Humane....or not?

"Standing at the stove, it is hard to deny in any meaningful way that this is a living creature experiencing pain and wishing to avoid/escape the painful experience." (Wallace, p. 251)

After our class discussion about the types of humane ways to "prepare" lobsters, their general reactions to being boiled alive and the way we feel we should go about killing the rest of our food, I felt that the question became more of a, "Should we kill?" No matter how many different ways we look at it, killing a lobster is simply that - killing. There is no way to get around this fact, which brings up the question, "Is it humane to kill?"

As a rule of thumb, killing is not accepted in our society. If we kill one another, we earn ourselves a life sentence in prison. So the question comes down to whether animals are also treated as we treat ourselves. If we go by the definition of humane, we find this - "merciful, kind, kindhearted, tender, compassionate, gentle, sympathetic." While I believe having these virtues is an essential component of a human nature, I find that having only those qualities might pose a little difficult to sustain in life. We may try and treat animals in this fashion, but do they show us the same when they have the opportunity or the drive to hunt us? I wonder, did a mountain lion ever ponder whether he would show compassion and kindness to the jogger it stalked for six weeks? I think our higher cognitive levels and intellect give us an advantage over these creatures; however, I do not think we are obligated to override our natural design to kill when we need to eat. We were not created to purely eat grains and vegetables. Would we have been designed with such intellect and capacity if we were merely suppose to be berry-collectors and grazers? I am going to make a outrageous claim and propose that we train and place our morals on fellow carnivores (such as the dog) because they are intelligent and they can outwit us. They are capable of hunting us if they so choose (though we have greatly domesticated them and eliminated/moved most of their wild cousins through our development of the land). If we truly treated animals in a "humane" way, would we be so inclined to domesticate them? Would we still consider ourselves intelligent if we stopped killing (that is, stopped "preparing" what in my mind is meant to be killed) and allowed for ourselves to become lower on the food chain? How would that affect the rest of the animal populations and our anatomical systems?

Lobster Rights

Today in class we talked about Wallace’s Consider the Lobster. I take the position that all sentient beings have innate desires for self-preservation and individual cultivation. By cultivation I mean that beings naturally seek to fulfill their own inner nature, which is the modified telos offered by Glazebrook in her article. Many people have feelings of empathy for lobsters whenever they’re boiled to death and expound alternative ways to deal with killing them that doesn’t resort to this kind of torture. With the exception of PETA members and other animal rights activists, the boiling factor seems to be the only problem for many people who’ve considered the lobster. It’s okay that we take them from their homes, kill them, and eat them. The only issue is the pain they experience in the process. We attempted to zero in on this feeling of empathy to address any moral obligations that it may incite. The class was split on whether we should concern ourselves with this feeling or not. There didn’t seem to be much overall consensus in the end just as Wallace never reached a conclusion in his article. I don’t think that we can reach a decision based on feelings of empathy. There needs to be a more objective reasoned argument to justify the degree to which the lobster’s well-being should be considered.

The most objective realization that I can envision is that lobsters have just as much natural worth as human beings do. They are equal to us in the grand scheme of things and so reason may follow that they deserve the same treatment that we grant ourselves. I admit this is a radical position in the light of modern culture, but I hold that it is the only way to justify any moral obligations. We uphold the rights to life, liberty, health, and (arguably) property for ourselves because they are required in order for us to cultivate our human nature. If we truly cared about the well-being of lobsters, then it would follow that we should concern ourselves with upholding their natural rights of life, liberty, and health. It seems that most empathetic individuals are only concerned with their physical health leading up to their imminent death and consumption. This would be equivalent to us being concerned about other human beings suffering physical pain without caring about them being taken from their homes into captivity or being killed and eaten. The option of developing a second-class code of ethics doesn’t seem as viable. We may infringe upon their natural life and liberty, but why should we draw a line when it comes to their physical pain. What’s the point in being healthy if you are not free to live your life? This line of reason seems to stem more from our impulse to feel pity for other sentient beings than any rational argument.

Another reasoned argument can be formed from my impartial premise that both lobsters and humans are animals and so we should be expected to act according to the law of the jungle. We are naturally predisposed to embrace our superiority over the lobster rather than our equality. It should be noted, though, that superiority can only be established subjectively. We need some sense of ego to establish our place in any hierarchical structure.

The way I see it we seem to have two choices before us. Either we embrace our superiority and treat lobsters as our food or we embrace our natural equality and treat them as free beings. Both seem like logical options to me. The latter seems to be more unbiased and just. Personally, I’m torn between these two options and don’t feel comfortable taking some shady middle ground on the issue. Either I genuinely care about the well-being of other animals beyond how they may serve me or I don’t care. My better reason tells me that I should care, but my natural conditioning tells me not to worry about it.

What does everyone else think? Do lobsters have natural rights? Are the two options presented the only logical ones? What’s the point in decreasing the pain lobsters feel whenever they’re losing their natural liberty and life anyway? How would a second class ethical code work?

Consider the Human

After reading the reader responses to “Consider the Lobster”, one individuals letter (written by William Scheller) made me think about how the article fits into our current focus of study. I found it interesting how he brought up the point that humans are the only meat eating beings on this planet that actually feel bad about killing and eating other animals. He further brings up the point that by feeling this anxiety and distress, we are less like the rest of nature and notes that this seems to separate us from other natural things.

Another point that I thought was interesting was when Wallace described the lobster cooking process, saying that some home cooks find the whole process upsetting and leave the room once the lobster begins thrashing. I find this intriguing because most people I know do not feel this anxiety when they eat a lobster, but haven’t prepared it themselves. This pattern applies to other meat sources; I know that a majority of my friends do not feel grief when eating a hamburger, but if they were asked to kill and butcher a cow, they would be physically and emotionally unable to do so.

Does anyone know why we as humans feel upset when we kill and/or eat other animals? Or why some people feel more anguish than others about this topic(1)? Is there some sort of biological or psychological basis for this? My theory is that humanity’s domestication of animals in ancient times has created a cultural companionship with animals. This has led to an emotional connection to animals that is difficult to sever due to the complex ethical guidelines put in place by our society(2). Furthermore, do you think that this is one of the factors that lead humans to view themselves as separate from nature?


1. This variability of empathy can be seen throughout the reader response page, ranging from high levels of aversion towards killing lobsters (e.g. Maria Cimino) to annoyance that anyone would even care about the lobsters feelings (e.g. Alice Homeyer or Christopher Madsen).
2. Although I am quite possibly wrong; my knowledge of biology, psychology, and anthropology is rather limited. The discomfort caused by killing and eating other animals does seem to be culturally based though since many other countries (in particular 3rd world countries) seem to differ from us in this respect.

Trees

So I basically thought about this for most of class today...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hINnnVQ9Zo

Human-centeredness

I read Val Plumwood. "Paths Beyond Human-Centeredness", some of the most coherent and vivid material I've read lately! Basically, in the intro., the author is sending a clear message that we (human beings) need to stop treating Nature as merely a means to an end. Specifically, Western culture humans are ecologically destructive because we are anthropocentric, or human-centered. We've come to believe ourselves to be a sphere apart from the rest of Nature and ecology in so far as technology, culture, and ethics. I'm thinking that the Enlightenment folks, particularly Francis Bacon, say the opposite. Man can do and understand only so much as he has observed in fact or in thought of the course of Nature and beyond this, he neither knows anything or can do anything. But Aristotle says that Nature and Intellect are in constant interaction and intellect controls cosmic motion. Hmmmm.
So, where is the human beings place in Nature? Are our ethics our means of destruction? Bacon says that human knowledge and power are one and where the cause is not known, the effect cannot be produced. Are we ignorant or indifferent when it comes to our place in Nature? I'm going to agree with the philosophy that "we should imagine and formulate alternate ways to think about ourselves and Nature and to restructure our lives." None of the other components of Nature are intentionally destructive. Indeed, we are seeking a means to an end.

Perception of Beauty

http://www.egodialogues.com/general/violinist-in-metro.php

I suggest reading this ^ first, it's only a couple of paragraphs.

