Das · Luftschloß

I only have 24 recommended pages of writing due this week. No sweat. 8 due on Monday, 6 due on Wednesday, and 10 due Friday. Church tonight, then writing for tomorrow's paper. Luckily I outlined it yesterday. deep breath.. BEGIN.

So I think I have my schedule all worked out for next semester...

LEADERSHIP THEORY AND APPLICATIONS: This course reviews and critiques the main areas of leadership theory, reflecting results from more than 5,000 published scholarly studies. Students gain further understanding by applying theories to case studies, and develop the ability to recognize and evaluate leadership literature, issues and situations. Heavy emphasis on preparation prior to class and in-class discussion.

INTRODUCTION TO GERMAN LITERATURE AND FILM, 20TH CENTURY: Intensive writing and discussions on selected literary texts and films. Major female and male authors like Kafka, Brecht, Böll Hesse, Wolf, Bachmann, Aichinger, and Frischmuth offer a variety of short prose forms – short story, surrealist story, parable, anecdote, novella, fairy tale and experimental texts from turn-of-the-century romantic tales to sketches of street life during the 1989 velvet revolution. Contemporary films advance discussions and invite comparisons. Students will implement the critical and argumentative skills developed at the intermediate level, crafting increasingly complex analyses both individually and in small groups. Students are encouraged to develop their own poetic voice in creative writing assignments. (I'll be taking this one Pass/Fail, because I need it for upper level elective credit).

LANGUAGE AND KNOWLEDGE: An examination of the many ways in which philosophers have addressed the questions of language and knowledge. Central topics may include: the nature and limits of language; the kinds and limits of knowledge; the “linguistic turn” in twentieth-century philosophy and its aftereffects; translation and interpretation; the geopolitics of knowledge. Prerequisite: one course in philosophy.

READING PHILOSOPHY: A guided effort to focus and improve advanced students’ capacities for engaged, thoughtful, critical and independent reading of philosophical forms of argumentation and analysis. Writing assignments and discussions will be focused on the detailed articulation and understanding of one or two important texts.

HISTORY OF WESTERN PHILOSOPHY: 19th CENTURY. An inquiry into the most influential philosophical movements of 19th century Europe, including such authors as Hegel, Marx and Nietzsche. Topics will range across idealism, historicism, materialism, the limits of reason and the emergence of language as a philosophical problem.


Next fall, they're offering this class, which I really want to take. It should be really cool:

PERFORMING SANCTITY: HOLY LIVING AND HOLY WRITING IN LATE ANTIQUITY AND THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD. A study of saints’ lives from the late ancient world and the Latin Middle Ages, revealing the religious life of the periods that produced them as well as information about basic social and cultural history. Involves close reading and discussion of primary texts.

So Friday, Avery, Mike, and I headed out to Enchanted Rock to go backpacking for the weekend. Unfortunately, we didn't call ahead and didn't know that the park was closed to over-night campers due to Cougar sightings. So, unknowing what to do, we headed into Fredericksburg, which is a little German town in the hill country. After some good German food and a few sips of Avery's beer, we decided to check out Luckenbach, which is a tiny ghost town consisting of a general store, a bar, and a dance hall. After about a 1/2 hour of country music, we decided to head back to the Pike house and try our luck at camping somewhere else for Saturday night. Mike and I bought a case of beer, and proceeded to polish it off over the course of the night (with a little help). We put on Lonesome Dove on the big screen in the living room, and enjoyed a surprisingly quiet Friday night at the Pike House.

Adam, a freshman rushee, joined us Saturday and we headed up to Colorado Bend State Park (home of about a million armadillos) outside of San Saba. We backpacked up the Colorado about a mile and a half and found a nice campsite on the river under a big Oak tree. There was a really cool waterfall another 2 miles up the trail, so we set up camp and hiked up to check it out. We made a fire and heated up some Chili.

Today, we packed up and headed back to Georgetown, after a quick stop in Lampasas for excellent burgers at this place called Storm's. They have another one in Burnet, so we're definitely going to go back before the semester ends.

Now time for homework.. At least I'm refreshed.

