I guess it all works out. Anyways, if anyone wants to know what is up with the title, it was Chris' idea. So yeah...

Before I get started with the actual entry, it's important to know what Gricean implicatures are. These are things I just learned about in my Linguistics class a few weeks back. If you think the word "implicature" looks like "imply", that's because they are very similar. Implicatures are basically sentences that don't directly say something but mean it. So yes, it's basically like implying something, except implicatures aren't meant to be subjective, whereas implying things can fall into the realm of the subjective. So yes, the word "implicature" was specifically invented to avoid the subjectivity that may come with implying things.

For those who want an example, the example "Can you pass the salt?" is a great example. Even though this question is not actually asking if someone is physically able to pass the salt, even though it can mean that, it implicates that I want the salt. Thus, the sentence means something that it doesn't directly say. An example of messing with implicatures is a riddle actually. For those of you who have heard it, it's the riddle about having two coins adding up to 30 cents, but one of them is not a nickel. Note here that I said only one of them is not a nickel. This does not mean that the other cannot be a nickel, which is part of the answer to the riddle, but it implicates that neither coin is a nickel. Hopefully that's enough explanation for now...

Anyways, why this background relates actually goes bak to my Wednesday of running around for class and work. Basically, last week was election week, which is a huge thing here. There are two groups, Students First and Bruins United, and both were campaigning like crazy. I literally ran into about 10ish people each way I would walk. And yet, these people wouldn't just say something like, "Vote for Students First!" No, they were hardcore... They would ask if you've voted, then bombard you with information about why you should vote for their candidates and what not. Also, they would seek and follow people. I pulled out my phone a few times and walked around some people, yet they would still follow me and cut me off asking for my vote. By this point I hadn't actually voted since the online poll had been only open for one day and I was still thinking about who to vote for. Thus, I would feel bad and ethically violated if I just lied to everybody who would ask me if I had voted yet.

Well, this situation came to what I saw as a quick fix when I passed my friend Jonathan leaving Bruinwalk (No, not Jonny Chue, but a friend from CCM). Anyways, he figured he'd help me out and gave me a sticker that had "I <3 SF!" on it. I quickly caught on to the sticker idea and just wore it and waved it around to any political people asking for my vote. They saw that I had the sticker and totally left me alone, making the walk to class so much nicer.

I initially justified my conscience by reasoning that the sticker itself has no mentioning of my voting on it. It just mentions my support for a specific group, and thus I figured they would leave me all alone. But, Justice actually called me out on this, and I think he's right. The stickers were handed out in the later part of the day to those who said they had voted so that way they wouldn't be haggled anymore. And thus, the stickers were meant for those who actually had voted, not those who were still thinking about it.

Now, the thing is, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with having the sticker. Me displaying the sticker isn't lying in itself, for there's nothing on the sticker that says anything about me voting, but me supporting a specific group. Yet, now that I'm looking back, I think it's rather deceptive to use the sticker. Although it may not be directly lying, it is messing with implications. Thus, it was quite deceptive of me to use the sticker to make it seem like I had voted when I actually had not. Maybe I am just overly ethically sensitive, but I still feel that I am at fault here. Now, if I had known that the sticker wasn't meant to be a sing that I had already voted, then the situation would be different. But, I did know beforehand and thus I feel at fault.

I guess my whole justification for feeling at fault is the problem of being deceptive with implicatures. In fact, the riddle mentioned in the intro is a riddle due to the manipulation of implicatures. The main ethical fault would be in an attempt at deceiving another, and thus maybe an indirect form of lying. Or, I could just be overly sensitive to the use of manipulation, iono. Oh well, food for thought!

Beeeeeeee Yourself!

Whew, sorry for the delay everyone. I had a jam packed end of the week, as I mentioned in my last post. I got in about 18 hours of work in two days plus I've been keeping up with school, which is pretty crazy if you think about it haha. Also, no ideas have really been coming to mind lately, so it makes it all the harder to write an entry...

Actually, no ideas overall have really popped into my head, even today. So this entry is probably going to be a bit more on the rambling side rather than focused thought. Sorry to anyone that bothers!

Hm, well as some of you might know I'm sorta into sociology/social psychology. Just the way people interact and just the mental layer behind that is something that interests me. I figured today I'll just look at some obscure social topic, even though it'll probably be a shorter entry (That's what is up with the title, if anyone is wondering)... Oh well!

Even though it's definitely not as prevalent today, cartoons sometimes are meant to convey moral messages. Well, maybe moral isn't exactly the best word for it, but lessons that are important for just doing better in life. Of course, most cartoons today don't exactly have a positive life lesson, but more like an example of something that you shouldn't do, even though the characters have everything work out in the end...

Well, I guess one of the main "lessons" that I wanted to tackle today is the idea of being yourself. I'm pretty sure it's something that you've all heard... Even Genie in Aladdin tells Aladdin to "beeeeeeeee yourself" (I doubt many people actually remember that scene though haha). The basic idea is that we can't put on a facade, for we don't actually fool others, are even ourselves really for that matter. Thus, just be yourself and life will be that much simpler.

Sure, it's a good lesson and all, but my friend Timmy pointed out an interesting question: What does it mean to be yourself? Some of you may think this is a rather simple question, but it actually struck me as quite interesting as well... Let's try to clear up this situation with an example. Imagine that you meet someone that is quite outgoing. They have all the same interests, hobbies, etc. that you do. Yet, after hanging out with this person for a while, you realize that he changes depending on each person he meets. It seems as if he has a different mask to associate with each person, but doesn't have one true face that he seems to stick to. What does it then mean for him to be himself?

Some of you may simply think that his nature is that of being two-faced, to say the least. On one had, that seems rather harsh, for a sociable nature isn't exactly a bad thing. Maybe having multiple faces is, but then how do you qualify his true face? If his true face is being two-faced (wow, this is getting odd), then is that something that he should actually "be" then? How do you discover what your true nature is? For, one would think that it's not one's actual nature to have a negative character trait, or maybe that's just my own thoughts...

Well, maybe a better way to look at things is what if one's inherent nature is that of a negative character? Should you really "be yourself" then? It would seem like not the best thing to be constantly reinforcing questionable behavior...

