This woman has some real intense love for her father who barely could live. She played a major role in Galileo's writing career by doing specific things.
First, she was his pharmacist and made him the medicine or remedies he needed to keep him healthy. The sister even fed her dying father who was fighting to stay alive.
more importantly though, she helped him edit the book he was writing, which was The Dialogo. This had to be a big deal because she was a woman and because she had no experience what so ever in the science field. She might not have had any idea of what he was talking about either.
The daughter of Galileo had also protected him in a couple of ways. First, when Galileo first made observations of a heliocentric Earth, he sent a letter to his daughter. His daughter promised to keep what he found out a secret since it is new information. Second, when Galileo was tried for heresy, the sister daughter actually look some blame in the situation.
It was because of her love for her father that she was as loving and generous
Friday, February 27, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
ST. AUGUSTINE x GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE
St. Augustine was considered the most influential philosopher of Christianity. He had a huge impact on Christian visions of God and our souls. He always wanted to find a spiritual life but always battled over the enjoyment of sin. St. Augustine found answers by turning to the Christian faith. After converting, Augustine began speaking out against any kind of faith that was heretic or against the bible. He also noted that one must look inward through introspection and then upward with the grace of God to achieve happiness and salvation.
St. Augustine was influenced by the ideas of Greek Philosopher Plotinus, creating a new Late Middle Ages Neoplatonism. There was the idea that "the body is both the agent and the preison of the soul." It was still important, then, to strive for that perfect soul. However, it also included the idea that the world wasn't so bad like they made it out to be. Neoplatonism shows that anything that reflects God can't be that bad, but it wouldn't be as good as the world in Heaven.
Neoplatonism of St. Augustine showed in Gothic architecture. There was that common realization that the physical world wasn't so bad that they thought it was, especially since 1033 passed. Also, since the world is a reflection of God, people began realizing that they should take advantage of its beauty. Everything seemed to be all about light during this time. The more light will allow the presence of God to be felt in the cathedral. Designs became more elaborate and more stained glass windows were put into churches.
St. Augustine was influenced by the ideas of Greek Philosopher Plotinus, creating a new Late Middle Ages Neoplatonism. There was the idea that "the body is both the agent and the preison of the soul." It was still important, then, to strive for that perfect soul. However, it also included the idea that the world wasn't so bad like they made it out to be. Neoplatonism shows that anything that reflects God can't be that bad, but it wouldn't be as good as the world in Heaven.
Neoplatonism of St. Augustine showed in Gothic architecture. There was that common realization that the physical world wasn't so bad that they thought it was, especially since 1033 passed. Also, since the world is a reflection of God, people began realizing that they should take advantage of its beauty. Everything seemed to be all about light during this time. The more light will allow the presence of God to be felt in the cathedral. Designs became more elaborate and more stained glass windows were put into churches.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
ADOLF HITLER - Mein Kampf
In Chapter 11 of Hitler's book, the dictator spoke on nation and race, making dozens of false claims.
One thing he begins to talk about is how we as a human population are similar to nature's organisms such as the finch. This is an example of one of the fallacies called "False Analogy" . This is when an analogy is descriptive, but does not offer evidence of a connection between two things compared. Here, Mr. Hitler is comparing these animals to humans saying that this stronger species that dominate in nature is quintessential of us. However, the problem here is that humans do not have a subspecies like animals do. Therefore, although we are animals, we can't really accurately be compared to them in order to create a strong argument/claim.
This man makes many statements that could be listed under a section for fallacies. Other examples would be his argument on Aryan blood's dominance, and how it "shows with terrifying clarity", yet provides no evidence at all. This would go under the fallacy of "Begging the Question" in which Adolf assumes it to already be true.
He also uses Mother Nature as a "faulty use of authority" to prove that "She" has created the system that way and it is to not be questioned. Here he obviously attempts to add faulse credibility to her.
How smart of him...
One thing he begins to talk about is how we as a human population are similar to nature's organisms such as the finch. This is an example of one of the fallacies called "False Analogy" . This is when an analogy is descriptive, but does not offer evidence of a connection between two things compared. Here, Mr. Hitler is comparing these animals to humans saying that this stronger species that dominate in nature is quintessential of us. However, the problem here is that humans do not have a subspecies like animals do. Therefore, although we are animals, we can't really accurately be compared to them in order to create a strong argument/claim.