This one made a perfect score... Being and Essence: A Juxtaposition of Eastern and Western Metaphysical Traditions


Among the elements addressed in the philosophical study of metaphysics, evaluations of being and essence are often dealt with first. Aristotle, the man who defined metaphysics and first undertook its subject matter, was the first to make a connection between being and essence. Centuries later, the Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna severed the connection between being and essence in order to show that living in an essenceless world was the way to achieve Nirvana. These two positions show an early fundamental difference between the Aristotelian western tradition and the traditions of eastern philosophy. To juxtapose these two metaphysical positions, they will be constructed until the point of divergence to show their structural similarities, and then let loose in order to see their conflicting outcomes.
We begin our confrontation in book Gamma of The Metaphysics, where Aristotle reveals the nature of his science of metaphysics. He discusses a science whose area of study is being qua being. In other words, being centered on its meaning inherently. Aristotle claims that studying being qua being is on an equivalent plane with studying the “primary things and causes” (M, p. 8), because the primary things and causes are the things and causes of being qua being. To deconstruct Aristotle down to the magnitude at which Nagarjuna begins, it is necessary to define Aristotle’s categories of things, substances, principles and causes for the purpose of comparing them to that of Nagarjuna’s.
Regarding things, Aristotle writes, “some things are called things that are because they are substances, other things are called things that are because they are affections of a substance. Also, some things are so called because they are a way into a substance, or because they are destructions or... productive or generative of a substance” (M, p. 81). By substance, Aristotle means an object that is the “stuff” all other things engage. A primary substance is an individual, while the secondary substances are things that the individual can be attributed to. Further, Aristotle writes, “The primary object is substance... the fundamental duty of the philosopher.. is to gain possession of the principles and causes of substances” (M, p. 81). Thus, we have abstracted primary things further into the nature of primary substances. Principles are axiomatic starting points for things to come into existence. They are they way in which a thing arises. Finally, causes are principles that exist in tetra-plurality. The four kinds of cause are basically an explanation for how things are. First, there is the material cause, which explains what a thing is made of. Second, there is the formal cause, which explains the form a thing assumes. Third, there is the efficient cause, which explains the process by which it came into being. This cause is the source of the primary principle. And fourth, there is the final cause, which explains the end or purpose it serves. In terms of spelling out Aristotle in ways which can be explored alongside Nagarjuna, it would be useful to develop Nagarjuna further to get a sense of his metaphysical framework.
In chapter I of The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, Nagarjuna addresses conditions. He states that nothing can arise without a cause, so for something to exist, there must be a condition. Nagarjuna states four conditions: the efficient condition, which accounts for change by identifying appropriate prior changes; the percept-object condition, which accounts for the arising of perceptions in terms of the objects perceived; the immediate condition, which accounts for change in terms of activities triggered by the efficient condition; and the dominant condition, which accounts for change in terms of ends or goals. (FWMW, p. 117-118).
Next, Nagarjuna reveals that these conditions do not have the power to cause an effect, stating, “Power to act does not have conditions. There is no power to act without conditions. There are no conditions without power to act. Nor do any have the power to act.” (FWMW, p. 3). In other words, we have four possible ways an effect can be produced by causes: An effect produces itself, an effect is produced by something other than itself, an effect is both produced by itself and is produced by something other than itself, or an effect is produced without a cause. Given causality is the production of an effect by a causal power that inheres in a self-existent cause, these are all logically false, because they deny the definitions of causality and effect. (FWMW, pp. 113-114). Therefore, “These give rise to those, so these are called conditions.”(FWMW, p. 3). However, this implies that conditions do not exist.
So instead, there is some self-existing thing which transforms a condition into an effect. This is because, as Nagarjuna writes, “If a thing is non-existent, how could it have a condition? If a thing is already existent, what would a condition do?” (FWMW, 4). In other words, once an entity has come into existence, it no longer has a condition. So it follows that once the ‘power to act’ transforms the condition into the entity, the condition ceases to exist. More specifically, because an existing thing cannot have a condition, the condition must cease before its effect arises. Since things do not just arise (because they need conditions), it is palpable that things do not cease to be. (FWMW, 111).
At this point, perhaps it is insightful to take inventory of each metaphysician’s progress. In both works, we have seen spores of terms and dialectical interdependent arguments. Aristotle has addressed that being qua being is abstractly concerned with discovering the causes and principles of primary substances. Nagarjuna has effectively classified causation as its own distinct thing which transforms a condition into an arisen entity. It is rather interesting that these two metaphysical constructions build themselves in opposite manners. On one hand, Nagarjuna begins with a single first cause to create an effect in order to build his ontology. While on the other hand, Aristotle is abstracting from what already exists to reach the first cause, classifying things into an ontology as he goes along.
