While our class scribes work on the scribe reports, I think a good question to ask is on the topic of Appearance VS. Reality.
Earlier today, we were posed this question that if a tree falls and no one hears it, is sound made?
Some of us (including me) agreed that indeed, sound was made. But Mr Shyam then posed the argument (well, not his argument, but he showed it to us): Sound is defined as sound, when the disturbances in air reach out ears and interpret the signals as SOUND. Therefore, when the tree falls and no one hears it, it basically means that disturbances in the air are created, but no sound, since there is no human ear (or animal ear) to listen to it.
Then I posed this counter-argument: Then what about sound we cannot hear and detect, like infra-sound and ultra-sound? Just because we cannot hear it, does it mean that it does not exist. This is thus very contradictory, as saying that things we cannot hear are not sound would mean that many technology applications would not be able to exist!!! What about ultra-sound scanners used to check foetuses growth? What about ultra-sound that is used to check the integrity of construction? What then about INFRA-SOUND which animals like elephants use to communicate over long-distances? Are they not sound?
This epitomises the conflict and the conundrum between appearance versus reality.
Share with me your views. You can always agree or disagree with me. My verdict is: Physical reality is undeniable. In the example above, sound is indeed made and present.
What do you think?
Monday, February 22, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Random philosophical musings
Hi people, I decided to engage in some philosophical musings to distract me from my sickly flu-plagued body. I know this sounds emo but I assure you the next passage is worth reading :)
Personally, as to whether we can contribute to the world of forms, I think the main questions we need to answer is
(i) Does the world of forms exist independently of Man and Man merely taps into it?
Or
(ii) Is the world of forms, as Jiasheng puts it, "a metaphor for the collection of ideas formed by human reason"
To address the first part, perhaps the essence of the tree(which is what makes a tree a tree) does exist and when Man sees a tree, he sees a representation of the essence of the tree.
When Man "creates" something new like the ipad, he is in fact discovering something that already exists in the world of forms, although what he sees in the material world is but the shadow of THE ipad in the world of forms.
Alternatively, perhaps new creations like the ipad could just be a combination of the shadows of its basic entities that make up its structure. Isn't an ipad merely made up of electronic circuits, which probably comprise basic elements like silicon(sorry for the scientific explanation, although i think I'm wrong)Perhaps this could be an answer to questions like whether new creations/random contraptions only I create really do exist in the world of forms.
As for the second part, I find the argument a bit problematic in that what Man creates could be subjective, but the realm of forms is supposed to be pure and objective.
And here I wish to share a question that I’ve been thinking for the past weekend(don’t ask me why I think about such things.) I find this a problem in Plato’s reasoning and perhaps in general rationalism as well.
Why is the tree that we think of in our minds closer to the ideal tree than the tree we see? It is supposedly because our senses are subjective, but how about our reasoning? How do we justify that human reasoning is superior to human senses, when both are parts of the same body?
Although our mind and senses are the parts of the same body, it may not necessarily mean both are subjective, but it still makes me wonder how we can justify human reasoning to be more superior. I think if we can answer this question, we can resolve the issue of whether Man is capable of contributing to the realm of forms. Because if human reasoning is more superior, then what he conjures in his mind is closer to the truth than what he sees with his own eyes. Then the probability of Man being able to contribute to this realm of forms would be higher. If not, then perhaps what Man sees is a representation of the ideal, modified because of our subjective point of view. But there could also be a middle ground.
Hope my musings have provided some new insights for you to ponder on…
Love,
Pei Ling :)
Personally, as to whether we can contribute to the world of forms, I think the main questions we need to answer is
(i) Does the world of forms exist independently of Man and Man merely taps into it?
Or
(ii) Is the world of forms, as Jiasheng puts it, "a metaphor for the collection of ideas formed by human reason"
To address the first part, perhaps the essence of the tree(which is what makes a tree a tree) does exist and when Man sees a tree, he sees a representation of the essence of the tree.