I was using the website Stumbleupon.com recently and this page came up about this social experiment that was done in a Washington D.C metro station. At first I thought it was a joke website that came up but as I continued reading I was really surprised by what I read because I had never heard of this before. It made a lot of sense about our perception of beauty. Reading other peoples comments on the story or experiment added more to the story. Another interesting point I got from this was that children were the ones to stop and listen. It makes me wonder if we are socially taught to keep walking and not pay much attention to what is going on around us. Why do we pay hundreds of dollars to go see him perform in a theater, rant and rave about how wonderful it is then not even recognize the same thing in the streets? We talked mainly about beauty in terms of nature but I feel like this extends our perception of beauty through other means. Along these same lines this makes me think about music in terms of nature. I feel music is almost a natural occurring thing, especially because music has been around for what to me seems like forever. I was really surprised when I just looked up the dictionary definition of the word music on the dictionary on my computer. The definition I got was "the art or science of combining vocal or/and instrumental sound to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion." The fact that the beauty of form was used to define the word music was interesting to me.

Genetically Modified Potatoes

When picking up a french fry at a McDonalds, I can’t help but wonder if what I am about to consume is actually a potato, or rather a natural potato. It looks like a potato, tastes like one; if I wasn’t told that it was genetically modified, I would never be able to tell. Just like the tomato, if I was never informed that they were genetically modified to look more appealing and red, I would have thought they grew like that on their own. However, the fact that the government can label a certain potato as a pesticide, yet still allow it to be sold as food is truly unsettling. These genetic engineering, monoculture, factory farms that the country has grown dependent on has began to have detrimental effects on nature and the human population. The link between genetically modified foods and early puberty has been made, as well as an increase rate in cancer and food poisoning epidemics. In the environment, monocultures have caused a decrease in pollinators, specifically bees, and agriculture pollution. With all these negative and unpredicted effects, why then does the general population and the government continue allow this instead of finding alternative methods. Granted it is much easier to opt for the vegetable that may cause health risks down the road but happens to be significantly cheaper than the organic version (especially now when money is tight). Also, for the government to veer away from the genetic engineering, pesticides, and monocultures, it’s like walking away from a highly expensive and growing industry.
If today’s technology is advanced enough to create a potato that produces its own pesticide, shouldn’t we be able to find an alternative to monocultures altogether? It’s a fact that monocultures breed resistance to pesticides, that is why scientists came up with the new leaf potato; but if the Colorado beetle evolved to become immune to the original pesticides, could it not just become immune to the new pesticides produced within the potato? I guess that is where this expensive industry comes in and performs the process over again by creating a new type of new leaf potato.

Is the War on Drugs Necessary?

Back when we were reading “The Botany of Desire”, Michael Pollan introduced the topic of drugs, specifically cannabis. He began by discussing why plants produce these intoxicating compounds and then talked about the history of marijuana. He also noted how the marijuana plant has evolved to become larger, more resilient and more potent after the advent of the anti-drug campaign. What I’m still confused about is how exactly did this “war ignite and what is the reasoning behind it? In my opinion, the war against drugs seems as futile as the claim that global warming does not exist. Cannabis is not only deeply rooted in religion but countless influential people such as Aldous Huxley, artists like Salvador Dali, infinite musicians as well as many politicians. Compared to alcohol which is linked to violence and sexual assaults, marijuana has no direct correlation to violent acts. There are no valid scientific studies that it’s more detrimental to a person’s health than is alcohol. Also, a huge amount of tax money is poured into government media that targets marijuana, yet studies show that 3 in 4 people feel that the war on drugs has failed.
With all these facts that seem to nullify this taboo and undermine the campaign against drugs, why does this negative connotation still exist? Maybe it is the omnipresent fear of the unfamiliar but marijuana gives a new and different perspective on the world and life in general. This different way of thinking should be celebrated and taken advantage of because who wants to go through life with the same views (that can lead to ignorance). Marijuana doesn’t have a to be a gateway to harmful drugs, but a gateway to new creative and original ways of thinking that could potentially make great improvements in society as opposed to hindering it.

Link between Function and Form

As a landscape architecture major, we are taught always to look at the purpose a space serves or find the potential reason for the space. The area outside an office building should not only serve as an entry way, but it should be accommodating for people to gather. A space’s purpose can set the mood or intention of the space. According to Plato in the “Phaedo” and the “Timaeus”, all these spaces would have to be designed, since technically nothing exists without being designed. However, Aristotle refutes this theory, stating that not every final cause involves a designer. An example would be a mutated moth that is grey as opposed to white, thus gaining the advantage of being camouflaged and causing the moth population as a whole to evolve into a grey color. The new moth was not designed but because the mutation benefited the population, later generation adopted it.
This all can be related to landscape architecture in the way that the field itself is revolved around the concept of both design and nature, form and function. It bridges the gap between the two concepts. Landscape Architects use elements of nature (trees, flowers, shrubs, grass, etc) to create a design. These elements that are the basis are often times themselves not designed (similar to the moth). When a landscape architect utilizes these elements, he can never be sure of the outcome because its unpredictable how the branches of the tree will grow or how many flowers will bloom. This is where a final cause looses its design aspect and nature takes over. With landscape architecture, a great deal involves function but form certainly cannot be overlooked. I think the line between form and function become blurred in this profession since there is no specific order in which function or form comes first rather it’s constantly taking into consideration the two ideas simultaneously.

What is natural?

Awhile ago, we had an interesting discussion on what constituted as natural and unnatural processes. Towards the end of class, it appeared that almost everyone had agreed upon the idea that all things are natural since they came into existence via direct or indirect, natural influences. But is this indeed the case? Should I really consider my high-tech cell phone a product of the natural environment even though it did not grow on a tree? There appears to be a disconnect here that would benefit from further debate.
The biggest challenge with differentiating between natural and unnatural entities, is with defining them. Once we determine what is indeed natural, we can thus identify things that are unnatural. Although we are of nature and engage in behaviors that are natural to ourselves, many of the products that have been produced as a result of this are not natural. For instance, I can never consider my clothing natural. Regardless of the materials used to produce them, they are still things that were constructed via unnatural processes.
My burnt orange backpack will cease to exist once the manufacturers end its production. This will not be caused by seasonal temperature changes or turmoil inflicted upon the environment. It will a result of supply and demand; one of mankind’s modes of power. Once this backpack is deemed “out of style,” it will become old news and cease to exist. Unlike a ripe apple from a nearby tree, this product will not decompose to produce new backpacks. It will simply be placed amongst other manmade, waste products in landfills.

Contradictory Pairs

When Aristotle first spoke of contradictions in his book, he broke them down into two categories: simple and complex oppositions. These oppositions were defined as things that do not influence or define one another. They are apparently so extreme that they do not intertwine at any given point. Although such relationships are prevalent, I do not believe this definition work for all contradictory pairs.
When we speak of the oppositional colors black and white, there is no doubt that these colors are opposite. While the absence of color observed in white still manages to elude brightness, the darkness of black conceals it. These colors are as opposite in sight as they are in definition. When mixed with another color, black and white cannot produce one another. Consequently, the only similarity that they share is their categorization as colors.
The contradictory pair educated and uneducated have a slightly different relationship. While the people who fall within these categories share a knowledge gap within a specific domain, it is easier for them to move between categories. For example, a person who never studied French can become more familiar with the language after taking an introductory French course. Although this person may not be proficient in the language after completing this course, their limited education has granted them some knowledge on the subject. Therefore, this once uneducated person has moved closer to becoming educated.
This transition can also be observed in educated people who gradually lose their knowledge of a specific domain. Many factors can cause this, but a lost of knowledge still renders an uneducated mind. Such a relationship may be difficult to predict in the oppositional colors since their mixture with other colors do not necessarily mean that they come closer to resembling their opposite.

Deism

In class we talked about Deism for a little. The idea that the world is this clock set in motion by a certain deity and runs completely on its own, with the deity being no longer present. I see a problem here. In my previous post I described nature as something that always does things for benefit. All the animals do whatever they can to benefit themselves. Humans are one exception doing things that can also benefit others, such as caring for the endangered species for example. If this deity that created the "clock" is real then what would be the benefit of creating it if that deity removes itself from the the said "clock," instead merely setting it in motion? And since nature had to come from somewhere, in this case the deity, then would not that deity also have to belong to the concept of nature? So then if there is no benefit for the deity in creating this world then why would the world exist. Christianity for example portrays people as a sort of manifestation of god himself.  There is benefit for the god in that.  Deism gives no connection between god and the actual creation. For something to work there needs to be a process of parts that work in a relationship to each other. As in Aristotles relationship between the mover, the moved and that in which something is moved. In that way Aristotles theories and Deism are different. Does there need to be a working relationship between the deity and the world? What do you think? 

A society hindered?