Yet, in comparison, one can see in both cases a condition of creating a metaphysics to involve trapping oneself and philosophizing in the dialectical interdependent nutshell. Aristotle’s metaphysics were a continuation to address everything that could not be addressed in his Physics. For Nagarjuna, to develop his way to Nirvana, he had to start at addressing the nature of material things before he could reject those material things. Perhaps being in a lone philosophical sphere (like either Aristotle’s or Nagarjuna’s) is likely conducive to the need for a metaphysics. Thus far there are several comparisons that could be made between the ontological categories of each developing system. For example, at this point in either system’s dialectical time line, Nagarjuna’s entities could eventually and without contradiction turn out to be Aristotle’s substances. However, while there exists novelty in observing the brief similarities between these developing scaffolds, the reality of confrontation between these two systems is the more engage-able juxtaposition to understand.
Returning to Nagarjuna, one is reminded of the Buddhist lens apparent in the title of this philosophy. Finishing up the examination of the conditions, Nagarjuna reveals his motives to attain the emptiness of the middle way. He writes, “the essence of entities is not present in the conditions, etc...” (FWMW, p. 3). In other words, no analysis of a condition can reveal the essence of the entity that the condition brings about. Given the structure we have already built, this simple fact delivers an important consequence: because entities are dependent phenomena which rely on conditions to exist, and because the essence of that entity does not present itself within the conditions, the essence of an entity does not exist within that entity. In other words, entities which arise from conditions are essenceless. (FWMW, p. 111).
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way next becomes relevant to our juxtaposition in Chapter XV’s examination of essence. Here Nagarjuna argues that essence cannot come from causes or conditions because essence would then have been a created fabrication. This is contradictory of its nature to be perpetual and not dependent on another. So thus Nagarjuna verifies the revelation of Chapter I that essence cannot be caused or conditioned, and therefore it does not arise with caused effects. Therefore in Nagarjuna’s metaphysical system, the essence of phenomena are empty. With essence out of the way, Nagarjuna can now metaphysically build a vehicle to Nirvana. Without essence, Nagarjuna erases inherently existing entities because it is a concept of an entity with an essence. Applying the tetralemma to this statement, Nagarjuna writes, “If the entity is not established, a nonentity is not established. An entity that has become different is a nonentity, people say.” (FWMW, p. 39). Logically speaking, this tetralemma is the inference that “a real thing can be possessed of the property of being nonexistant.” (FWMW, p. 222). With this encapsulation of real things by nonexisting things, real things become unaffected by the inherent, and are left with everything conventionally. Justification for essence dies out quickly with the final few assertions that without essence, a change in essence is possible.
While there exists a stance on essence in this metaphysical system, the examination of essence also provides a rather uncomfortable position for being to rest. Nagajuna writes, “to say ‘it is’ is to grasp for permanence. To say ‘it is not’ is to adopt the view of nihilism. Therefore a wise person does not say ‘exists’ or ‘does not exist’.” (FWMW, p. 40). And thus, in the Buddhist metaphysical system, being and essence are not accepted as pivotal roles.
Circling back to Aristotle, his definitions of things, substances, principles and causes, sit in completion and he is ready to begin his study on the nature of the science concerned with being qua being. He claims that this science is the same as the as the study of primary causes and principles. This is because the primary causes and principles are the causes and principles of being qua being. Aristotle seeks to generalize science and show that there is one primary science which is concerned with that which is qua that which is. He offers two possible explanations towards the complexion of this mysterious science: First, “There is no other substance beyond those furnished by nature, in which case [Physics] is the First Science” or “There is some Substance that is without change” (M, p. 156). Aristotle offers that if the latter is true, “then that Substance is prior to all others and the science of it is [Metaphysics] - and such a science is universal just because it is first.” (M, p. 156) Given that there is some substance that is lacking change, then we have the necessary preconditions to study being qua being.
As we enter book Zeta, Aristotle establishes that to study the question of what being is, we can replace this question with the easier-to-answer question of what substance is. We can do this because like being, substance is primary. To define something to be what it is, we must state its substance. Substance is held to include the essence of that thing and the subject of its properties. Aristotle makes it clear that the subject of its properties does not matter because matter is neither separable nor does it have thisness or independence to exist on its own. Therefore, Aristotle is able to define essence as the gauge of a thing’s substantiality. Stepping back through these abstractions, one can logically follow that: the only thing remaining in something’s substance is its essence, and since being is substance, then what is qua is - is essence. So then, in the Aristotelian metaphysical tradition, being is only concerned with a thing’s essence, giving essence a pivotal role in the nature of being.
By engaging two different texts like The Metaphysics and The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way, an understanding is gained for the nature of metaphysics. Two different metaphysics show two different paths a metaphysics can lead, and the differences show a notion of changeable components upon which these metaphysics are built. In an east versus west juxtaposition of being and essence, one can see that in both traditions, these elements are important enough to be addressed. However, in the eastern tradition, while these elements exist, to treat them as having something inherently within them, is disqualified. On the other hand, for Aristotle, these elements are full of meaning and permanence.