Hmm, perhaps a better way to look at one's nature is to divide it up. Even though there's probably multiple ways to do this, let's take a shot in the dark and say a human can have an innate moral nature and in an innate personality nature. When people say "be yourself," they mean that you are supposed to be your innate personality nature (hmm, that sounds awkwardly worded), and not actually your innate moral nature, for most people believe that humans are sinful by nature, to say the least. That way, people can still be themselves while reconciling with other differences...

Yet, this definition seems to be kinda off... Sure, not being yourself morally can be a good interpretation, for it could be an indirect way to promote good moral behavior. Yet, it seems to beg the question in the sense that we still haven't established what one's personality nature is. It could just be overall personality, but that could be linked back to the idea of being two-faced, and all those problems come again. Also, those with abrasive and harsh personalities are not exactly popular, and thus you wouldn't want those people to exactly "be themselves." What to do what to do...

This always seems to bother me. I would want to say "being yourself" is a good idea, but we do have some troubles that we need to sort out first before we would think of advising it. Well, even though this sounds kinda stupid, maybe you just need to establish a personality, or simply change something to become "yourself." Like, let's say that you are one that does have an abrasive personality by nature or are very two-faced. Maybe the best way to be yourself is to change your personality by being nice or not two-faced. Yet, if we do change this, can one say that they are truly being themselves? I think it would depend on the level of change/how one deals with it before we could answer the question. Thus, it seems quite subjective, so to speak... Oh well, food for thought... It's just interesting how we use some phrases without really thinking about what they mean sometimes... Anyways, that's enough for now. Maybe if I think about anything better I'll put that down in a future post, but for now farewell...

Game Theory...

Ok, last time I posted and a few times before it were rambling thoughts. This is something that I've thought about for quite a while, so hopefully it should be easier to follow and more pertinent.

Anyways, senior year at Valley people are required to take an econ course. Most of the people who read this know that Malek is the AP teacher and thus I took his course. One of the concepts that struck me the most in economics was game theory. For those of you who don't know, game theory is a conceptualization of the decisions that one should make when faced with options. A typical game theory scenario is that two felons have been caught, and both have two options: They can confess on their partner or they can be silent. Thus, four possibilities arise for prisoners A and B. If both A and B remain silent, both get 1 year. If A tells on B but B is silent, then A goes free and B gets 8 years. The third is the same as the previous example, yet B tells on A and A is silent. The final decision is that both A and B tell on each other, and thus both receive 4 years in prison.

Now, for all of you who see this prisoner's dilemna for the first time would think that it would be in both A and B's interest to remain silent. This is true that if both were silent, the least punishment would be dished out overall. Yet, game theory focuses on what is not best overall, but what is best for the individual. If you look at it from A's perspective, his best option is to tell on B. Why? Imagine if A is silent. If B was also silent, A would get one year. If B told, then A would get 8 years. Now, let's imagine if A told on B. If B was silent, A would go free. If B told as well, then A would get 4 years. If you compare the choices overall, A being silent could result in either 1 year or 8 years. If A tells, then he could either go scott free or be imprisoned for 4 years. When looking at the choices that B might make (telling or not telling), A compares the 1 year to going free, and 4 years in comparison to 8 years. Thus, A's best option is to tell on B. The key thing is that if A and B worked together, they could have gotten a better result overall. Yet, game theory only looks at the results from one person's perspective.

Why is game theory relevant to today's post? Simply because it applies to one of the statements Mark Cahill made when he came to Valley for Spiritual Emphasis Week. For those who don't remember or know, Mark Cahill brought up a lot of questionable material, which is good because it got some students questioning, yet it was also offensive to some people. Thus, he was not asked to return on the fifth day of our Spiritual Emphasis Week. But, this is somewhat beside the point and mainly background information to get everyone on the same page.

One of Mark Cahill's main points was a push for evangelism. He strongly advocated just going around and evangelizing to anyone and everyone about Christianity. To back this point, he presented three possible results of evangelism. They are: A, the person converts and becomes a Christian; B, the person ignores the message and life goes on; or C, the person has a seed planted in them and will become open to the idea of Christianity eventually. He said that each possible event has 1/3 of a chance of occurring. Now, he looked at each consequence in terms of whether or not the effect is positive. Obviously, A is a positive result, and C can be considered positive as well. Thus, there is a 2/3 chance that something positive will happen from people evangelizing.

But wait, there's more! (Sorry, an infomercial reference just sounded so great right here...) The Bible has verses that state that even in the face of persecution that we are to rejoice, for it is a sign of our faith and personal development. If I remember correctly the verses are James 1:2-3, which state, "2Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance" (If somebody actually does remember if these are the correct verses/what the correct verses are, feel free to let me know). So why is this important? Because A, B, and C now can all be seen as having positive results, and thus if we go out and evangelize there is an 100% chance something good will happen.

Now, first things first. I was taking AP Stats senior year and I am also taking Psychological Stats right now, so any statistical errors I recognize bug me. Hopefully you had caught on as well, but just because there are three options does not mean that all three options are equally likely. For example, let's think of the lottery in very broad terms. You have two options: You win the lottery or you lose. Now, if we kept the previous train of reasoning going, that means we would have a 50% chance to either win the lottery or to lose. Too bad life's not actually that way, and the chances of winning the lottery are close to nothing... Thus, if we take this train of reasoning back to Cahill's problem, A, B, and C do not have to have an equally likely chance of happening. What affects the percentages of A, B, and C? That's something I'll return to in just a sec...

But, you might object, even if all the chances for A, B, and C aren't equal, they all have positive effects, and thus there is a 100% chance of something positive happening! Oh, sir, I would tip my hat to you only if it were this simple... You see, this is where my whole long introduction comes in. This view presented by Mark Cahill is also prone to game theory. And, as you all should know, is that game theory views the effects from only one person's perspective. At this point, some of you might be wondering what the heck I'm talking about. Let's go back at look at A, B, and C one more time.

For result A, someone evangelizes and a new person becomes a Christian. This is a positive outcome for both person A (who becomes stronger in their faith we will assume) and the converted (who now believes in Christianity, which is the goal of evangelizing in the first place). For result C, someone evangelizes and the person does not convert, yet they may convert later since a seed has been planted. This is also a positive outcome for both person A (who becomes stronger in the faith with perseverance in the face of trials) and person C (who may soon accept Christianity as the truth). Finally, for result B, someone evangelizes yet the person listening rejects the faith entirely. This is positive for person B, for they become stronger in their faith with perseverance in the face of trials (again). Yet, how is this positive for person B?