In The Botany of Desire, on the chapter regarding Marijuana it was said that "cultures tend to be more wary of these plants, and for a good reason: they pose a threat to the smooth workings of the social order"--a statement that is incredibly subjective. To begin with, who determines what deems a social order as a smooth working model? The social order is intricate; interlaced with people all embodying different ideals and preconceived notions on things--to make it universal, and fit it with a standard would be to ignore the uniqueness of it, and consequently disregard our basic freedoms of thought. Fitting marijuana with the label of "bad" or "unproductive" is to label it preemptively and deem it unworthy of a society that functions to our liking. Such preemptive measures are limiting, and in my opinion restrict us mentally. Those who label marijuana as destructive and confining are actually limiting themselves in the process. While by no means am I telling people to smoke marijuana, but I am telling people to broaden their horizons mentally. Judging a group of people, and predetermining their productivity based on the use of a recreational drug is no better than ruling out theories before testing them. Marijuana just suits a different demographic of people, but that doesn't mean that those people are any less worthy of a "working societal" model than those who chose not to engage with drugs. I feel like the moment we think we can decide who belongs in a society, and who doesn’t, we become the monsters we are so worried drugs will transform us into.

Motion for the motionless

In chapter six, Aristotle claimed that "since there must always be motion and not be any gaps, there must be something everlasting that originates motion, whether it is one thing or more than one; and the first mover is motionless"--a statement that closely ties in with the idea I spoke of in my last post: something much larger than us, predetermining the overall flow of life. I find this idea of a higher power hard to overlook, and even harder to accept as a guiding force in the motion of our lives. If we are to accept the idea that even when we are still, some greater motion is the force guiding us, we accept--essentially--a god. We can rip the label off, and name is something cleverly post-modern, but the idea persists; we are accepting something outside of our means as an omniscient force that knows more than we. While I'm not trying to bash god, or belittle religious individuals, I am trying to say I think to genuinely denounce something bigger than us that knows better, is to find your way in the purest sense. Without the false pretense of something that will work out everything in the end, you are forced to engage--rather crudely--with the everyday, the here and the now. I feel like people too often chalk up hardships to the end result of getting through it, that they too often fail to engage with the present. Aristotle's idea of endless perpetual motion helps ignore the present struggle, and overlook the awareness needed to proceed.

Spring Break

Hey, just wanted to say everyone have a safe and relaxing spring break. Hope everyone gets home or where ever else they are going all right. Enjoy a well deserved relaxing spring break!

-Matt

Human Control

Since the beginning of our species, humans have been adapting and evolving into increasingly advanced creatures according to Darwin and the Theory of Evolution. Sometime between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago is approximately considered to be when we originated and the human species and civilization as we know it is not said till have begun until sometime around 10,000 years ago. This period was considered the Neolithic Revolution. Starting off just a small distance from apes, we have certainly become quite the super-species in just a short amount of time in the grand scheme of the universe. This makes me wonder about the extent to which we will continue to advance. Technically, we could go on advancing indefinitely to a level that is hard to even fathom. Since our beginning, our control we have had over our environment and nature has continued to increase. That is what has slowly separated us from other animals. It started with just our use of simple natural objects like rocks as tools. Toolmaking by our species has now become very innovated. Our demonstration of our control is also shown by our domestication of several types of animals, such as dogs and cats. This control of nature and other species is what has allowed us to expand our population to an unprecedented number, at least in the history of the earth. If we continue to advance at this rate, I am very interested how far this control will extend. Is it destiny that in the end, we will have complete control over nature, and all of its contingencies, or will it eventually claim us?

Potatoes FDA

Michael Pollan wrote about the potato and how new leaf potatoes are not considered a food by the FDA, instead a pesticide.  Does this bother anyone else?  I find from this that we as humans not only ignore nature for money we are also ignoring ourselves more to gain some extra profit.  Maybe this is just the United States.  Maybe these are not so harmful to us and it does not matter much anyways, but the idea that these new genetically engineered potatoes are not considered a food by our own government, when we clearly use them as a food, really throws me for a loop.  I am glad that I personally do not eat a lot of fast food.

We as humans are the only species to change the food we eat so that we benefit, as far as I know.  Is this wrong to change these plants or is it is something they are happy about, because they prosper from it?  I only find it wrong when we are harming the outside world.  Does the potato really care if we stop using it?  Would a potato even consider a new leaf potato a potato at all?  Will the potato adapt itself to appeal more to us now that is not being used as much, or does it not care because other animals are still eating it.  Maybe it does not care because it cannot, maybe it has no plan, maybe it has no feelings that it makes decisions on.

Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within

Has anyone ever seen the movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within.  This is a computer-animated movie that takes place in the future.  Something crashes landed on our planet and bunch of people die, but they cannot figure out how.  People now live in protected domes that conceal the cities.  Anyway the whole movie dealt with the soul and spirit within things.  The concept was that each planet had a soul and humans as well as everything else was all connected to it.  The soul of the earth was supposedly dying, and it was the main characters mission to save the planet by collecting 8 spirits and when combined get rid of alien spirits.

I found this movie interesting; it draws a lot of connections between nature and how we all work off of one spirit.  For the most part I do not believe a lot of what was presented in this movie, but do not deny the possibility of an overarching spirit connecting everything.  I guess from a religious perspective, you would label this spirit as god.  Maybe we are all connected in some spiritual way beyond just scientific connection, such as the cycles of nature and how we fit into it.  If there is this spirit connecting everything on this planet would we be more concerned about our species disrupting it.  If god is this strong connection and cares about mankind as well as all other living things are we all doomed anyways?  Anyone else have some insight they can lend me?

Unmover Mover Outdated?

When digging into the writings of Aristotle, I often wonder if they may be a little outdated. At the time he was developing his theories, there was much less known in the world of physics, and the research capabilities we have today did not exist. Aristotle's basis for the unmoved mover was that a body would remain at rest unless acted on by an outside force, but modern discoveries have proven this untrue. One example cited from Physicist Michio Kaku's book Hyperspace, easily dismisses the argument that objects in motion must be moved by another object. An example he states is that gas molecules may bounce against the walls of a container without requiring anyone or anything to get to get them moving. The movement of these molecules has no definite beginning or end and may be infinite. If this disproves the original reasoning that Aristotle's ideas were founded on, it makes me think that maybe some of his other texts are out of date as well. I am not sure, but this may be the reason I have trouble grasping alot of his concepts, and in general, found Pollan's views to be more easily understood. I am not sure if my criticism of the unmoved mover is exactly right or not, because I don't know if the moving gas molecules are actually acting on something else, causing a chain of motion because I don't know that much about physics. I am interested to see what other people think about this issue. Do you feel that some of Aristotle's books may be outdated, and after the recent discoveries in modern science, some of his reasoning is no longer correct?

Nature is always changing... or is it?

Aristotle tries to differentiate between whether nature is at rest (static) or always changing (dynamic). My question is, couldn't it be both?
Nature is the beginning of all existence as we know it. There has never been life without nature. If nature has always been there, then how would we know if it has ever been different of if it's always been the way that it is now?
Nature is always changing in small ways, but couldn't it be going through cycles that just repeat themselves, and therefor make nature constant?

Form follows function with respect to Architecture

This is a continuation of form follows function, but taking an architecture perspective to it. I feel that there is no question that form should follow function, what other way should it be. If form did not follow function then what would be the point. Adding something to the form that serves no purpose functional I feel is a waste of time and money.

However, I think it is only to a certain degree that form should follow function; many architects have taken it to far in my opinion. For instance, when you make a hot dog stand look like a hot dog or a Chinese restaurant look like a take out container, I feel that this is a poor relationship between the two. You are just creating an aesthetic look that has a symbolic relationship to the purpose of the building, purely an aesthetic gimmick. A restaurant needs certain things like a kitchen, dinning area, an entrance, maybe a bar, designing around these items can be form follows function, from more of a scientific approach I guess, what does the restaurant want to be?

When we are talking about form follows function in relation to designing a home that works with its surroundings, for example with more glass on the southern facade, this is the realm I find extremely interesting and important. Here you are letting the function of the home do something that helps the home perform not just look appealing. To add to the design of the building, it would need a way to block the summer sun to keep the home cool; this could be done with surrounding vegetation or a shading device of some kind. This could be expressed to show the form and how it will function. I find this beauty and not a gimmick.