Whoever thought to index Nietzsche is a genius. Although I feel as if he would have been against it. Back to my paper.

As a student of science, I have often taken for granted the nature of my inquiry into the field of study that passionately consumes my time. As a self-proclaimed disciple of Christ, I have often felt uneasy about my willingness to accept scientific theory which historically has clashed with many of similar faith. As a relatively new philosophizer, I am driven for the first time to examine this dialectic at an attempt to discover my own nature and method of inquiry. This inner-dialogue is rather troubling because it offers three ways to gain an understanding about the world. It is therefore my attempt to settle the uncertainty of whether or not the three share common principles with the nature of inquiry in general. For in the end, does it matter what the method of inquiry is called if it succeeds in delivering the truth? Can we then hammer out the types of questions that each are capable of arriving at the truth? If we can, then it seems likely that the most efficient way of acquiring wisdom is through a non-discriminatory use of all three methods of inquiry.


Before we begin examining the tools that science, religion, and philosophy offer, let me first offer the categories of questions that are often asked by human beings. These are questions that may or may not be adequately answered by either science, religion, or philosophy, but can be said to be the basis of the problems that we encounter. The categories are methodological, moral, and metaphysical. These three general problems don’t exhaust the issues that we face, but they are critical of any reasoned attitude toward life. The easiest question to show within my purpose is the methodological question. This is because it is demonstrated in the purpose of my dilemma; which method, if any can be seen better than another, of seeing the world is best at arriving at the truth?


The moral question is routinely encountered throughout our day to day lives. Issues of alcoholism, homicide and crime in general, or the rising rate of failing marriages. Take love in general. Today, fifty-percent of all marriages end in divorce. These marriages were made, presumably, by couples who thought that they were in love. This presents the moral question of “How do I love?” Further, with the church’s decreasing scope of authority, we have become suspect of the traditional way of justifying our moral standards. As a solution, many people have adapted ethical relativism, believing that since each society has its own standards, there cannot exist a standard by which a society’s values can be evaluated.


Or take any metaphysical question. No one can deny that they have ever asked themselves if God exists, or what the purpose of our existence is. Metaphysical questions are fundamental to our whole way of thinking. Because they are so basic, it is expected that intelligent answers to them must exist. However, before answers to moral and metaphysical questions can be given, we must decide how those answers can be obtained. Or, what is a reliable method for gaining knowledge? I have recognized three general categories for the questions that any reasoned attitude toward life must answer; and my experience also demonstrates that there are three general approaches to life which might be adopted.


In the toolbox of a painter, it would be logical to assume that the painter’s default tool would be his paintbrush. With his paintbrush, the painter paints a clear picture of his world so that any admirer of art could look at his painting and understand the painter’s world. In the toolbox of mankind, I offer that science is man’s default tool to metaphorically paint the picture of his world. It is a safe assumption that as an admirer of mankind, any human could understand another human’s scientific reasoning for any everyday occurrence. Science is the obvious attitude for looking at life’s questions for anyone who lives in the scientific dominated twenty-first century. Using the Hempel-Oppenheim modern model of scientific explanation as a form, we can paint a picture to scientifically explain why pipes burst on cold nights (Parsons, 93). More generally, science seeks to explain methodologically the nature of that which we can sense or sensibly experience. As Whitehead puts it, “Science is concerned with the general conditions which are observed to regulate physical phenomena” (Whitehead, 185). Since science has been so successful in understanding and controlling nature, many people consider that the attitude of the scientist at answering life’s questions is the most satisfactory attitude to adopt toward life.


Another alternative widely accepted, although more so in earlier centuries than in our own, is religion. For it too gives people moral advice, helps them to decide what the purpose of our existence is, and has a way of answering all of our questions. Religion sees our lives in the context of a larger and usually supernatural meaning. Hence, it provides guidance, encouragement, and solace for the living of life. Moreover, since these standards of wisdom transcend the frailties of human origins, many people find that religious beliefs provide a satisfying and meaningful way to view life. As Whitehead was evoked to present a definition of science, it is useful to juxtapose his definition of religion, which follows as, “Religion is wholly wrapped up in the contemplation of moral and aesthetic values” (185). However, he further explains, “On the one side there is the law of gravitation, and on the other the contemplation of the beauty of holiness. What one sees, the other misses; and vice versa” (185).


