One of the most controversial subjects in science is the one of time travel. If time is the 4th dimension, ¿can we go back or forth in time?
There are many points of view about this that is hard where to start. Einstein states in his theory of relativity that travelling at the speed of light one perceives time different, slower. while for the rest of the people it is at the same rate.
However, other scientists have stated that, if time travel is possible, why isnt there any proof of any time-traveller? why hasnt anyone from the future come to us to tell us anything? this argument is similar to the paradox of "If im going to travel back in time tomorrow to say hi to myself today, why isnt there another me waving at me?".
I think that time travel is possible, however only to the future and in very tiny amounts of time. and if it is in very tiny amounts of time it seems useless to try. i think it is impossible to go back in time because if you alter the past then the conditions for us to travel back in time would make us not to exist (and on a side note, theres the theory that states that in this situation, we would be travelling to another past parallel universe, not our past universe, but thats another subject that goes into the realm of quantum physics and not philosophy)
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Time
Time, like many subjects in this book, is a subject with many questions. I think this subject has more questions than any other subject. That is because even the physicists are trying to discover what is happening with time. If they can travel through time, wormholes and black holes are all theories. The fact that movement depends on time is a philosophical theory explained by Fernando Savater.
I think this is the most interesting subject in this chapter because Savater explains it in a great manner. He says time is something we will never catch up with. He explains this with the story of Achilles and the tortoise. Which I think it's a great story and a true thing. I think that time now, that is ahead of us, is something we will never catch. We can catch it physically but not make up for the time he has in advantage.
I think time is something important in our lives and something we just can't waste because it will happen like it happened to Achilles.
I think this is the most interesting subject in this chapter because Savater explains it in a great manner. He says time is something we will never catch up with. He explains this with the story of Achilles and the tortoise. Which I think it's a great story and a true thing. I think that time now, that is ahead of us, is something we will never catch. We can catch it physically but not make up for the time he has in advantage.
I think time is something important in our lives and something we just can't waste because it will happen like it happened to Achilles.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Beauty
The beauty is ,ironically, a very complex theme to talk about. how can we define what something is beatiful and what is not? for example, there´s Warhol famous Campbell painting, which is just a mere painting of a campbell can of soup. can this be considered art? can this be considered beatiful?
Another more extreme example of how can we define art is that in the medieval ages, being overweight was considered beatiful (this is proven in the painting by some artists) and being skinny was the ugliest thing ever in the existence of the planet. ¿is there something that can really be defined as "dogmatically beatiful"?
In my opinion, no. Human mind is way too influenced by external means that shape our definitions of some concepts. What we see today as beatiful might be tomorrow standard of uglyness.
Some people may argue that "dogmatically beatiful" things such as the sea, or a seashell, are beatiful because they arent created by man. In almost all cultures and periods these things have been considered as beatiful. However, Human mind can also be influenced to see these things as ugly. if we attach bad concepts to nature then we would consider it ugly. ¿But how can we consider these things ugly if nature gives us everything we need, and it seems so beatiful?
Im going to use the book Brave New World to exemplify this. This book main argument is a guess, in the form of science fiction, of what would happen to culture if people refused to think and just accepted what they were told to think. in the book, people are induced to hate nature by giving electric shocks whenever they smile or have pleasant thoughts when they are near nature. this process is repeated as many times as neccesary.
While this may be an extreme example, this exemplifies how we could be induced to think nature is bad and that solid grey buildings are the most beatiful form of art ever created. just my opinion.
Another more extreme example of how can we define art is that in the medieval ages, being overweight was considered beatiful (this is proven in the painting by some artists) and being skinny was the ugliest thing ever in the existence of the planet. ¿is there something that can really be defined as "dogmatically beatiful"?
In my opinion, no. Human mind is way too influenced by external means that shape our definitions of some concepts. What we see today as beatiful might be tomorrow standard of uglyness.
Some people may argue that "dogmatically beatiful" things such as the sea, or a seashell, are beatiful because they arent created by man. In almost all cultures and periods these things have been considered as beatiful. However, Human mind can also be influenced to see these things as ugly. if we attach bad concepts to nature then we would consider it ugly. ¿But how can we consider these things ugly if nature gives us everything we need, and it seems so beatiful?
Im going to use the book Brave New World to exemplify this. This book main argument is a guess, in the form of science fiction, of what would happen to culture if people refused to think and just accepted what they were told to think. in the book, people are induced to hate nature by giving electric shocks whenever they smile or have pleasant thoughts when they are near nature. this process is repeated as many times as neccesary.
While this may be an extreme example, this exemplifies how we could be induced to think nature is bad and that solid grey buildings are the most beatiful form of art ever created. just my opinion.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Beauty
This is one of the most important subject for a human being. Every human needs the sense that he is beautiful or that they need to be surrounded by beauty. This is well explained by Savater and a great addition for this chapter is Kant. I agree with most of the things he says. For a example what I just said about beauty being a necessity. But in this chapter it is also explained that there is no purpose for beauty. So it is kind of contradictory, which is something confusing for most readers.
The animals don't need this thing of beauty, it is only a need for humans. Only humans know it and it is something very important for us. The example that Savater gives about a pyramid being beautiful from the outside. But when you see how it was constructed you start to see that it was built by slaves and a lot of deaths happened there. So it might not be beautiful because of how it was constructed. There is also something we talked in class about the rules of beauty. If we want to be beautiful we have to follow certain rules. I think this is wrong because people have different perspectives and something not be beautiful for them.