This man makes many statements that could be listed under a section for fallacies. Other examples would be his argument on Aryan blood's dominance, and how it "shows with terrifying clarity", yet provides no evidence at all. This would go under the fallacy of "Begging the Question" in which Adolf assumes it to already be true.
He also uses Mother Nature as a "faulty use of authority" to prove that "She" has created the system that way and it is to not be questioned. Here he obviously attempts to add faulse credibility to her.
How smart of him...
Monday, February 16, 2009
Intelligent Design
I think I agree with the teachings of evolution. I don't think it makes sense for certain cities or schools to decide to teach intelligent design over evolution.
I agree that intelligent design might not be science, nor can it be seen as the ultimate truth over the theory of natural selection. The ideas of intelligent design talk about the existence of God and his influence on the way things work in nature. People can't just deny the information learned from the study of evolution because continuously, scientists are trying to prove things and understand more about nature. On the other hand, intelligent design has a type of understanding where you can't question or further figure more out about it. Instead one is supposed to take the ideas of it and realize it as "fact." But if one is critical enough, he or she would realize that there is a big problem in doing so. Although I do have my own faith, I think it violates the first amendment of free speech in society to force a certain way of thinking on a bigger group of people with different views. To instill these ideas of creation into the everyday teachings in schools around the US is very separatist and unfair. Plus, it just reflects on religious people on how ignorant and afraig they are to accept new ideas that might actually be proven as fact.
THE END!
I agree that intelligent design might not be science, nor can it be seen as the ultimate truth over the theory of natural selection. The ideas of intelligent design talk about the existence of God and his influence on the way things work in nature. People can't just deny the information learned from the study of evolution because continuously, scientists are trying to prove things and understand more about nature. On the other hand, intelligent design has a type of understanding where you can't question or further figure more out about it. Instead one is supposed to take the ideas of it and realize it as "fact." But if one is critical enough, he or she would realize that there is a big problem in doing so. Although I do have my own faith, I think it violates the first amendment of free speech in society to force a certain way of thinking on a bigger group of people with different views. To instill these ideas of creation into the everyday teachings in schools around the US is very separatist and unfair. Plus, it just reflects on religious people on how ignorant and afraig they are to accept new ideas that might actually be proven as fact.
THE END!
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Arguments - Affirmative Action
In my opinion, I do not think that Affirmative Action should be taken away just because Barack Obama has become president.
In order to first place judgement, though, it's still important to understand the facts. Affirmative action was first talked about in 1961 under the presidency of Kennedy. It was an outgrowth of a national effort to make discrimination improve but nothing really was in effect yet. Then the civil rights movement happened and there was some progress like voting for minorities and women. No matter what though, there still existed discrimination above all the victories that went on.
Sooooo...after all these issues and complications I think that the government started looking at solutions to help discrimination that would involve race or gender.
Eventually up until today this whole race/gender remedy is what begins to cause problems for certain people. Basically, affirmative action can be associated with using gender or the minority races or ethnicities to promote equal opportunities. This includes a spectrum of things such as health care, occupations, and education. Education is key though because it is like the key to opportunity. And because there was discrimination in education, this affirmative action is supposed to alleviate that.
Now once affirmative action is taken away, so are those opportunities for people who do not have the privileges. Sure there are people who don't fit into the minority like the white population who are low-class and may deserve that help, but there are things to consider here. After centuries of oppression toward these minority groups, I believe it is the government's responsibility to repay these people for what they have worked for and have come to be. Despite all the oppositions, the affirmative action was made for a cause. And that cause would not have been made to just be put to to wasteful money. Those who are the minority who WANT the opportunity are going to look to this policy for help since that would probably be their main motivation toward succeeding. thats considering the fact that they probably might not have the motivation at home from family which is key to succeeding.