Although both science and religion are widely accepted accounts on viewing the world, do not assume that both have the scope of answering every question. No one expects either world view to be able to answer a question that has risen from one world view and not the other. For example, no one can expect science to empirically prove how a priest can transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. And yet, this is something that is undoubtedly held to be true by 1.1 billion people. On the other hand, no one expects religion to theistically expect 1.1 billion people to believe that pipes freeze and burst on a February night because of the will of God. While many people believe that they are consuming something holy when they receive the Eucharist, they are not excluded from believing a scientific explanation of the nature of the world.


The third method of acquiring wisdom that I will offer is philosophy. It is through philosophizing that I question the methodological tenets of acquiring knowledge. Further, philosophers have provided tomes upon tomes of counsel and guidance for moral behavior, and metaphysics can be considered to be the essence of philosophical thought. The method of precise analytical reasoning about abstract theoretical problems places emphasis on human’s creative intellect for gaining knowledge. Could it be said that it is through philosophy that I come to understand the answer to my question? While the act of philosophizing does produce some important revelations about our world, do not think that it can alone satisfactorily unveil the whole truth of our universe. The scientific method will continue to prevail in furthering our understanding of the aims of science, just as religion will continue to explain the essence of that which is holy. However, when each are coupled with philosophy, we can gather insight that furthers each field within the scope of each.
'

By understanding the scope and use of science, religion, and philosophy in our world, one should be much clearer on a number of matters. Firstly, one obtains the knowledge of what scientific, religious, and philosophical attitudes towards life are, and is able to investigate the problems of each. Secondly, one has a clearer basis for comparing the three, and dealing with questions on whether or not there is a conflict between science and religion. Thirdly, one is able to make relative judgments regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each. And finally, one is able to make intelligent choices regarding one’s own beliefs and values.

