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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I actually thought I understood the function that Aristotle gave to this concept until many questions were posed in class. While the majority of us understood that C was a product of A and B, we were still a bit baffled by how they lead to this. I do think your example could clarify many of our confusion, only if it indeed explains the relationship that Aristotle conveyed. I actually think that B is capable of having multiple functions since it relies on A but is not fixed.
ReplyDelete