Dreams

It is a proven fact that young children are more likely to have nightmares then adults. The basis of these dreams usually revolves around a monster-like creature that is trying to get them. When surveyed, the monster is usually said to have feline features, such as claws and fangs. Along with that, boys and girls have different versions of this. The dreams of young girls tend to have the monster, or general fear coming from underneath. Boys however perceive the fear to be behind them, or around them. Research has shown that back in day when we were still more monkey-like then we are now, we slept in trees. The females usually slept in the actual tree while males slept at the base, usually guarding the females. Further analysis shows that the dreams are essentially leftover instincts from the prehistoric days. This explains why most child created monsters have fangs and such, because these were the types of animals that hunted us. This explains why generally girls are more inclined to fear the “monster” under the bed, and boys are more afraid of what is in the closet. When I learned about this I realized how through everything that we do to separate ourselves from “nature”, there still so much left in us, that manifests itself in interesting ways. It is phenomena like this that reinforce the notion that we are indeed a part of nature, and that many of our instincts come from it, no matter how removed we are from the natural world.

Infinity and Our Universe

A concept which has always fascinated me throughout life is the meaning of the word “infinity”. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines it as “an unlimited extent of time, space, or quantity”. What does this actually mean? As humans we cannot comprehend the idea of something not having a beginning or end, not in nature, not even in our imagination. There is nothing on this planet that gives us an idea or shows what “infinity” really is. So why come up with a word for a term that clearly does not exist in our world? Or does it? Although I, a human being cannot grasp this idea of the infinite, I can see how everything on this planet and in our universe can be interrelated. I somewhat get a feeling that maybe everything in existence shares an essence or energy which has no time, has no gain and no loss it’s just “existence”. We came to the conclusion in class that “nature” somewhat related to some kind of order that is found everywhere in this universe. But what if this universe seized to exist? Would nature still be present? Does nature exceed this universe? I guess what I’m trying to find out is if; do we live in an infinite existence which is immeasurable and boundless in every form? Or is everything in existence finite? The reason this question is so important; is that, if we live in a infinite existence there is little meaning or purpose for our lives and we are merely part of a greater system which is essentially one constant being. However, if our existence is finite, this gives hope that there is some goal or purpose to our life that might someday be achieved. I know this is a confusing concept and I apologize I left you baffled but please take a second to think about this idea and leave any comments on this topic.

Connecting the Circle

I’ve been considering connections between The Botany of Desire and Aristotle’s Physics as well as many of the good ideas brought up by other students in class. In Pollan’s book, the potato is used to demonstrate humankind’s desire for control. The New Leaf is a good example of our attempts to manipulate nature to our will. It has many benefits in the short term, like insect immunity and bigger harvests, but the long terms effects of such a product on the natural balance of the environment are potentially more damaging and costly. History has demonstrated over and again that our egotistic mingling blinds our foresight. We often run into unforeseen consequences as a result of our desire for control, such as global warming, ozone depletion, pollution, poverty, and war. We haven’t fully grasped the circular flow of nature nor our place within it.

The climax of Aristotle’s physical philosophy is a breakthrough into a metaphysical framework. He places the intellect of humankind in relation to the change and motion of nature. He formulates a circular explanation for natural events. Matter arises into a particular form, the form changes through time and moves through space, and then breaks back down into a baser form of matter to be recycled. His metaphysics are centered on the intellect as it passively observed nature around it. Aristotle’s explanations lend themselves to the Enlightenment when many believed that science was a passive observation of nature rather than an integrated part of it. I’ll have to study the Enlightenment more before I can expand on the effects of a passive intellect.

Thanks to breakthroughs in modern quantum mechanics, we now know that we are not separated from nature and there is no such thing as passive observation. All our observations have a finite amount of physical interaction with the system we’re measuring with our senses. Some films have been made, like The Secret and What the Bleep?!, which propose that quantum physics has revealed that consciousness is the foundation of all being and that we create our own reality. To the contrary, all science and philosophy dedicated to quantum theory over the past 30 years have made advances in mechanistic explanations of the subatomic realm as well. What this does mean is that we are intrinsically connected to our environment through our material systems and our actions should be closely informed by that knowledge. We should humble ourselves before the natural universe.

My questions to the class are: Do you agree with these connections? Have you noticed any others? Has anyone seen The Secret or What the Bleep!? and would like to defend those positions?

Sex Analogy and Nature's Control

After reading Morgan Brown's post about the analogy between sex and nature's control, I decided I wanted to write a more in depth response. The action of having sex leads to the creation of a child, and nature controls the biological process of the child actually being created. It is true that human's experience uncontrolled chemical reactions, creating desire and etc by instinct. However, I do believe we as humans have the ability to initiate these chemical reactions in others by our actions and behaviors, and it is not completely up to nature, and chance. Humans are instinctively a tribal species. By aligning ourselves with others, it increases our chances of surviving, and replicating, the two ultimate goals of life. Thus, it is not a surprise that when selecting a potential mate, we look for someone with a high survival and replication value. Males tend to have the highest survival values, and females, the highest replication value. As humans, we have the ability to live our lives in ways that portray us as having high S and R values, or low S and R's. The path we choose to take is by choice, which acts as an example for the control we have over nature, and the natural process of reproduction. I think this demonstrates that we are not just pawns in a game nature is playing. I also would argue this shows why we are considered the dominate species. We have a control over something in ways no other animals do, making us superior?

The ABCs of God, Nature, and Humans

This makes me wonder also about the concept we brought up in class of A,B, and C. In the principle of nature and humans, are they A, B, or C. Since nature and humans are both moving, then neither of them can be A, the unmoved mover. So lets call the unmoved mover God, or a higher being. Then is humans B or nature B? In some circumstances I think we could argues that humans are B. For example, God (A) "moves" a human to plant a tree, and therefore the human (B), has changed nature (C). But in other circumstances, we could argue that nature is B and humans are the C. For example, God (A), “moves” nature (B) to be very nice (perfect weather), and so humans (C) go outside and enjoy the weather.

I think that the latter is probably easier to believe. Nature is a bigger “being” than humans, and so therefore, I think it seems more plausible that nature has more power over humans, and therefore is prone to change humans more that humans are prone to change nature.

Until recently (the last hundred years ago), I think that the above statement was probably true. Now though, humans have a power over nature. Now, we have a power to decide which species will stay intact or not, and where we will let nature run its natural courses (state parks, reserves, etc).

But one could argue that nature still has power over humans because of examples like natural disasters and invasive species. The line is blurred now.
I guess the question I am asking is, Which do u think has more power over who?; Nature over Humans? Or humans over nature?

Do you think that maybe this could just be another circular pattern of motion, where one day nature will again have control over humans?

A Moving Compass

As Aristotle talked about the middle point of a circle being in constant motion but not at all and that this point is the key to all motion while not moving, it reminded me of the poem A Valediction Forbidding Mourning by John Donne. In his poem, Donne contemplates,

“If they be two, they are two so
As stiff twin compasses are two;
Thy soul, the fix’d foot, makes no show
To move, but doth, if th’ other do.”*

Donne uses the idea of a compass to talk about his relationships; but more importantly, it illustrates the idea that if the center of the compass did not rotate, then the outside line would never be drawn. Though it makes no big show of moving, it still glides in the smallest circle while the larger arc is being formed on the outside. If this center piece does indeed move, as Donne and Aristotle suggest, then is the inside really moving the outside? A moving interior would mean that though it seems like one point, it is simply that we cannot see the degree of the circle because it is so small. If this is the case, then who is really moving who? Is the outside arm a distractive motion that masks the movement of the interior point? What would happen if they somehow found themselves unconnected? In order to move, they both have to be together; though they can “rest” without one another. In our view of nature, is it possible for us to move without the other? If humans “rest”, does nature experience a “rest” as well?

*Donne, John. Poems of John Donne. Vol I. E. K. Chambers, ed. London, Lawrence & Bullen, 1896. 51-52.

Leaving and Coming

We discussed in class how an object can be leaving a certain point but ultimately, it is also getting closer to that point the more distant it gets. Josh gave an example of an object leaving point A on a circle and, in moving further from point A, it was becoming closer to coming back to point A. As we have progressed in this class, I feel like we began with looking at how humans impact nature. We’ll call that point A. After a month or so into the course, I feel like we have digressed and moved further and further from our goal of finding out how we interact with nature and how we can be better stewards of the environment. We have moved from a direct connection with nature, such as our discussion related to Pollan’s apple and potato analogies, to a more convoluted and conceptual dig into Aristotle’s theories of motion. However, if the point that Aristotle is making is accurate, then in searching and moving further from our topic of interest, we should be gaining ground in coming back around to find the answers for which we originally began searching. However, this idea that we begin where we left off is somewhat frustrating to me, knowing that perhaps we will leave this class without having any more of an understanding of how we view nature and our relationship with it. I wonder if it is okay to talk in circles, without deriving meaning and simply allowing our understanding to wander this way and that until we ultimately come back to the same place? Has the journey changed our views, or are we simply back in the space we began, at point A?