Aristotle’s The Metaphysics is precisely about what the title implies, that which is beyond physics. As a naturalist, Aristotle was interested in the world around him. Anyone who has deeply considered the nature of the world around them has likely asked themselves a metaphysical question. It is a subject which inquires about the nature of being, its causes, and its principles. Further, it is the study of being qua being, or the study of the being of being. It is primarily concerned with three pivotal questions. First, establishing what it means to be with respect to being, and the consequences of its establishment. Second, how is something a thing while at the same time able to undergo change. And third, how can we come to understand our universe. To answer these questions Aristotle reasons that there are easier and more sensible ways to answer the questions, and ultimately answers the first questions through answering these easier questions.
In the first book, Aristotle differentiates between knowledge and wisdom. He defines knowledge as understanding the ‘that’ and wisdom as understanding the ‘because’. He differentiates between the skilled and the experienced. He notes that the skilled cannot become skilled without first experiencing. Therefore the skilled have acquired wisdom whereas the experienced have acquired knowledge. The key to the transition from experienced to skilled, Aristotle says, is having a grasp of the cause. Once the notion of cause is understood, the skilled can teach their skill to those who have knowledge, teaching them the cause, and passing on the skill. Therefore, Aristotle explains that wisdom is the knowledge of the principles and causes of our experiences. It is important to establish this notion because Aristotle uses this same logic and desire in explaining some of the more complex ideas which come later.
Aristotle now asks “what kind of principles and of what kind of causes is wisdom the knowledge?” (pp. 7) The objective of the philosophizer is to know for its own sake. Thus, it makes sense that the philosophizer will choose to gain knowledge of the most known thing. Aristotle claims that the most known things are the primary things and their causes. He states that through these primary things and causes, all other things are known. The nature of the primary things and causes is said to be close to the nature of the divine, because through them, all other things are understood. Also, it is God who is thought to be the cause of all things, as well as a primary principle, or reason, for all things.
Aristotle often refers to four causes that he formalized in Physics that are important to understanding this study of primary causes and principles. The four kinds of cause are basically an explanation for how things are. First, there is the material cause, which explains what a thing is made of. Second, there is the formal cause, which explains the form a thing assumes. Third, there is the efficient cause, which explains the process by which it came into being. And fourth, there is the final cause, which explains the end or purpose it serves.
In Gamma, Aristotle reveals another dimension to the study of metaphysics. He discusses a science whose area of study is being qua being, or the being dealing with the nature of being. He then states that this science is the same as the study of primary causes and principles. This is because the primary causes and principles are the causes and principles of being qua being. Aristotle seeks to generalize science and show that there is one primary science which is concerned with that which is qua that which is. He delineates this science as the primary science and the First Philosophy. He also discusses the relationship of being as a one single substance for which all else delineates.
The First Philosophy is a science that differs from the departmental sciences in that the latter are concerned with the practical and productive discoveries of their study. The former is concerned with proving that its study actually exists, and shares its properties with mathematics, physics, and theology, all calling themselves theoretical sciences. Aristotle then claims that the First Philosophy is theology, because “if there is Divinity anywhere in the universe, then it is in the nature studied by the First Science that It is to be found.” (pp. 155). Aristotle offers two possible explanations towards the complexion of First Philosophy: “There is no other substance beyond those furnished by nature, in which case the science of nature is the First Science” or “There is some Substance that is without change” (pp. 156). Aristotle offers that if the latter is true, “then that Substance is prior to all others and the science of it is First Philosophy - and such a science is universal just because it is first.” (pp. 156) Given that there is some Substance that is lacking change, then we have the necessary preconditions to study that which is qua that which is.
It is Aristotle’s goal to ultimately qualify ‘the thing that is’ to be inherent in its substance. In Epsilon, Aristotle disqualifies the accidental as a qualification of being in the First Science. The main disqualification is that there is no science that takes account for accidental outcomes of its study, because “all science is either of that which is always or of that which is for the most part.” (pp. 159) Aristotle disqualifies being as truth as a form of being in philosophy, because we conjure the ideas of true and false based on connections we make with our mind, and outside of the real world. After Epsilon, philosophy can be said to study being as substance.
In Zeta, Aristotle establishes that to study the question of what being is, we can replace this question with the easier-to-answer question of what substance is. We can do this because like being, substance is primary because to define something to be what it is, we must state its substance. Substance is held to include the essence of that thing and the subject of its properties. Aristotle makes it clear that the subject of its properties is not matter because matter is neither separable nor does it have thisness or independence to exist on its own. The middle chapters of Zeta exist to define essence as the gauge of a thing’s substantiality, it is what is mentioned in a definition of a thing’s nature. The remainder of Zeta is concerned with considerations of essence in terms of whole things and parts of whole things.
In Eta and Theta, Aristotle connects an object’s matter with its potentiality and its form with its actuality. Matter is potentially a kind of substance that becomes that substance in actuality when it takes on the form of that substance. As an example, A piece of wood is a potential violin, and it becomes a violin when it is carved and thus acquires the form of a violin. Aristotle argues that actuality is more fundamental than potentiality for three reasons. First, we cannot think of something as a potentiality without also thinking of the actuality it can potentially become, but we can think of an actuality without thinking of its potentiality. Second, for something to be potentially something else, that something else must already exist in actuality or there would be nothing for that potentiality to become. Third, actuality is identified with form, which is related to substance, the most fundamental thing that there is. Therefore, would Aristotle argue that the chicken came before the egg? As a result of Eta and Theta, an object can only be a potential thing if there is already an actual thing for that object to become. In terms of chickens and eggs, the chicken species is a substance, and there are no chicken eggs until there is a chicken species for those eggs to become.
The first part of book Lambda defines two types of natural substance and one type of supernatural substance. The natural substances can be either perceptible and perishable (like plants and animals) or perceptible and imperishable (like the celestial). The supernatural substances are unchanging and unmoved. They are perhaps imperceptible as well. Moving from these definitions, the question arises of whether there is some common source to all substances. According to Aristotle, this common source is some kind of prime mover. Further, there must be some kind of unchanging substance because the earth and time are not perishable, so there must be some substance within them that is also imperishable. This unchanging substance has no potentiality, but only actuality, and its unchanging actuality makes the world unchanging. This unchanging substance must also be the prime mover, the source of all movement and change in the universe. To be the primer mover, this substance must itself be unmoving. The prime mover is an object of desire for the objects of the universe, causing them to move. The prime mover is an object of desire because it is desirable. Aristotle identifies this prime mover with a God, who contemplates contemplation. The prime mover contemplates contemplation because anything lower would be unworthy of it and anything higher would imply that there is something more desirable than the existence of the prime mover himself. Because the prime mover is good, the whole universe must be good.
Through the reading of The Metaphysics, we hope to gain some insight into the three questions that is poses. First, on what it means to be with respect to being, we come to understand that that which is is defined by its substance, or what it is essentially and subjectively. Second, something is something while at the same time able to undergo change because the thing as matter has the potentiality to become its form in actuality. Third, to answer the question of how we come to understand our universe, we must come to terms with some type of cosmological argument. Be it a God who acts as an unmoved mover, or a scientific start of space and time that modern times have come to understand. Once we have this first cause, we can argue that all things come to be as potentialities of the first cause.