Here's where my main objection comes in, and hopefully it's not too confusing. I believe that the state that the listener of person B comes to actually may be viewed as worse off than before, and thus it would be a negative effect. Let's say that person B, well, to put it nicely, evangelism is not their strongest suit. They come to a hardcore atheist, they try to evangelize, but without a strong sense of how to go about these things person B is unable to convince the atheist to become a Christian. Sure, this could be good for person B since it's a growing experience, as mentioned previously, yet what happens with the atheist? I would believe that he's unlikely to become more partial to Christianity after this situation. In fact, I believe that he would be more inclined to become more solidified in his rationale, and thus even more opposed to Christianity than before.

Even though this might not happen in every case, it is still definitely a possibility of what might occur, and the likelihood depends on how prepared people are to evangelize (this is the answer to the previous question I said I would return to later, if anyone remembered). All three cases of results A, B, and C are dependent upon how prepared a person is to evangelize. If you go out there just shouting, "Jesus loves you!" to a bunch of hardcore reason based atheists, the chances are you'll most likely get result B (and thus maybe even have a negative effect for them) as compared to results A and C. But, someone who is prepared maybe be more likely to achieve results A and C as compared to result B. Ya follow? Of course, I have been rather ambiguous what it means to be prepared. But, I would believe that it would involve a heavy dealing and study in both Apologetics and the proper way address people not only in argumentation but also personally. Of course, being able to spread the message of the Gospels is at the heart of it all as well. I wouldn't go as far as to say these are the only criteria, for there are probably many other factors I am not currently thinking of as well, but these are necessary ones I would say.

Just in closing, it's important to keep in mind that we aren't the only recipients of our actions, for it's all to easy just to fall into the complete mindset of treating everything as if it is game theory. This is something that is hard to recognize, though, and probably something I fall victim to myself. Also, please don't think I'm ragging on evangelists, for it is something that I think is necessary to do and something I respect for those that do do it, it's just something that I think is best to keep in mind when doing so. Ok, that's it for tonight. I'm probably not gonna write for a while since I'm gonna be really busy Friday and Saturday with work, and just naturally busy on Thursday. Hopefully I'll be able to get a quick entry in on Friday, but if not, see you next Sunday.

Natural or Supernatural?

Well, I haven't done this for a while. I've been pretty busy as of late running around with tons of stuff like bowling, basketball, and work. But of course, those are different stories...

Actually, one of the events does tie into this post. After coming back from work Saturday, I ran into a few friends that were attending Supernatural. Basically, Supernatural on Campus is an event that is meant to be a revival of Pentecostal gifts. For the official facebook link, it's this: http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=355100311527&ref=mf.

I ate dinner with a few of my friends that were there and they told me stories about what they had been told/learning and their experiences going throughout the Festival of Books that was on campus. It was definitely interesting to hear, and I was surprised by their boldness and conviction.

Humm, for those of you who have known me from high school, which I assume is most people who read my entries, I am somewhat of a natural skeptic. Miracles today always seem like such an interesting topic to me... Where to start...

Let's start off with the existence of miracles. Yes, I do believe miracles exist. In fact, arguably all of Christianity is based off of Christ's resurrection, which is known as the greatest miracle. Jesus himself was known to perform many miracles, and then also the Apostles were known to perform miracles after the Pentecost. Like I said, Supernatural is meant to copy the Pentecostal gifts, and thus be a "revival" of sorts.

Hmm... Now I've established miracles existing back then, how about today? Yes, I believe that miracles still exist, except they are possibly not as common. Yet, part of the definition of miracles is a supernatural event, and I don't think those are meant to be that common haha. But, I have heard stories such as miraculous healings and other wonders from all around, including in a movie titled 1040 Jonny Chue mentioned.

I guess the skeptic in me starts to ask what events really are miracles or just natural happenings? I remember in 10th grade I was doing community service for an event called Help One Child. During the middle portion of this event, we were setting up cups. Mrs. Pipkin, our Bible teacher, was also there helping out. Well, it turned out that we had 5 tables left or so, and then went Mrs. Pipkin counted cups, apparently we didn't have enough. Yet, she soon counted again and there was another, which she quickly deemed a miracle from God.

Now, the idea that probably comes to your mind, which also came to mind, is did Pipkin make an error when counting and thus we actually had the right number of cups without a miracle? I figured she simply had miscounted, since, if I remember correctly, I had my eyes on the cup and had counted that we had enough originally.

This certainly doesn't disprove miracles but it's not an affirmation of my belief in them either. There have been other attempts to discredit miracles, other than just natural skepticism, by giving them a scientific and natural basis. One example I heard of was that all previous instance of demon possessions could simply be linked to psychological disorders. Thus, there could be a natural explanation for these things, and thus they are not really miracles.

Hum, this is where my confusion settles in. Miracles I always thought of as super divine things that couldn't really be explained physically. For instance, being blind and then seeing is something we can't explain naturally, and neither can rising from the dead. Are things that we give a natural explanation to (assuming that the connection between demon possession and psychological disorders is accurate) really miracles, then?

One answer I've heard is yes. The thing is, society is advancing and becoming continually smarter and smarter in terms of scientific advancement. Thus, one day we may be able to even explain healing of the blind or even revival of the dead. So, even though we may be able to explain it naturally, divine intervention is still the cause behind the natural explanation. For example, even if we do tie demon possession to psychological disorders, divine intervention is still required for a person to be instantly healed of any psychological disorder.

With this explanation, it can still be had that miracles do exist today, even if some people don't perceive it that way. But, at this point it does become hard to attribute what events are natural and what events are supernatural. I guess you could say all events could be supernatural where the situation seems to have changed, but that means accepting the cup example I mentioned previously. This might be supernatural, but I am still skeptical about that. Another possibility is to say that only the big events are supernatural, but what exactly is a big event, then? There could be things that typically aren't physically possible, such as healings, but many other small things could still be miracles, yet we just aren't aware of them, so to speak.