Circle of Life

In Thursday's class we talked about the motions of change, which were either linear or cyclical.  In the cyclical sense of discussion we talked about how you are always going back to where you started without diverging.  We have always heard the circle of life meaning that we know that we will live and then ultimately die, which happens to the population as a whole but, on an individual level could we consider our existences as being cyclical or close to linear?

At first I was viewing life as if we had 'asymptotes', where we started low at birth and then slowly climbed till death were someone else(after the asymptote) would continue our lives.  This to me makes sense on an individual level because after death we are just nothing in the physical form. Then my question would be if this was the case what happens to the soul? Does it live on or does it cease as we do?  When I was almost certain that life contained a infinite number of asymptotes, the thought of reincarnation started to sway me towards the idea, on an individual basis, of the cyclical life.  You die but your soul cares on in another form.  This gives us the circular motions of life that Aristotle was talking about.  

On an individual basis, would the idea of life be cyclical or linear?  Reincarnations? or Linear with asymptotes?

Filter Evolution

 

Pollan, in his book “The Botany of Desire”, at one point states that drugs, “work by subtracting some of the filters that consciousness normally interposes between us and the world.”  He sees drugs as a tool used to somehow make our world more simple.  They do not alter reality, they only alter our perception of reality.  It is as if a video contained a black censor bar covering the naked breasts of a woman.  If the bars were removed, a viewer would perceive the image in very different way, even though the action of the video remained entirely the same.   The viewer may be moved to different feelings or emotions just as a user may feel or act differently after consuming a drug.

Over time, it seems as though a species evolves to filter certain aspects of the world so that every individual perceives reality as being the same.  In this way, the members of the species can better interact with and relate to one another.  Sure, there may be minor changes in perception from being to being, stemming from problems like blurred vision or muffled hearing, but overall their perceptions are almost identical.  I believe it is the desire to exist, even for a moment, in a world different from the common one we know that drives people to experiment with drugs.

How many times have you looked up at a bird and wished you were it, flying high above the ground?  If someone told you that you could exist as a dog for an hour would you do it? What if there was a drug that made us unable to see color and interpret language?  What if this drug transported us into a dog reality?  Would this be any less a reality than the one we know?  What if we were able to remove all the filters?  What would reality be like then?

Soul Energy

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.  Energy can be changed but it cannot enter or exit existence.  Energy can also be stored.  An object can contain energy due to its position or possibly its chemical makeup.  Not only this, energy can be transferred from one object to another.   This is a generally accepted idea.

                The body and mind are thought to be linked, working together to meet the common goal of an overall being.  We think and we then act.  We eat, breath, and sleep by way of transforming different types of energy.  We are all born with an innate desire to survive, our will to live.  Some may refer to this as our soul.   Who’s to say then that the soul isn’t simply another form of energy, one that cannot yet be measured or calculated.

                Seeing as no one so far, in the history of the Earth, has been able to prove or disprove the existence of an afterlife, those who believe can only attempt to increase their chances of reaching such a place.  Why is it then that we preserve our dead, embalming them and burying them in coffins or storing them in tombs?  I believe that if the body and mind are linked, and that energy can be transferred, that one’s body should simply be thrown in the ground and allowed to decay.  In this way energy (and potentially the soul) could be recycled and used to benefit other organisms and the Earth as a whole.

Our Chances

It is stated in Aristotle’s Physics that, “There are some who make chance responsible for this cosmos and all worlds.”  This idea seems to say that chance is the ultimate truth, that there was the possibility that either nothing would exist or everything that does exist would.  It is our fortune then that this Earth and all are present, for had chance tipped the other way, there would simply be a void.  Since it so happened that chance resulted in our universe, the trend must continue.  Chance must spawn more chance.  It is only by chance then that any action, event, or occurrence happens.  Everything and anything can be traced back to chance.

                If I were to strike and light a match, it would only be by chance that I managed to produce a flame.  It is only by chance that I thought of lighting a match and not instead to go swimming.  It is only by chance that I acquired the match and wasn’t run over before ever having reached the store.  It is only by chance that the match stick didn’t break as I struck it.  All of these things can be traced to more chance too.  Humans, as well as plants and animals, have learned to influence chance in our favor though.  Every decision we make is the split-second involuntary calculation of chance.

                What happens then when we cannot calculate chance so that we are at an advantage?  What forces are at play when there are an ace and a king face down in front of you and you are asked to pick the ace?  Is it by fortune then that you pick right?  Is it possible for certain individuals to be more predisposed to good fortune?  Can they be lucky?

The ABC's of Motion

One of the very interesting and complex aspects of nature that Aristotle talked about in his text was the three parts of motion. As we had tried to decipher this in class through the use of the ABC method, we learned quickly that it is seemingly more complex than meets the eye. As class conversed, we deemed A as being the mover, B as being that which causes the motion and C, the moved. One example we played around at was that of hunger. I thought this was interesting but tried to expand the idea further. One can apply this concept to a lot of everyday examples. One such example is that of survival of an organism, for arguments sake while under attack. The mover in this situation would be the intent of survival and self preservation. As this is a manifestation of thought, nothing would seem to move. The thing that causes the motion would be the body. The body is a medium for which the information travels and which is directed to the appropriate parts of the body. These messages transferred through this medium cause’s motion of the specific parts of the body, in this example for either self defense, or the act of fleeing. I can see where Aristotle is going with his ideas, as complicated as they seem. If one were to analyze situations, one can pick out the individual aspects of moving. So, Aristotle has some method to his madness, one might say.

Independent Things

Aristotle makes a claim that animals and plants are independent things, but the parts that make them up - bones, blood, leaves - are not because they don't have an inner source of motion. I'm not sure I fully agree with this. The individual parts of these "independent things" have their own inner networks and change frequently, just as the animals and plants that they're a part of do. New blood cells are constantly being created and old cells are constantly dying. Is this not an inner source of motion?

Even beyond the cell level, atomically we could speculate that atoms have a sort of network that we may not fully understand yet. Up until relatively recently, we didn't even know that they existed. Ruling out these things as "independent" doesn't really make any sense to me.

One could make the argument that since they rely on the plant or animal they exist in, they cannot be independent. But all of these plants and animals depend on each other for survival, as well as the planet we all live on. How can they be considered independent? Couldn't they be a part of a larger "independent" being that we just haven't discovered yet?

Sophie's World

I read a book about 5 years ago, Sophie's World by Jostein Gaarder. It touts itself as a "novel on the history of philosophy" and is really one of the most interesting and mind-boggling books I have ever read. It's basically a series of philosophy lessons on some of the most well known philosophers in history, disguised as a 'young adult' semi-fictional mystery novel. Aristotle is included in the story, and his views are well-explained and simplified as a great introduction to his ideas. I don't have a copy with me, but I did find a summary of the section on Aristotle pertaining to our class discussion today. It reads as follows:

Aristotle believed in different types of 'causality' one of which was "final" cause, the purpose that he assigned to everything in nature. For example, it rains "because plants and animals need rainwater in order to grow." He attempted to categorize nature and also founded logic. Aristotle sees man at the top of nature followed by animals and then plants, and God to him is the force that set the stars in motion.

I particularly liked the rainwater example, as it is completely understandable, if maybe a bit skewed. We've been having so much trouble in class recently understanding how different examples, especially concerning individuals, fit into the idea of 'A,B,C', final cause vs. source, change/motion/rest, etc. It was refreshing to see such a clear-cut analogy pertaining to Aristotle's ideas. Also, viewing the 'Prime Mover' (the unmoved mover) from Aristotle's perspective of that as 'God' greatly helped me understand the misunderstandings we had in class on Tuesday. It was much easier for me to grasp something that could cause change without changing and to move without moving when considering it an almighty power that controls everything. Although I don't believe in any God, the A,B,C concept is much clearer to me using these constructs.

As an aside, I highly recommend this book to anyone in this class, whether they understand our recent readings or not. Although marked as 'young adult' it was a relatively in-depth philosophical history, and one that I think anyone with an interest in the subject would find fascinating.