The Present Age is Kierkegaard’s criticism of the reflective nature of the post-revolutionary public. While a certain kind of “public” did exist in times before, “the people en masse took part in any situation which arose, and were responsible for the actions of the individual.” (pp. 60) In contrast, the public of the present age hopes to achieve sophistication by contemplating (or reflecting) on what it must decide on to reach sophistication. In the process, it wastes energy on what could and would have been done in revolutionary ages. In other words, revolutionary ages act on emotion, passion, and suffering, while the present age contemplates on what it should act on, ignoring their inward passion and absolute connections to God which would have been enough motivation to act upon.

In past ages, the individual believed in God, and had a distinction between good and evil to guide them to act. Kierkegaard argues that, “the distinction between good and evil is weakened by the theoretical knowledge of evil and the notion that goodness is neither appreciated nor worth while.” (pp. 43) This is because the public (with the help and power of the press) is in a constant state of leveling, a reflective process of bringing everything to one plane of being and status. With no belief in the order of things, the public becomes envious and resents those who in a revolutionary age would be admired. But in this age where leaders are leveled to the same plane as the masses (by the press), the best that the public can do is admire themselves. In this way, there is no action because there are no leaders with the support to preform action. It is not that the leaders are out of touch with the public, but the public is out of touch with themselves. People then aspire to be nothing because of the formlessness of status-levels. They would instead rather become the public, existing as a group of on-lookers, treating the actions of man to be for the gallery to gossip about. This talkativeness (the erasure of silence) only pushes the masses further into reflection, with no action due to the emptiness of its content.

Kierkegaard believes that inwardness is the only cure for the individual in the present age. But, he is still a prisoner of the reflectiveness of his age (the people around him, the press). The only way for one to break free of the age is through religion - an absolute relationship with an absolute. It is the guidance of God that will allow one to act without fear of suffering (see Kierkegaard’s no pain, no gain thinking on pp. 56). When this occurs, relationships will no longer be tensioned, nothing will seem superficial, and the subjective will exist apart from the objective.


I believe Kierkegaard wants us to have the same relationship with others as the relationship we have with God (or whatever an atheist would replace with God). He discusses how our relationships have been leveled to mere tensions rather than relationships, because we no longer "relate". So how do we bring our tensions with others to be more reflective of an absolute relationship (prayer, inward thinking (not to be confused with reflection))?


I like Kierkegaard.. he's kind of like Seinfeld's philosophy. Aristotle's The Metaphysics is very comprehensive to say the least. Nietzsche bothers me... I feel like he wrote thinking that in 100 years everyone would be wearing WWND? bracelets... and then he talks about how Socrates was so arrogant. I want to make a big chart and label it 'For' and 'Against' and classify everything he says. Of course, making charts to classify as for or against would fall in the "against" column.

I've seen every episodes from the beginning to the first movie, and then some after. My favorite so far is "The Postmodern Prometheus" from season 5.. the one filmed in black and white with Cher in it. I also enjoyed "Jose Chung's From Outerspace" (from season 3?). All in all, I really liked the comedy episodes.

xkcd.com, naturally..

haha.. nice way to start the day I guess.

So I'm trying my luck at Philosophy classes this semester. In all, I'm taking a seminar on Nietzsche & Kierkegaard, Philosophy of Religion, and a very small seminar (6 people) on Metaphysics (the philosophy, not cancer-curing crystals). I'm extremely excited about the reading lists, because I enjoy reading, but haven't really had the chance to do much of it in my first 2 years of college. 17 books seems kind of daunting, but most of them are tiny, and everyone in the humanities majors does it. Nick, I know you've read some of this stuff.. Any warnings?

For Nietzsche & Kierkegaard:
The Present Age - Kierkegaard
Twilight of the Idols - Nietzsche
Point of View - Kierkegaard
Ecce Homo - Nietzsche
The Gay Science - Nietzsche
Concluding Unscientific Postscript - Kierkegaard

For Philosophy of Religion:
Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion - Hume
Fear and Trembling - Kierkegaard
On the Genealogy of Morals - Nietzsche
The Stranger - Camus
Theory of Religion - Bataille

For Metaphysics:
The Metaphysics - Aristotle
The Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way - Nagarjuna
On the Nature of Things - Lucretius
Ethics - Spinoza
Creative Evolution - Bergson
Modes of Thought - Whitehead

Other than these 3, I'm taking Differential Equations and Latin I (my Latin professor looks like a combo of Brian Williams and Indiana Jones - it might be because he's an archeologist).