Hum, I don't exactly have a clear answer for this, which is something that does bother me. I am more inclined to go with the second answer, for with the first everything in life could be attributed to being a miracle. I guess this is a possibility, but that would seem to defeat the definition of a miracle being supernatural, in my opinion. I've probably even established a false dichotomy by giving these only two options, but I currently can't think of any more, which is a problem...

Anyways, ignoring the definition of miracle, I guess it's weird to think that they can happen today, as I mentioned somewhat in the beginning. It's somewhat of a personal error, but I have trouble sometimes remembering that stuff in the Bible actually did happen. I don't mean that I believe that it's false, but that it actually happened not too long ago. This is weird to explain, but it's sorta like looking at a history book. I know all the stuff did happen, but going to the site and having a closer look at things that have happened, such as the killing fields of Cambodia, just makes it click all the more... I just have personal trouble registering all the stuff that did happen sometimes, since it seems all so crazy, even though I do believe it. Hmm, that's a really weird sentence, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say.

Anyways, since the Bible is part of the past, there should really be no reason for why miracles can't happen today, as many people believe they do. Maybe there is a distinction that should be made between miracles that happen naturally and miracles that people perform, for it is much easier for me personally to believe and recognize the former over the latter. I guess one of the biggest questions is why did miracles stop being performed? The Apostles were supposed to have done it like crazy, so why was there on one after them?

According to how much we trust some accounts of history, there still were. Many saints back in Medieval times were supposed to be known for miracles (Some have argued that these accounts may be fabricated/elaborated, but there is still the possibility), and miracles are even supposed to still be performed today in Asia according to 1040. Thus, I guess it mainly depends on personal bias and how much people want or refuse to believe... Of course, even if miracles are performed, people might not believe. Jesus says this somewhere in the NT, and it does make sense, for there may be miracles happening all around us and yet we may be refusing to recognize them as supernatural. So, it seems that miracles still can and do happen today, but it is something that I personally have trouble wrapping my head around. Don't get me wrong, I do believe that miracles exist and that they can still happen today, it's just odd to think of how pertinent the Bible is in today's context, which is something I personally all to easily forget. Humm, weird stuff...

"Don't worry, he'll get what he deserves..."

Hmm, how to start... For those of you who don't know the quarter system, midterms are upon us! Well, South Campus peoples at least... Technically it's week 4, and teachers like to have 2 midterms, even though I think that sorta defeats the definition of midterm. Today, I had my psychological stats midterm. I studied a little bit/already know most of this stuff due to AP Stats just last year, but it was still a little iffy. For some reason, the psych department seems to like to give tests that have tricky questions on them. Oh well, hopefully that went well...

Anyways, the midterm relates due to a passing thought that came to me afterwards. As I was walking back from the midterm some of the stuff I learned first quarter in Introduction to Psychology (Psych 10) was flashing through my head. It was primarily terms and aspects dealing with social psychology, since that probably is my favorite branch. Well, one of the concepts that flashed into my head was quite related back to a certain class in Latin 2 that happened two years ago...

Even though this seems somewhat tangenty, it is connected, don't worry haha. As mostly everybody knows (since I assume the most people that read this blog are Valley people), Mrs. Anderson is the Latin teacher. She's a really nice person and all, but one class something she said bothered me more than usual.

Due to how classes are an hour 15, most teachers choose not to spend the whole time teaching but usually give an opening word to ease people into the class and get things started. I can't exactly remember what brought it up, but somehow we got onto the topic of homeless people. If I remember correctly, somebody brought up an old Valley student who was supposedly a genius yet later became homeless. At this point many students, including myself, believed that he had fallen upon hard times and was thus no longer able to support a home. Yet, Anderson soon told us that the student was checked out by Valley, and it was found that he was addicted to alcohol and drugs, and thus she felt no remorse for him.

Anderson soon elaborated on how at one point during her life she had joined with the Church to partake in a form of a homeless ministry. During this event many members of the Church got together and prepared to help by cooking or by helping with supplies. After this was done, many homeless people came and got the food, and it seemed like the event was effective. Well, as the event was winding down, the pastor of the Church took Mrs. Anderson around and showed her the homeless while talking with them.

For whatever reason, each time the pastor passed by one, he would point out certain traits that that homeless person had. For example, and this is all according to Anderson herself, "You see that person? He's been here for a while. He's a drinker and drug user. And same with that person over there. Drinking and drugs are quite common on the streets..." Well, the pastor showed Mrs. Anderson quite a few of the people that had come. After all this, Mrs. Anderson came to the conclusion that all the people on the streets lived a lifestyle of the homeless people that she had seen, and thus she did not feel called to go out and help them anymore. Thus, she left us with a warning about "helping the homeless", for many of them would be all to eager to take our money and use it for who knows what.

Ok, maybe I am being biased without realizing it in my presentation of Mrs. Anderson's story, but as you can probably guess a few red flags were going off in my brain. First off of all, just because all of the homeless people that Mrs. Anderson did have substance abuse problems (assuming that they did) does not mean that all homeless people do have substance abuse problems. For those of you who read the last post, this goes back to the problem of induction. Second of all, time is not taken into account for any of these cases. This sounds somewhat odd, but I believe the proper term for the fallacy is "Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc" which roughly translates to "After this, therefore, because of this." On first glance, this looks like quite a bit of Latin mumbo jumbo, which is understandable. Yet, for clarity reasons I believe (ironically), logic likes to talk in very specific terms. This Post Hoc fallacy is in reference typically to the purpose of something, and is also typically known as the "False Cause" fallacy, or the infamous phrase "correlation does not equal causation!".

Enough with the logic terms. Anyways, what I'm trying to say here is that Mrs. Anderson saw a large amount of people on the street that were homeless. Out of this group, all of them she also believed to be substance abusers. She felt justified in not helping them because she believed their actions of substance abuse is what got them onto the street in the first place. But, this is where I call for a red flag. True, assuming that the homeless people were substance abusers, there can definitely be said that homelessness and substance abuse have a high correlation (On a personal note, I don't believe that all homeless people are this way, even if some might be). Yet, looking at the previous paragraphs end, we know that correlation does not equal causation. In other words, just because a large number of the homeless people that Mrs. Anderson interacted with are substance abusers does not mean that there substance abuse caused them to be homeless.

