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.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
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...
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...
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
"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...
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...
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
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...
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...
Saturday, April 17, 2010
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...
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...
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
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...
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...
Monday, April 12, 2010
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...
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...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