At about 3pm CDT tomorrow, I will be on a plane to Saratoga with a 9pm EDT touchdown in Albany. Hopefully I have cloths at home, because I'm not bringing any.

So, even though I should have known this about 5 months ago, I was finally asked to be the new violist for the Southwestern Quartet. Should bring in a good amount of money from gigs throughout the next 2 years. So mom and dad, all that money from lessons, driving 2 hours a week to and from ESYO rehearsals and a nice instrument finally paid off. Only problem, I haven't touched the viola since December... So I'll be spending the next few weeks getting back into "music shape". The ensemble is pretty good, too. I definitely won't be the best player, considering the other 3 players are all performance majors, and I'm math/chem. The first violinist and the cellist are both solid musicians, both are known to be developing musicians on the texas classical scene, if you acknowledge that such a thing exists.

Tomorrow is my last day at M.D. Anderson, and I finally get to go home on Monday. It's been about 30 weeks since my last trip home to NYS. Well, back to packing.

So I've just about finished my abstract and currently looking for a free journal to publish it. It's going pretty well, and the hardest part seems to be getting it down to less than 250 words. Also on the table is getting my powerpoint presentation finished and my poster printed for my talk at UT-Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

I also found out that Southwestern University (where I'm enrolled) is having a Biotechnology Conference in a few weeks to celebrate the fact that Texas A&M is opening a medical school in Georgetown. So, I submitted a draft of my abstract and it looks like I will be presenting my poster at the symposium portion of the conference.

On top of that, career services sent me an e-mail today with an internship posting for math majors at National Instruments (a HUGE technology firm in Austin) for the fall. Not only is this an internship for math majors, but the internship is dealing with mathematical data mining (which is exactly what I've been learning how to do this summer). So I sent in my resume and cover letter talking about how qualified I am for the position, and hopefully I'll hear back from them to schedule an interview. If everything goes okay, I'll have a 15 hour/week internship in the fall.

Anyway, my big concern now is creating a title for my abstract. As it stands right now, all I have is "URI That Even a Lab Rat Can Use." I think I need to find something else, considering that "Lab Rat" is what scientists call bench biologists, and I think it's meant to be insulting.

Other than that, I'm sore as hell from my long run yesterday... People were asking me why I was walking so stiff all day.

I took a Myers-Briggs test when I was an entering freshman with a friend who had the book about it. I was visiting this friend again this past weekend, and we retook the test to see if we had changed. I didn't, which I found interesting because I think I've matured quite a bit since being in college. Anyway, I'm an ENTJ - Extroverted, iNtuitive, Thinking, Judging (as opposed to Introverted, Sensing, Feeling, Perceiving). I wrote my scores down, and I was skewed 78% Extroverted, 25% Intuitive, 25% Thinking, and 2% Judging.

( ein bisschen mehr... )

The field of mathematics can be divided into 3 subfields of which most graduate students choose one to focus on. They are Algebra, Analysis, and Topology.

( ein bisschen mehr... )

I've come to realize that I've been using livejournal for years to keep updated on things going on at home with my mom littleflower518 and my brother adunaphel. So, here I am.

There has been a lot going on in my life in the recent months, and thus I have quite a bit of things I could talk about. However, I suppose the best place to start is my appointment as an Undergraduate Research Assistant in the Biomathematics Lab at The UT M.D. Anderson Cancer Center this summer. At school, I take the core of my courses in mathematics and the sciences, while focusing on German for my electives. But there is a big difference in the math they teach you in college and the math that's used in the real world. This revelation is pretty inspiring that real math isn't about all the proofs you write in college. I've also found a unique experience at MD Anderson because I'm researching in a clinical setting. Rather than being abstracted in some far-away tower at a university, I'm eating lunch with cancer patients and seeing families struggle on a daily basis. This keeps you close to your goals at hand, knowing that you're making a difference in someone's life, although not directly. But it's easy to develop a bond with this place when patients come up to you asking for directions because you're wearing an employee badge. I've actually begun keeping a stock of maps of the hospital in my backpack for this purpose.

( ein bisschen mehr... )