This might sound a little confusing, so let's break it down to a simple example. Let's imagine that we have a farmer, and on the farmer's, err, farm, we have a rooster. Every morning, right before the sun rises, the rooster gives a loud crow. Shortly after, the sun rises, and the farmer's day begins. In other words, there is a one to one correlation of the sun rising and the rooster crowing.

Hopefully, you can now see what I am getting at. Even though there is an incredibly strong correlation between the rooster crowing and the sun rising, the rooster's crowing is not responsible for the sun rising. In other words, correlation does not equal causation. The sun "rises" for another scientific principles involving the revolutions and rotation of the planets. The rooster's crow happens at the same time, though, even though it is not responsible for the sun rising.

Hopefully you can understand what I'm getting at. Just because a homeless person maybe be a substance abuser, that does not mean that their substance abuse is the reason why they are homeless. There are a ton of other possibilities, such as a person losing their home, being forced to live on the street, then becoming substance abusers in order to cope with the troubles present in their lives (please note, I am not saying that substance abuse is right, but that it is more understandable in this situation). Even though this is just one example, I hope that I am getting the point across that substance abuse may not be the reason why are all people are homeless, even if it is the reason why some people are.

Now, let's work on tying this all back... Why do we find it so much easier to believe that homeless people are homeless because of substance abuse? Why don't we naturally consider other reasons, such as economic troubles or problems with family? Sure, these reasons make sense once presented, but it's not something that is typically thought of initially.

Psychologists typically label this mode of thinking as Belief in a Just World. In other words, we naturally believe that good things happen to good people, and bad things happen to bad people. When we see homelessness, we naturally think of it as a bad thing. Thus, in order for the people to be experiencing a bad thing, they must be bad people, which is why it is so natural to think that they must be homeless since they are substance abusers. On our psych midterm, this belief was presented by a story of a mother handing some food to a homeless person. As soon as they passed, the child asked, "Mommy, why are you helping the bad person?" As you can see, the child illustrates the concept of Belief in a Just World, for he believes that the person is homeless because he is a bad person, whether or not this is actually true.

Now, hopefully, you as the reader can clearly provide examples as why this belief is false. The homeless example is one, but perhaps the most familiar example is that of Job. Job himself was considered to be a good person and led a holy lifestyle. But, Satan soon came to bother Job, and he lost practically everything that he had. Yet, Job remained strong in his belief in God, and he eventually came out strong. Thus, Job hopefully is a more familiar story to bad things happening to good people, which is a contradiction to a Belief in a Just World.

Bad things happen to good people... Even though it is a hard concept to accept, it is one that is important to keep in mind. It is often too easy to justify how we feel about helping those in need by simply believing that they "deserve it", as the title relates. I'm not trying to give a huge calling to go out and live on the streets helping those in need. I'm just hoping that you, as the reader, will be a little more enlightened by this entry and view the world a little bit differently. If you are being called to help, good for you, but it is definitely a hard step to take. But, above all else, with a realization of personal bias one is able to make steps to overcome it. Thus, please just keep this entry and your thoughts it take one step farther to how you view those who you originally labeled as "bad people", and hopefully change should naturally follow. Thank you for taking the time to read and consider this, and good luck with the rest of your endeavors...

It's induction, not deduction, Holmes!

Ah, Sherlock Holmes... As many of you know Sherlock Holmes is one of my favorite fictional characters. His superior powers of observation allow him to pick up just about anyone's story just by looking at them. In fact, in the stories he tends to get the most important details out of the simplest/out of place items which most people tend to overlook. This is something I admire quite a bit, especially since I like to people watch as well. It's always fun to guess at someone's story due to their little quirks, even though Katherine has pointed out that I am kinda creepy for doing this hahaha.

Well anyways, as the tile relates, one thing my brothers and my philosophy TA always get on Holmes' case is for his "deduction". For those who have actually read his stories, Holmes infers to the best explanation, which is an example of induction and not deduction. Even though there are many definitions and both deduction and induction are hard to describe, I'll give it a brief shot here. Deduction involves reasoning from the general to the specific. If an argument is deductively sound, then it has to be true. One of the most common examples of deduction is seen below:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
===================
Socrates is mortal

Now, there is debate about whether men are mortal or if Socrates really was a man. Yet, ignoring these questions, if both of these premises are true, than the conclusion that logically follows has to be true. This is the strength of deduction, for having true conclusions can make very strong arguments...

Now, induction is sometimes categorized as any form of reasoning that is not induction. Even though this is not the best way to put it, it somewhat fits. Anyways, I've also heard induction referred to as reasoning from the specific to the general, or from the observed to the unobserved. This all sounds somewhat confusing, but most of induction is based off of our senses and what we observe. For example, an argument that reasons by induction looks something like this:

I have seen 100 swans
All the swans I have seen are white
===================
All swans are white.

Even though this is somewhat a poor example, hopefully the main points stick out. Going off of what I have observed, out of the 100 swans I have seen, all swans are white. If this sample is representative of the population (haha stats joke), I can induce that all swans are white.

Now, one thing that is interesting to note is that the way that induction differs from a deductive argument is that an inductive argument's conclusion does not have to be true. Just because I have seen 100 swans that are white, why do all swans have to be white? In fact, they don't. Apparently there are some black swans in some other country, so my inductive conclusion is thus false, even if my premises are true.

Hum, at this point I feel like I'm trying to teach basic argumentation skills rather than making a personal point. But, it does have a point! It's just a rather lengthy introduction that's all...

Anyways, all of induction (are at least most of it if not all) is based off of observation, and has currently been the main topic of our philosophy of science class. The thing is, how much can we trust induction? This reasoning from the specific to the general only would be effective if life is consistent. Yet, what is to keep the same principles from happening the same way over and over? David Hume argued that even though the past has been consistent and those all of our inductive knowledge worked then, why can't the future change and thus render all of our inductive knowledge useless? Just because the past has been consistent it doesn't mean it will be forever... If this is the case, then all of what we know through our sense could just be rendered one day useless and pointless.