Finally, the last thing I want to say is that the fact that Obama is president has no significance toward removing or keeping the policies of affirmative action. He can't be the reason or "the one" to fix all of it just because of his racial background. He could be used as another source of motivation for those who want to succeed but don't have the resources. but overall him being president or having that opportunity to be at the top doesn't take away the fact that problems within the minority still exists. what will happen to them then if you take it away? sure you can tlel them to work harder but they will have nothing to fall back upon. Plus, the intention of affirmative action is supposed to be for the benefit of the people and to take it away from them just because it prevents "equality" is like taking away something we (generally speaking "we" as in not the minority) do not or would never understand.
WOWWWW im done.
Thank you bye(:
In order to first place judgement, though, it's still important to understand the facts. Affirmative action was first talked about in 1961 under the presidency of Kennedy. It was an outgrowth of a national effort to make discrimination improve but nothing really was in effect yet. Then the civil rights movement happened and there was some progress like voting for minorities and women. No matter what though, there still existed discrimination above all the victories that went on.
Sooooo...after all these issues and complications I think that the government started looking at solutions to help discrimination that would involve race or gender.
Eventually up until today this whole race/gender remedy is what begins to cause problems for certain people. Basically, affirmative action can be associated with using gender or the minority races or ethnicities to promote equal opportunities. This includes a spectrum of things such as health care, occupations, and education. Education is key though because it is like the key to opportunity. And because there was discrimination in education, this affirmative action is supposed to alleviate that.
Now once affirmative action is taken away, so are those opportunities for people who do not have the privileges. Sure there are people who don't fit into the minority like the white population who are low-class and may deserve that help, but there are things to consider here. After centuries of oppression toward these minority groups, I believe it is the government's responsibility to repay these people for what they have worked for and have come to be. Despite all the oppositions, the affirmative action was made for a cause. And that cause would not have been made to just be put to to wasteful money. Those who are the minority who WANT the opportunity are going to look to this policy for help since that would probably be their main motivation toward succeeding. thats considering the fact that they probably might not have the motivation at home from family which is key to succeeding.
Finally, the last thing I want to say is that the fact that Obama is president has no significance toward removing or keeping the policies of affirmative action. He can't be the reason or "the one" to fix all of it just because of his racial background. He could be used as another source of motivation for those who want to succeed but don't have the resources. but overall him being president or having that opportunity to be at the top doesn't take away the fact that problems within the minority still exists. what will happen to them then if you take it away? sure you can tlel them to work harder but they will have nothing to fall back upon. Plus, the intention of affirmative action is supposed to be for the benefit of the people and to take it away from them just because it prevents "equality" is like taking away something we (generally speaking "we" as in not the minority) do not or would never understand.
WOWWWW im done.
Thank you bye(:
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Deductive Reasoning
Deductive Logic is the process of taking something that is known to be true and eventually reaching a conclusion of absolute truth. There are different kinds of deductive reasoning. The specific ones we learned today were syllogisms, Modus Ponens, and Modus Tollens.
Syllogisms were invented by Aristotle. It takes the structure of the math transitive property which shows that A=B, B=C, and C=A. These letters represent different terms that are used in the syllogism. In a syllogism, a general characteristic is taken and turned to make a specific point. In it, there are three different statements including the major premise, the minor premise, and the conclusion. There can only be three terms in total, and only two terms in each statement. An example would be:
All babies cry a lot. (B=A) -->Major
Mikey is a baby. (B=A) -->Minor
Mikey cries a lot. (C=A) -->Conclusion
If that didn't make much sense, the other form of deductive logic is much easier to understand. This one is the modus ponens. The formula is: If p, then q. P, therefore, q. An example can make this clearer.
If it is windy outside, then I will have a bad hair day. (p, q)
It is windy outside. (p)
Therefore, I will have a bad hair day. (q)
The last form of deductive logic we learned was modus tollens. The structure is expressed as: If p, then q. Not q, therefore not p. This has a similar structure like the modus ponen but different because of the second line. Instead of using the premise "p" on the second line, it is q. A good statement would be:
If I get an A on the final, I will get an A in the class. (p, q)
I did not get an A in the class. (not q)
Therefore, I did not get an A on the final. (not p)
Finally it all makes sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