Moved or Changed?

In today’s class one thing that caught my attention was when Josh talked about the spear on the end of an arrow. In one aspect, it is moving but on the hand its position is not. How can that be described? Just yesterday I was watching “Important Things with Demetri Martin” on Comedy Central for the first time and his important thing was chairs. He was going on about how we sit for relaxation but also sit to work. How we sit and don’t go anywhere but we also sit to go places, in cars and planes. I feel like that goes along with the “is it moved?” idea. On one side, I feel the object or person would be changed because they are going somewhere different but at the same time, I am still the same person after I get out of a car. I don’t think Demetri had Aristole in mind when he was coming up with his jokes but it boggled my mind when he talked sitting on an airplane and the same thoughts came into my head in class today.
Even though we might not be changed in a way that shows on the outside I do feel that every second we are alive something changes about us. I feel we, as humans, are constantly changing. I don’t know anything that at some point wouldn’t change. Time changes things. I can change the way I think about something, so in my mind I’m adding some sort of change to the object. I have a hard time understanding Aristotle but I’m beginning to notice things in my life that can relate on some level to what I read or we discuss in class.
I have noticed myself thinking about movement in a lot of different ways since it has been a major topic in class. On Tuesday I feel we were mainly talking about physically movement, movement of our body or an object. In my mind I kept thinking about how something could “move” you as a whole. Like reading a certain book or seeing something dramatic happen in life could really move you emotionally or mentally. Throughout this I realized I have used “moved” and “changed” kind of interchangeably, but I do feel that on specific terms they can be.

Spirals?

Today in class we talked a lot about circles of motion. This is an idea of Aristotle's that says some things change in a continuous, circular cycle, rather than a linear cycle. While we were discussing this, I started thinking about this theory I learned about in a movie, Pi. The movie is about a man who spends his time researching the number pi. He believes that everything in nature can be understood through numbers, and that if you graph the numbers properly patterns will emerge. His theory, along with other researchers, has to do with the fact that the circular, pi spiral is found frequently in nature. Some argue that it can be found almost anywhere. Some places the spiral occurs are in the Nautilus Shell, Ram's horns, milk in coffee, the face of a Sunflower, your fingerprints, our DNA, and the shape of the Milky Way.
This movie goes on to try and find the pattern in the number pi, which he believes will lead him to patterns in nature. He spends the majority of his life trying to find this pattern.
Does anybody feel as though these spirals may link us to every other thing in the world? Or at least, other things that have spirals? The patterns may pose a connection that we share with everything - all is one?

Life Is A Bunch Of Cycles

Aristotle has an interesting and seemingly abstract way of viewing motion. He proposes that motion is circular in that the beginning of something will become the end, which in turn would signify a new beginning. As we know this cycle would continue on indefinitely. Motion being circular does seem to make sense if you were to look at it in a broad sense of view.
When Aristotle is observing the laws governing motion, it seems he is trying to explain the underlying principles of motion, not specific individual parts of motion. So if we were to examine a form of motion such as life, we would be able to perceive circular motion as the thing governing the motion. If we were to focus inward, we would discover linear aspects that belong to this circular arrangement. Let me clarify this, life is circular as in something is born/given life. It then goes through the span of its life and dies, after death the organism decays, releasing its life giving properties back into nature. Out of the life giving nutrients comes another organism. This is a cyclic happening, when one looks at the underlying law of motion to life it is cyclic or circular. One has to look away from the specific and focus on the bigger picture in order to find out want Aristotle is saying.
If one to look at this from a scientific example, it might become clearer. One of the fundamental laws of science is the conservation of energy. It states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, and that all energy in the universe constantly in being stored and released by a variety of different objects/organisms. The usage of energy might seem to be a linear relationship, like if one is using an ipod and the battery decreases to a zero value. Although it would seem that your ipod’s energy just has gone through a linear form of motion (battery supplying energy to ipod, which in turn drains the battery) the underlying law the motion of the energy shows that if one were to examine the entire situation from outside the context of your ipod playing music, you would find that the energy of the entire system has been conserved and that energy has just been transferred into different forms.
One can ramble on showing various examples of how a philosopher who live long ago stumbled upon a amazing concept. One would just have to analyze occurrence from a broader perspective to understand the governing motion.

I See Circles

I started thinking about this idea of everything being circular instead of linear and started thinking of examples to try and decide which one seemed more logical. The conclusion I have drawn is circular seems more logical as it seems to appear more often. Also anything that seems to be linear could be viewed as simply a small segment of a circle where the curve cannot be seen (as mentioned at the end of class). Examples of this circular motion I have come up with include: life and death, day and night, the seasons, and the rotation of Earth (obviously) just to name a few. Larger circles are also present and without the presence of a lot of research would appear linear such as global warming and freezing. If it wasn’t for the fact scientists have concluded the Earth has gone through several ice ages followed by periods of warming, the warming of Earth now would appear linear. The Earth’s magnetic poles also seem to follow a circular pattern as evidence indicates the poles have switched several times through the course of time (some believe this switch may once again occur in 2012). If this circular pattern is the ultimate truth does this mean the entire universe is following this pattern and will ultimately result in its destruction and reformation? I view this as a stretch since my perception would put the universe on a linear path but this is mostly because we don’t have any information to support such a theory, or do we. Black holes viewed in high power telescopes are simply the end of the life cycle of a star, this indicates to me that this circular motion applies to any and everything no matter the size. Instead it’s just a matter of whether or not we can see the curve of a circle or only see a small segment that appears linear.
This circular motion also has me questioning the statement "those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it". If circular motion applies isn't it simply we're doomed to repeat history? This seems to make sense as over the course of history the same type events seem to occur.

On the subject of benefit

The actions of people in todays world seem to be based on two basic hypokeimenons. Actions that benefit us, and actions that benefit others. The cutting down of forests to make paper, the injection of plants with pesticides and the mass production of cars for example all benefit "us". We need paper to write, plants for food and cars to help us get around. All of these things are done in order to help us write, get food and get around more efficiently. Other actions are done to benefit others. Numerous organizations provide relief to impoverished areas in Africa, volunteer shelters provide homes for abandoned pets, protesters block off deforestation zones and the government is starting to take action against global warming. The relief to Africa does not benefit the people doing the job directly, but benefits the people in Africa. Shelters help out abandoned pets, not "us". Deforestation protests help preserve the rainforest, once again not "us". And finally, reducing the effect of global warming will help generations in the future, not the people of today. No other animal on earth has this ability to benefit others. Animals seem to simply try and benefit themselves in the best way possible. In Aristotle's terms, moving towards a conservation of form is the definition of natural. That is what all the animals seem to be doing. They benefit themselves in order to conserve their form in the best way possible. So are we as humans not doing the same thing? By cutting down forests and injecting pesticides into plants, are we not trying to find the best way to conserve and advance our form? The actions that humans do that benefit others, then in a way become unnatural. By trying to stop global warming and reducing deforestation we are limiting ourselves from doing what benefits us the most right now, unlike every other animal. Or the endangered species act. Preserving endangered species does not really benefit us, but we do it anyway. Nobody would help these endangered species if it wasn't for us. "Nature" surely wouldn't. Mammoths, sabertooth tigers, they all went extinct. So does this prove us to be unnatural? Why should we not simply do what every other animal does, and just benefit ourselves?

Pollan vs. Aristotle

   In class we have been talking about the unmoved mover and Aristotle's 3 parts of self-caused motion: the mover, that which causes the motion, and the moved. It was briefly brought up in class, but I wanted to again point out the connection between this point and the similar views in Michael Pollen's book. In "The Botany of Desire," Pollan addresses how we as humans traditionally think of ourselves as acting upon nature and plants. Our need to eat or appreciate a plant's beauty acts as the Mover, our gardening and harvesting the plant is the Means for motion, and consuming or enjoying the final product is the Moved. (I hope that made sense... my concept of the A, B, C is still a little shaky!) We are the Active, and the plant is the Passive. We are the form, the Mover, and the plant is the material, potency, what is Moved.

   But Pollan's book is from the plant's eye... he wants us to try to view the plants as the Active and ourselves as the Passive, as though we are the object to the plant's subject. I think this would look like the Mover being the plant's desire for survival. The Means would be the plant's control of humans, and the Moved being the plant's actual physical survival as opposed to its end.