Now, there is a ton more that I've been learning, but hopefully this should be enough to establish my point. Or in other words, maybe the lack of. Sure, this reasoning and stuff is interesting and all, but what is the point? At the end of the day when I look at it all, I don't see the application totally. Sure, it can help one think in abstract ways are question how much we truly know, but that's not exactly a good thing to dwell on. In fact, a lot of what we've learned in philosophy is how much we really can't know things, which is quite the depressing thought. I liked the philosophy material that Dave presented to me originally because it was about changing one's life and just an overall examination of one's self. It was highly applicable and something that I thought everybody should know. Yet now, this material I find interesting and all, but just another thing to know and not to focus on. It almost seems as if the philosophy material I'm being presented with is just something interesting to know but not exactly life changing, which is probably why I got into philosophy so much in the first place.

Iono, maybe I was blind to the way philosophy is from the beginning, but I don't think so. All the teachings of Socrates and other early Greek philosophers I consider important for just understanding life and developing a questioning, something important that I seem to be doing less as of late... I guess that's partially why I switched to psychology, another subject of high interest for me. Psychology is important for understanding how people think the way they do, and maybe if that's something that I can grasp I'll be able to make more of a difference now than understanding why people think the way they do. Of course, I consider both highly important, but I don't think I would like to major in philosophy to understand it all. I'm not exactly downplaying philosophy itself, but just the way it's presented today seems to be quite depressing. I mean, when you look at what you've learned in the end of the day and have a hard time of answering the question of why it matters, I think there is a problem...

So yeah, I guess this entry is somewhat instructional if not just a personal rant... If you are to get anything from this, I guess, just think about the meaning and purpose of things, if not your own life. Sometimes it's so easy to be caught in prior conceptions that we just seem to go at life in a constant routine, which is probably not the healthiest way to go about things. Just, hum, I don't know, question your life and your actions and avoid the mundanity of life. Yeah sure, that's a good way to put it I think... Well, thanks for taking the time to read this, and hopefully you got something out of it...

Change of Plans...

Well, I was originally gonna write something tomorrow since I was going to be at Cafe Night tonight for CCM, but I'm feeling kind of ill and decided to stay in. It's probably a good way to start off this entry actually...

This morning, Jonny Chue and I decided to do WOMP, or the Westwood Organized Mega Project. For those of you who don't know, Westwood is the city right outside of UCLA that we visit every now and then. WOMP was another UCLA volunteer community event, much like the big event day we had near the beginning of the school year. This time, of course, we actually worked instead of watching the waves roll upon the beach shore...

Well, to start off the day, they provided us with breakfast and a few speeches given by leaders of the project. By the time we actually started to work, Jonny Chue and I were assigned Christmas light duty. Jonny would hold the ladder while I would use my pliers and cut away at the Christmas lights that were left in the trees along Westwood boulevard. We did that for about an hour thirty, then followed it up with trash duty and the put away of all the materials.

To thank us, the organizers of the event gave us things like a shirt, a cap, a movie ticket, and lunch. Well, due to such a mass amount of people that were busy doing grimy work, they set up a station for us to wash our hands and what not. Yet, this was simply two buckets full of hot water and soap that everybody used. In hindsight, I think I should have walked back to the dorms and actually washed my hands before I had my lunch...

Well, I had a sandwich and a few cookies. I don't know if it was the food being bad and/or a lack of proper sanitation, but I'm not feeling too well right now. Thus, I decided to play it safe and stay in the dorms and rest rather than go to Cafe Night, unfortunately, which is like a mass collection of performances by CCM students. Hopefully they all did well and what not, and hopefully I'll be better soon enough. This is the first time since fall quarter that I've actually taken a nap haha.

But yeah, enough with the course of the day. The main thing that I actually wanna talk about was the WOMP event itself. All and all, it sounds like a good idea. I mean, UCLA students are giving back to the community by doing tasks such as painting, trash duty, and general maintenance. But, we didn't even do that much honest to goodness. The event went from 7:30 to 1:00, yet we only worked for about 2 and a half since the rest of the time was food/speeches. Of course, during the entire event there was a lot of photography going on, which means this was probably more of a publicity event rather than an effective community service project.

Overall, yes, we did get stuff done, that is granted. But, the main question is, how effective was it? Did we really make a difference in the community, or was it just a show to say that we did? Of course, I'm typically the skeptical one that says this was more for show than making a difference... When the day is done and we look at what we did, it really wasn't that much. Maybe one street looks nicer, sure, but that's about it...

Maybe it's just a pet peeve, but stuff that's just for show tends to bug me. Iono, maybe it's all those years at Valley that made me so disinclined to this. I mean, it just seems so two faced... We're supposed to be making a difference in our community and yet we just do a little bit for two hours, get a ton of pictures, then go home feeling better about ourselves.

Like I said in my first post (somewhat), all these events are starting to get to me. I feel like I'm doing more physically, such as CCM, Church, Bible Study, Homeless Ministry, and the events every now and then. Yet, I feel like I'm just doing them because I feel like I should and for nothing more. At this point people may service isn't about you (or me in this case haha), and I would agree, but that isn't exactly what I'm saying. Hum, it's hard to put in words, but I feel like all these acts are simply part of a routine, not something I feel called to do sometimes.

This reminds me back of Smith's class and the idea of routine and prayer. He talked to us about just developing a routine of praying (not a routine prayer) so that way it starts to become natural. Malek also talked about this a lot, but in different aspects of life. I don't know, I almost feel like I'm a general exception to most rules, and in this case the routines that I do seem to stay naturally at routines. They don't become things I want to do, so to speak, but simply things I feel like I should do. And yeah, I think that's definitely not the best of mindset to have for an extended period of time...

I'm sorry, my mind doesn't seem to be connecting the pieces as well as it usually does, but I guess the main idea I just wanna leave people with is simply how much of life is a routine. Granted, for some things in life you need to make it a routine to get it incorporated, but things shouldn't stay that way. Sure, they are there things that are routine, but you shouldn't do them just because they are part of your routine but because you want to. It's all weird, and I feel like I'm going to confuse somebody if I keep going on, so I think I'll call this done and hopefully make more sense next time. Haha, farewell...

As Dave would say, Poor Raskolnikov...

Wow, I forgot how much I write when I get into the swing of things. Well, introductions are over, so hopefully this part should be shorter and thus more favorable to all of us with shorter attention spans.