Going back to the statement of there is no purpose for something being beautiful, I think that is true. For example when someone invented the plate to eat or the glass to drink. They decorate it, for no reason. You can't drink more if it has decorations, or you can't have a better life if it's decorated. So it doesn't help a lot to have your plate beautiful.
The animals don't need this thing of beauty, it is only a need for humans. Only humans know it and it is something very important for us. The example that Savater gives about a pyramid being beautiful from the outside. But when you see how it was constructed you start to see that it was built by slaves and a lot of deaths happened there. So it might not be beautiful because of how it was constructed. There is also something we talked in class about the rules of beauty. If we want to be beautiful we have to follow certain rules. I think this is wrong because people have different perspectives and something not be beautiful for them.
Going back to the statement of there is no purpose for something being beautiful, I think that is true. For example when someone invented the plate to eat or the glass to drink. They decorate it, for no reason. You can't drink more if it has decorations, or you can't have a better life if it's decorated. So it doesn't help a lot to have your plate beautiful.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Freedom
"Those who say that are free are the ones who less freedom have"
The concept of freedom fits perfectly in the statement "you dont know what you have until you lose it". have we ever thought of our liberty to move, to think, to go to some places, to want things?
In the initial phrase i put on this blog, i focus on the fact that those who say to themselves "im free, im not a sheep!" are those who may be even more sheep than the others. these people are the sheeps of the idea that they are not sheep. Freedom, like truth, is something we in life never appreciate completely. and like we saw in the videos about the ant and the organ donation, do we really make the decision or are we in an ilusion that we have the freedom of choice?
Have you ever thought of the ilusion of choice? Who are the real choicemakers? we or the people that present us the choices? are we really in control of the decision we make or everything is just a mere set-up? this topic really has more questions than answers. and like most concepts in philosophy only ourselves can answer them.
a great speech talking about this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewf3lQjCPQ
The concept of freedom fits perfectly in the statement "you dont know what you have until you lose it". have we ever thought of our liberty to move, to think, to go to some places, to want things?
In the initial phrase i put on this blog, i focus on the fact that those who say to themselves "im free, im not a sheep!" are those who may be even more sheep than the others. these people are the sheeps of the idea that they are not sheep. Freedom, like truth, is something we in life never appreciate completely. and like we saw in the videos about the ant and the organ donation, do we really make the decision or are we in an ilusion that we have the freedom of choice?
Have you ever thought of the ilusion of choice? Who are the real choicemakers? we or the people that present us the choices? are we really in control of the decision we make or everything is just a mere set-up? this topic really has more questions than answers. and like most concepts in philosophy only ourselves can answer them.
a great speech talking about this issue
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wewf3lQjCPQ
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Freedom
The best thing that this life can give us is freedom. Yes I think that is the best thing that has been given to someone. Some people are free from the day they are born, but others are born as slaves. Here Savater talks of the free decisions that someone makes and if they are really free or they are being forced by the situation.
He gives an example of a captain in a ship and a storm comes. He is trapped and he releases some things from his boat to save his life. Here Savater tries to explain how he did it because of he had too. I have to say that he did it because he wanted to live, he is aware that if he doesn't release the cargo he is going to die. So he did it by his own choice and he wasn't forced.
This is a great point because being free means that you take your own decisions. For example when you move your hand you don't that you are going to move your hand. You just move it without thinking. This sometimes happens when you have a lot of good reflexes or you just don't have control of your hands. I think this chapter is great and it has a lot of points where debates can be taken because it has a wide variety of ideas.
He gives an example of a captain in a ship and a storm comes. He is trapped and he releases some things from his boat to save his life. Here Savater tries to explain how he did it because of he had too. I have to say that he did it because he wanted to live, he is aware that if he doesn't release the cargo he is going to die. So he did it by his own choice and he wasn't forced.
This is a great point because being free means that you take your own decisions. For example when you move your hand you don't that you are going to move your hand. You just move it without thinking. This sometimes happens when you have a lot of good reflexes or you just don't have control of your hands. I think this chapter is great and it has a lot of points where debates can be taken because it has a wide variety of ideas.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
The Universe
This chapter it's the most interesting I have found. Because it asks the hardest question for a philosopher. What is the universe? This question leads to more questions which makes it even more interesting. For example, if the world is infinite or is it finite because we don't know if it has an end. Then if we don't know if it has an end than we can say it is infinite.
It is very confusing but after you read deeply, you can understand all this statements by the philosophers. There is this story about the elephant with his back to a turtle, and the turtle over a spider and a spider over a lot of rocks. Bertrand Russell says this story in a different and an easier way to understand, he only says that a lot of turtles over more turtles. This story talks about how the universe is over many layers and many layers.
I didn't understand this part, but it is still interesting how you can say our universe is over many layers. I think it is infinite because we will never know if this has an end. So it means that the universe is infinite and that this chapter shouldn't have many confusing questions.
It is very confusing but after you read deeply, you can understand all this statements by the philosophers. There is this story about the elephant with his back to a turtle, and the turtle over a spider and a spider over a lot of rocks. Bertrand Russell says this story in a different and an easier way to understand, he only says that a lot of turtles over more turtles. This story talks about how the universe is over many layers and many layers.
I didn't understand this part, but it is still interesting how you can say our universe is over many layers. I think it is infinite because we will never know if this has an end. So it means that the universe is infinite and that this chapter shouldn't have many confusing questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)