   This is a stretch. Before we studied Aristotle, it seemed cute to think of the plants controlling us. But now trying to apply the A, B, C's of motion to the active plants and the passive humans just doesn't make the same sense. Humans play too much of a role to be considered only as the thing moved. Humans act upon the plant physically, I don't see how it could even be conceived that the plant entirely acts upon the humans. Maybe by being beautiful, humans are drawn to plants... but not in the same all-encompassing way a human has the physical capability to overcome a plant. I guess Aristotle's explicit illustration took away what Pollan was trying to convince me.

Process of Determination

In the beginning of book II, Aristotle ends chapter three by stating that, "final causality governs the action of formal causes, and thus characterizes the whole realm of nature." I disagree with the idea that the final result governs the action of formal causes, or the plan. Saying that the end result dictates the process is illogical because without the process, how would an end be reached? Predetermination is limiting to all aspects of the journey, only perpetuating a limited end. When a person determines that the end is set, and that the path taken to attain the end is irrelevant as a result, apathy is risked. Without being consciously engaged, and unaware of "what's to come," you risk accepting anything. That is to say, you risk losing sight of the actual process, focusing your energy (which is essentially wasted) on a result that cannot be attained without committing to the process.
I am not a firm believer that "whatever happens happens," or that everything "happens for a reason." To believe in either of those beliefs would mean I believed that things were already set for us. I do not believe that the end can be what justifies the means, because without the means, our ends are still ambiguous. I believe that our actions mold what we end up as, and it can vary--on a daily basis--causing our end to vary consequently. How can our varying means justify a set end? If one directly begets the other, and one is so obviously undetermined, shouldn't our ends reflect that? Wouldn't that make them undetermined?

Good, Bad, Nature

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" – Shakespeare

I remembered this quote from the play hamlet and thought that I could maybe I could relate it to some of the discussion in class and some of the ideas of Aristotle. Although it’s a widespread question that has been asked many times, do we know good from bad from birth? Or is there even a “good” and “bad” at all? In today’s world we like to think that there is a general set of human morals or a general idea of what is “good” and what is “bad”.
My question is; if we humans already know good and bad from birth then why would anybody ever do something bad? Why do we have laws? The truth is so clear and the answer to the question isn’t so simple as you have consider the whole spectrum of human emotion. If we look at Aristotle’s views, he believed that humans are born with bad character traits and good character traits and our actions can be traced back to these traits. Although this theory makes sense, does this mean that we are condemned to commit bad acts from birth? I put that Shakespeare quote at the top as it proposes an idea that we live in a world with no good or bad, the idea of good and bad are completely thoughts of man. Although this may scare many as it somewhat implies that there is no higher power watching our actions it is hard to argue against as what may seem good to one may be bad to another…

Freedom in Nature

Do we really have free will? Are we really able to choose as we please? A previous comment caught my attention questioning the idea if it is completely our fault that we (humans) have sexual intercourse for pleasure and not purely procreation. This rose many questions in my head, it made me think that we are somewhat bounded in our choices by Nature’s will. Now of course there are physical laws which cannot be broken, however, we are born with needs and wants. A need being; food, water, shelter, etc. A want on the other hand is often more vague i.e. success, beauty, sex and so on.
It became apparent to me that the majority of living species on this planet share these same emotions that we humans do. I guess my question here is; why are we all born with these wants and emotions when we don’t actually need them? Why am I born wanting to compete with others when it’s not necessary for my survival? I guess it all comes back to the question of nature versus nurture, however, if our nurture would our physical wants really be so different? I mean if we lived in a communist world with communist values, would human competition seize to exist?
I know it seems like a bit of a stretch but how far can we go out of our emotional needs, one thing for sure is that every living thing on this planet wants to survive and wants to be happy, while we may think that we are all different it’s very possible that it’s same things that make us all happy.

Are humans interupting self-caused motion?

Nature and the nature cycle self-caused motion, therefore is it possible then to disrupt this balance of movement? Like Pollan’s example with the genetically modified potato. We are modifying the natural process of movement and growth. Are we moving what should not be moved? I doubt that Aristotle ever imaged how our technology would advance to modify nature itself. Our destructive and dominating ways I believe could alter the effects of motion. As humans, we can essentially bump self-caused motion off course. Then does this fall under Aristotle’s category of incidental motion? The text states that everything, which causes motion, is also moved. I just wonder and worry that if humans incidentally put things into motion that otherwise are unmoved what will happen? I suppose this is already happening with the diminishing landscape.

Aristotle is defining motion as a major part of defining nature. Nature he says is the animals and plants and the cosmos as a whole. Are humans considered in this definition? Their individual nature is their form and they are all being at work in a natural way. The plants circle the air in the earth, animals eat from the earth, and humans once lived by similar principles and lived with the natural cycles. We are now disregarding and interrupting the cycles that allowed us once to survive. We can survive without the cycles by technology, an unnatural form that did not come from the earth. How does technology fit into natural motion?

Hupo what?

We spent a day talking about hupokeimenon and the triangular relationship it makes. This thing acts as a seed would, and “sprouts” two other things, which are opposites of each other. After thinking about this for some time I noticed the connection between this and Pollan’s book, Botany of Desire. In it he frequently refers back to Apollo, Greek god of truth and prophecy, and Dionysus, god of wine and all around madness. These two gods are essentially the opposites of one another, and were used as metaphors for the two ways in which Pollan saw people using the various produce he explored in his book. I believe that desire in itself is the hupokeimenon, with the two opposites being the Apollonian path and the Dionysusian path. The two paths broken down can be viewed as what is ordered, and what is not. And with BoD each food item with its associated desire lead people down a certain path. The Apollonian path leads to a more “wholesome” area, this would be the Johnny Appleseed, hemp products, or the potato fields of modern famers. This path falls in line with the characteristics of Apollo. The Dionysusian path on the other hand leads to places of disorder such as John Chapman’s hard cider, marijuana growers and the Incan potato farmers. Essentially the root of desire leads to good and bad decisions, relative to societies standards of course. In my opinion these two examples fit perfectly into Aristotle’s model, and helped me fully understand the relationship between them.

The relationship of Motion and Change

As stated previously, we have spent a lot of time on what motion is according to Aristotle. Through reading and discussion, two questions came up: is nature in motion (dynamic) or is nature standing and at rest (static?) The two types of motion of study are incidental/accidental and self-cause, which is arguably the more genuine form of motion. Although we tried to sort it out I believe there is still some confusion regarding the tree parts of self-caused motion, a.) the mover, b.) the moved/what gets moved, c.) that by which causes motion. We all read in the book and heard in class that “the mover is most active and complete and it itself does not move but only causes movement.” But what does this mean? Perhaps understanding the relationship of motion and change can help.

A question was brought up in class if motion and change could be considered equal and the simple answer for time’s sake was yes. However I remember reading in the book that no, in fact motion and change are not equal. The relationship exists as: motion (kinesis) is coextensive with but is not synonymous with change (metabole.) It is stated that there are four irreducible types of motion: thing hood, quality, quantity and place. It is important to note that this list is in ascending order of motions but descending order of changes. For example, place is the primary kind of motion but experiences the least change.

So, using the original example used in class to distinguish the three parts of self-caused motion (hunger, movement of the body, eating,) I think we can sort through this further. If motion and change are not the same than the mover can be a thought, decision, motivation, choice, etc. This does not move nor change. The end result will make one no longer hungry but the reason for creating movement did not and will not ever change for the reason of that sole movement. As for the rest of the example and the one with the zebra and others we can think of, I believe change fits somehow in with the other two parts.

Where and how does change relate to movement without becoming a synonym?

Darwin and Aristotle

In class today we talked about self caused motion and how it might apply to the laws of nature. I started thinking about how Aristotles views might apply to the laws of evolution. Although our current modern view of evolution is one of incidental motion, I think that the ABC formula of self centered motion may work to explain evolution just as well as incidental motion would. In this instance I see the law of survival of the fittest as the unmoved mover(A). This law has remained a constant since life first began on earth. The law itself doesnt move or change, but it causes evolution (the B) to move, which in turn causes the evolved beings (C) to change within the context of time. I think this is a pretty good example of what aristotle was talking about, and it demonstrates that nature does in fact have its own desires. All natural things have an innate desire to survive, and this drives the process of evolution, which is both being moved (by survival of the fittest) and is moving evolved forms of organisms. I am not a physics major but I am sure that this model would fit other natural laws as well, like gravity, newtons laws, ect. Can anyone else think of other examples that might illustrate how self caused motion is at work in other areas of nature.