HAHA, so much for the short idea. I'm actually writing this segment after I've finished my main thought. This one is still quite a bit to read, so sorry to those who are looking for a quick read!

"Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end... but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... And to found that edifice on its unavenged tears: would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell me the truth!"
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Ah, Dostoevsky. As many of you know I like to read, and Dostoevsky is one of my favorite authors. The Brothers Karamazov is Dostoevsky's last novel, for he passed away before making any more. In fact, this novel was supposed to be the first part of a trilogy, yet due to his passing the world will never know more...

Well, this all matters since I just recently finished Crime and Punishment, another one of Dostoevsky's novels. Crime and Punishment is probably more famous than Brothers, but I still like both. I don't think I liked Crime and Punishment since I put it down twice and thus read it over the span of all three quarters (I stopped each quarter when midterms started haha).

This quote is actually one of the central issues that Dostoevsky presents in Crime and Punishment, which is why it is on my mind currently. Even though it is not the same novel, Raskolnikov, the protagonist of Crime and Punishment, constantly struggles with this idea. His landlady, some old woman that is constantly abusing the tenants, is not liked by anybody do to her manipulative dealings and interest rates. Thus, Raskolnikov is presented with a choice: Should he kill the landlady and thus make life easier for everyone, or let the woman continue to abuse the vast amount of people under her?

In order to not ruin the ending just in case if anyone does read it (I know how much everyone lovessssss Russian literature haha), I won't say what he does. Yet, either way Dostoevsky presents us with an interesting situation. Is it ethically right to kill one person in order to save many others?

Just for those of us who are sticklers to definitions, I am not referring to a person sacrificing themselves, which means a voluntary death. I am specifically referencing someone murdering another.

This is always an interesting dilemma, and if I remember correctly back to Ethics class was Wessling, this is talked about as Chop Up Chuck. Basically, we have three victims that are all going to die if they don't receive a certain body part. Luckily, Chuck has all these body parts available, and if we thus chopped up Chuck, we would be able to save three people in return for his one life.

Depending on your ethical stance, there are different views to take on this situation. For those that are Consequentialists, even though there could be a horribly lot more said, they roughly believe that the ends justifies the means (For those of who took AP Euro, yes this is a central idea and quote from the Prince). Thus, it would be okay to kill Chuck, for by killing him you would be able to save three people. Remember, Chuck is not sacrificing himself, but is being murdered in this hypothetical.

Some people have responded by mentioning that it doesn't seem worth it just to kill Chuck to save three people. Yet, when does it become worth it, then? 10? 100? 1000000? Are we really able to measure how many lives we are able to save before we are allowed to kill somebody to save them? Consequentialists of course believe any number greater than two would make it worth it, even though a difference between 2 and 1000000 sounds quite significant...

Now what about the person we're killing, some may ask. What if it's some old man that just has a few days to live, yet if he's not killed the others are going to die before he does. This seems somewhat more justifiable at first glance, but Iono... The thing is, whether or not you save 2 or 1000000, this situation still involves murder of an innocent person. Those with very conservative ethics would say no, no matter how many people you would save, killing Chuck is wrong and thus should not be done.

Yet, the truly gray area comes to the standing of Chuck. Now, what if Chuck truly is not an innocent person, but a mass murderer? The people that you save would not be with Chuck's body parts, so to say, but by preventing others from dying. Would it then be ethical to kill Chuck, even if it is killing?

Most people at this point would say it is ethical to kill Chuck, for you would be able to save so many lives by eliminating a threat. At this point, I would agree, even though it would mean the killing of Chuck, and thus the ending of his life, which is something to be taken quite seriously...

Yet, the question that many of you are probably wondering is when does a person forfeit the right to life? Of course, it is thought to be reasonable to kill Chuck in the most recent situation makes sense since so many lives would be saved. Yet, that could be said of the initial situation as well, for killing Chuck would save tons of lives as well. There must be a reason why the most recent case makes sense over the initial case, or that there may really be no difference between them.

I honestly believe that there is a difference between them, so there must be a reason why it is ok to kill Chuck in one situation and not the other. Even though I don't believe I've found a clear cut answer yet, the best answer I can think of dates back to Junior year. For all my Valley friends, you may remember the days during Spring where we all had to dress up for debates. Even though I was definitely not a fan of mine and thus tried to not remember much about these debates in general, one of Anna-kay's points stands out in my head. If I remember correctly, Anna-kay's debate was about whether or not capital punishment is ethical or not, and she was arguing for it. Eventually, Anna-kay hit with one point that stuck out to me; "People naturally have a right to life. Yet, when people interfere on other people's right, they forfeit their own."

Now, even though Anna-kay said it and she is very smart, this does not have to be true simply because it sounds good. Yet, it seems to make sense, or at least to me. This view does imply an innocence that everybody has until they interfere with another's right to life. Thus, it would fit that those who infringe on the rights of others would lose the ability to infringe upon others if stopped. Of course, there are other ways to stop this infringement, such as life imprisonment (possibly), but that can be argued another time...

If we look back at my original thought of when it would be appropriate to kill Chuck and keep Anna-kay's point in mind, it would mean that it would be okay to kill Chuck before he kills others, but not when his body can be used to save others. Why? Simply because Chuck is an innocent person, and thus still possesses his right to life. If we are ethically consistent, it would be wrong to kill Chuck simply because there is no given reason why he should forfeit his right to life. True, it might be for the "greater good numerically", but would it be right..?

These ethical dilemmas are appropriately called dilemmas since there doesn't seem to be a clear cut answer. I mean, these debates wouldn't really exist if the answer was extremely simple, yes? Well, people would probably still find some way to argue over it, yet it wouldn't matter as much whether or not it is true, such as Bertrand Russel arguing whether or not 1+1=2. But, since life is such an important thing, this debate is something that is quite significant, and thus why Dostoevsky presents it as an idea in both of his novels that I have mentioned. Usually, an answer is not as clear cut as the examples I have presented. If we look back to my very first example, Raskolnikov is presented with the idea of killing a landlady that is abusing the poor. Yet, with these abuses of the poor, has she sacrificed her right to life and thus it would be appropriate to murder her? On one hand it would seem to make sense, for many poor peasants would hopefully be able to survive instead of being swindled out of all their money. On the other hand are this woman's acts so atrocious that she truly has sacrificed her right to life? I would like to be able to leave you with a clear answer, but the purpose of this blog is an outlet for my thoughts. In clearer terms: I don't know. Both sides seem to make sense, yet killing someone is a very big act. If one were wrong either way (killing a non-innocent person infringing on the right to life of others vs. killing an innocent person who was not infringing on the rights of others), a very grave mistake would be made...

Well, I believe that I am going to leave any readers with this sort of inconclusiveness that I am myself am experiencing. Even though this is somewhat of a depressing ending, I know, it is something that I used to think about quite a bit. I feel like this is something that I used to think about quite a bit, but... Iono, now just writing this all out seems different somehow... Like something's changed from before, but I'm not exactly sure how. Well, to whoever actually read all the way through to get here, thanks for listening, and good night...

As Golbez says, Let us Start...

"Alone for a while I've been searching through the dark,
For traces of the love you left inside my lonely heart,
To weave by picking up the pieces that remain,
Melodies of life - love's lost refrain.

Our paths they did cross, though I cannot say just why.
We met, we laughed, we held on fast, and then we said goodbye.
And who'll hear the echoes of stories never told ?
Let them ring out loud till they unfold.

In my dearest memories, I see you reaching out to me.
Though you're gone, I still believe that you can call out my name.

A voice from the past, joining yours and mine.
Adding up the layers of harmony.
And so it goes, on and on.
Melodies of life,
To the sky beyond the flying birds - forever and beyond.

So far and away, see the birds as it flies by.
Gliding through the shadows of the clouds up in the sky.
I've laid my memories and dreams upon those wings.
Leave them now and see what tomorrow brings.

In your dearest memories, do you remember loving me ?
Was it fate that brought us close and now leave me behind ?

A voice from the past, joining yours and mine.
Adding up the layers of harmony.
And so it goes, on and on.
Melodies of life,
To the sky beyond the flying bird - forever and on.

If I should leave this lonely world behind,
Your voice will still remember our melody.
Now I know we'll carry on.
Melodies of life,
Come circle round and grow deep in our hearts, as long as we remember."

Hum... Here I go. After much pushing by a few friends and probably just a good need for a personal outlet, I've decided to give this whole blogging thing a shot. I don't know how consistent or how profound I'll be in this, but we'll see as time passes...

As most of you know, I am somewhat of an, er, unique individual. The title of this blog I chose to be "The Melodies of Life". It's the ending song of Final Fantasy IX (yes, I will have multiple nerd references, but they'll tie in somehow) and I posted the lyrics above. It's a very peaceful song and it's easy to find on youtube if anyone cares. For some reason, this song came to mind the past week and just sorta stuck out. It has somewhat sad lyrics with a happy melody that just always seemed so touching to listen to...

Well, with this being a blog and all, I guess I'll start catching up for those that I haven't talked to for a while/just haven't told yet. I've got three classes this quarter at UCLA again since the fourth one filled up before I could get in. But, the classes I have are Introduction to Linguistics (Ling. 1), the Philosophy of Science (Phil 8), and Psychological Statistics (Psych 100A). All these classes are pretty heavy conceptually, but that's something I tend to like more than just hardcore memorization and application like art history last quarter (man, that was a tough class...). Since these classes seem to be somewhat easier for me, I've been trying to work more. Yes, I do have a job now, which is kinda weird to think about. But, I work for ASUCLA Event Services. We set up chairs and tables for events, watch over the events, then tear everything down and set up for the next event. Even though it sounds kinda simple, it's actually a job that I really enjoy. It's almost like all the community service I did back in high school, except I actually get paid for it...

A lot of things have come up on to my plate I guess. One of the main things that I am trying to do is actually get promoted at work. Two of my good friends have been promoted, and I am somewhat in the same boat, so I'm hoping I'll be able to follow their lead. I've work around 55 hours these past two weeks, which is quite a bit for me. I'm hoping that makes a good impression with my bosses though haha. It's sometimes hard to work a lot, though, due to so many other commitments. Bible Study, CCM, Church, and other activities are things that I value greatly, yet make it hard to compete work-wise sometimes. Don't get me wrong, I don't regret these things, I'm just pointing out that I don't work as much due to these commitments... Aw well, I guess it just make me somewhat of a better time manager.

I've been able to keep up with school somehow... Although the readings are kinda dense, but just taken gradually I seem to be able understand them mostly, so that's a good sign. Yet, even though I bet I'm not the only one, I always feel as if there is more I need to do. This isn't only like, my goodness I should read more/do more homework, even though this is the most prevalent feeling. But, I also feel like I've lost somewhat of what I did back in high school...

If you look at my activities, you can probably easily notice that I've been trying to do a lot more physically. Some days I just literally am running around with class, work, and then homework. I feel as if I don't think enough anymore... Back in high school, I used to spend hours into the night just literally talking with people like Chris and Timmy, to name a few. Also, I felt like that I could talk to others and be able to help them with the problems that had arisen in their lives... But now, I feel like this aspect of me has been placed away... The thinking that I had once used to so prevalently define myself just seems to be another thing I know, but it's not as all encompassing as it was before... I guess it just makes me feel like I'm doing less to help people with their lives, even if I try to physically. It's just not the same...

I don't know, I've been told that I've been downplaying myself in this aspect. Yet, I don't feel the sense of Big Brotherness (haha 1984 pun) that I once had before. I know that I am supposed to move on, esp. since UCLA is a new environment, yet helping people is one of the things that helped me to feel as if I'm actually doing something in the world to make a difference. The monotony of my life just seems to be an endless routine with no real difference occurring. I just sometimes wonder what, or even if, I am doing to make a difference anymore...

Complacency in life is never something that I have viewed that favorably. Being comfortable and content, sure, but I still believe in being able to try something to make a difference. Iono why this is something that is so big to me, but it just seems to be standing out in my head as more and more days pass by here... Hum, odd...

Wow, I seem to have written a lot more than I thought I would. Funny how time seems to fly when writing. I guess I'll end this post on somewhat of a depressing but meditative note, and hopefully this will get me to think more, if not others as well... Hum, life is just so strange some days...