Moving the Unmoved Mover

We spent a great deal of time today in class discussing Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover. He proposed that there is a first cause behind all subsequent causes and effects. This uncaused cause is static and responsible for the changing of everything else. It can set things in motion, but is never set in motion itself. Also, Aristotle was attempting to explain in the text that there must be a first motion responsible for holding all subsequent motions in flux. This first motion must be constantly acted upon by the unmoved mover. The mover must be outside of nature entirely because all physical systems are in flux. He ascribes this unmoved mover simply as ‘intelligence’.

Using the diagram presented in class, we can say that our ‘A’ is an intelligent unmoved mover, ‘B’ is the material in motion, and ‘C’ represents the forms created by the material. All material has the potential to become forms, but it must be acted upon firstly by the Mover. This is essentially describing a deity of sorts. Aristotle’s logical arguments can only go as far as what is called deism, or the belief that a creator god set the universe in motion and then ceased any interaction with it. Although this explanation can be articulated, it fails on its own accord. If the Mover is outside of nature then how is it that we can understand it at all? All our scientific facts and theories are based on observations and experimentation within the natural world. I understand the logic that ‘causes’ should not extend backwards infinitely, but how is it that we may simply infer the existence of an unmoved mover? It’s a convenient insertion nonetheless, but it does not yield a practical explanation for the universe.

The only way around this would be to infer a theistic deity. Theism claims that the creator is a personal being in which people may have an intimate relationship with. Under theism, the intelligent mover is discovered through revelations. Subsequent ‘religious’ experiences are then interpreted based on the original revelations. A personal and intelligent unmoved mover is the explanation offered by advocates of intelligent design. Their ‘proof’ ultimately relies on revelation, in part because the logic used by Aristotle may only justify a deistic god.

Nevertheless, let’s consider for a moment that ‘A’ is an intelligent and personal unmoved mover, ‘B’ is material in motion, and ‘C’ represents the forms of material. The unmoved mover is static, being outside nature, and never changes. An intelligent creator would have a divine plan for the motions of material and this specific plan would be implemented by the first eternal motion. Human beings are forms of material that were meant to come about because of the divine plan and first motion. This all seems to follow reasonably enough until human beings attempt to move the unmoved mover.

Prayer is one such attempt. People pray for all sorts of things: world peace, end to poverty, financial success. As forms of material, human beings are seeking to change the mind of the intelligent designer. If the unmoved mover decides to change his plan to appease the prayers of people then he is, after all, capable of change and not eternally static. This would be an occurrence of ‘C’ changing the composition of ‘A’ and this would make the Mover a part of the dynamics of nature. The fact that there has not been any measurable data to indicate the effectiveness of prayer to begin with, though, means that either the divine plan cannot be interrupted (leaving us with deism) or there is no grand plan to begin with (leaving us with materialism).

My questions to the class are: Do you think there is an unmoved mover? What is the nature of this being? How can it be logically inferred without the aid of evidence? What purpose does the insertion of an unmoved mover serve other than convenience and comfort for human beings? Are there other explanations that I have not addressed?

Thought on ABC

Today’s class really had my head mixed up but I think I’m starting to get the idea. When ABC was described on an individual level it made little sense, but once it was applied to a larger scale pieces started to fall into place. Then on my walk my home I started considering ABC in a mathematical way, A + B = C. It seemed so simple then (although I still can be completely wrong). A is always fixed and does not move so it can be represented by a constant, 3 for example, and B a variable dependent on A. C then is naturally the sum of the two. This is how I have begun looking at this concept and so far it seems to be working for me. Now looking at the equation 3 + B = C I have begun looking at B more closely. In class we described B as being a single action but why can’t it in itself be a sum of multiple parts? Can B be looked at as the sum of B1, B2, B3, and so on? This idea makes sense to me when looking at the concept on a large scale instead of a small scale (an individual level). How big of a scale can this concept be applied to? Can it be applied to the animal kingdoms, the world as a whole, or even the universe? If it can be applied to such a large scale such as Earth I understand that a driving force (A) put into motion the actions of Bx and yielded C. This in turn has got me really thinking about all the components of Earth; animals, plants, minerals, etc. What are they? Are all these components the different parts expressed by the variable B? If so what are all these components suppose to yield in the end? Or are all these components what was yielded there for representing C? If so what was B? Maybe the big bang?
This has just been my train of thought since leaving class which seems to have yielded more questions then answers. Really just looking for some feedback to see what others think of this idea.

equal in change

I had a conversation with a friend recently about Aristotle and our class discussions, and he mentioned some examples from his class that related to motion and rest, and the ability to change. Some of this may seem a bit unrelated, but I enjoyed the metaphors and wanted to share.

The first idea posed in his class was that, if one day you happen to experience something, like seeing a rainbow, if you were to experience that same event the next day, you would be as different of a person as that new rainbow is different from yesterday's. You are never the exact same person from one day to the next, or even between the morning and evening of one day. Experiencing, learning, living, everything breaks down and molds who and what you are, so that you are essentially continuously creating a new being. Although you, much like the rainbow, consist of the same basic materials, the way those materials come together is in a constant ebb and flow.

The second example is simply further interpretation. Viewing 2 rainbows as 2 different people is much like standing in a river as the water and creatures flow around you. Much as you can't say that you are ever standing in the same water, because everything is in a constant state of movement and change, the water is also not flowing around the same being from one moment to the next. As a part of nature and capable of movement and rest, you are both physically and mentally changing as you stand there. Ideas flow in and out of your mind, just as much as skin cells leave your body as the water rushes past. You are never the exact same person that you were the moment before or the moment after.

I don't agree that everything is one, or that all is nothing. Certainly those are vast overstatements that generalize and leave out too much. But I think what I can take from these ideas is that everything is at least equal in its use of change, motion, interpretation. As I stated before, the constant ebb and flow of life encompasses everything, all of nature, all of its constituents. We are not all the same thing, as what is changing inside us is different from what changes in the river or the rainbow, but we are all having the same general innovation and experience of becoming something different, and having that experience repeat itself in new ways constantly throughout life.

Are Humans Immune to Extinction?

I started this blog as a comment to "Humans vs. Endangered" blog, and I really got into it because I think this is a really great subject. I feel that as humans we should take what we know and use it. We know there are animals about to go extinct, and we know that humans are a big part of the cause of why they are about to go extinct. But on another level we are intelligent beings that should be able to say, "hey wait" if we don't help these animals, then maybe we will be next. Can we really live without some species? Every animal is connected to every other animal in some way. I also refer to humans, we are apart of this web and when one string is cut disaster can happen. We must really ask ourselves if we should use what knowledge we have and help others in need: both nature and humans. We tend to view humans as superior to other things. On one hand I believe this; we have the power to think, make decisions, love, learn, and develop. On the other hand, many of those traits are the same with other animals, just in different ways. So I guess what I'm asking is, are superior? I haven't really gotten a clear sense of what Aristotle things of this question either. But if we are superior then I feel that we should be smart enough to stop our destructive ways and start helping our fellow species out there. Because ultimately, humans are not immune to the possibility of going extinct, the only difference is that we have the knowledge to foresee this possibility and do something about it .

A living planet

After reading Josh’s blog post about the Matrix and humans being viruses I began to really think about this concept. Then I read the comments made by others and found the idea of earth being a cell presented by Morgan even more intriguing and I asked myself why not. Why can’t the entire planet be classified as a cell or an organism that tries to maintain equilibrium in order to survive? An equilibrium that human influence is pushing out of balance. As humans constantly change portions of earth to work for us (turning trees into lumber, cotton into clothes, and generally changing elements into products) the human race can be compared to a virus. If earth is an organism then by humans constantly changing parts of earth an easy comparison can be made to a virus in a human using cells to further the production of the virus. Humans now have managed to find ways (medicine) to rid the body of these viruses; however, the viruses have evolved becoming resistant to certain medicines so new ones must be created. This same pattern can be seen with humans on Earth. Humans find ways to avoid dieing from “medicine” used by the Earth such as earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. Now that these “medicines” have been overcome the Earth must create new ones, an example of this could be global warming. If global warming reaches a certain point maybe it could rid the organism (Earth) from the virus that is humans. As global warming continues weather patterns are expected to become more unpredictable and deadly and maybe cause the end of the human race? Maybe the Earth is reaching its out limits of the equilibrium range and is trying to balance itself out.

In this case of humans being a virus on Earth then I would consider humans to be apart of nature and our modifying of nature is simply us increasing the intensity of the virus.