When Man "creates" something new like the ipad, he is in fact discovering something that already exists in the world of forms, although what he sees in the material world is but the shadow of THE ipad in the world of forms.
Alternatively, perhaps new creations like the ipad could just be a combination of the shadows of its basic entities that make up its structure. Isn't an ipad merely made up of electronic circuits, which probably comprise basic elements like silicon(sorry for the scientific explanation, although i think I'm wrong)Perhaps this could be an answer to questions like whether new creations/random contraptions only I create really do exist in the world of forms.
As for the second part, I find the argument a bit problematic in that what Man creates could be subjective, but the realm of forms is supposed to be pure and objective.
And here I wish to share a question that I’ve been thinking for the past weekend(don’t ask me why I think about such things.) I find this a problem in Plato’s reasoning and perhaps in general rationalism as well.
Why is the tree that we think of in our minds closer to the ideal tree than the tree we see? It is supposedly because our senses are subjective, but how about our reasoning? How do we justify that human reasoning is superior to human senses, when both are parts of the same body?
Although our mind and senses are the parts of the same body, it may not necessarily mean both are subjective, but it still makes me wonder how we can justify human reasoning to be more superior. I think if we can answer this question, we can resolve the issue of whether Man is capable of contributing to the realm of forms. Because if human reasoning is more superior, then what he conjures in his mind is closer to the truth than what he sees with his own eyes. Then the probability of Man being able to contribute to this realm of forms would be higher. If not, then perhaps what Man sees is a representation of the ideal, modified because of our subjective point of view. But there could also be a middle ground.
Hope my musings have provided some new insights for you to ponder on…
Love,
Pei Ling :)
Friday, February 19, 2010
World Of Forms--Is it Within our Control?
In response to my previous post, Marsha expressed that Plato's Cave is still applicable to the modern world, with just one exception that men of today have moved on to contributing their own creations to the world of forms. In other words men are the puppeteers as well as the prisoners. I guess you could call the inventors puppeteers in this respect, and the consumers the prisoners.
In conclusion the world of forms is now in our hands!
I think this is a good point to bring up for discussion. The following is my response to her comment:
With regard to your conclusion from the lesson,you suggested that men are both puppeteers as well as prisoners. I would like to contend this point, as Plato' Cave should depict our whole life. Therefore, it is unlikely that we can play dual roles, as both puppeteer and prisoner.
Also, since you mention that men contribute to the world of forms, does this mean that when one new invention is created, even though it may not be perfect, its perfect form will exist in the world of forms? How then does the perfect form "predict" the future improvements?
To make things clearer, let's use the iPhone as an example. When it was first introduced by Steve Jobs as a iPhone 2G, does this mean that there was an iPhone 3GS version in the world of forms (or perhaps an even more advanced version)? How did the "creator" of this perfect form in the world of forms synthesise the notion of this improved invention?
Thus, I don't really think that we can contribute to the world of forms, and our decision does not lie in our hands.
What do you think? Is the world of forms within our control? Can we really contribute to it?
In conclusion the world of forms is now in our hands!
I think this is a good point to bring up for discussion. The following is my response to her comment:
With regard to your conclusion from the lesson,you suggested that men are both puppeteers as well as prisoners. I would like to contend this point, as Plato' Cave should depict our whole life. Therefore, it is unlikely that we can play dual roles, as both puppeteer and prisoner.
Also, since you mention that men contribute to the world of forms, does this mean that when one new invention is created, even though it may not be perfect, its perfect form will exist in the world of forms? How then does the perfect form "predict" the future improvements?
To make things clearer, let's use the iPhone as an example. When it was first introduced by Steve Jobs as a iPhone 2G, does this mean that there was an iPhone 3GS version in the world of forms (or perhaps an even more advanced version)? How did the "creator" of this perfect form in the world of forms synthesise the notion of this improved invention?
Thus, I don't really think that we can contribute to the world of forms, and our decision does not lie in our hands.
What do you think? Is the world of forms within our control? Can we really contribute to it?
Plato Vs. Modern Science
Earlier today, we discussed about Plato's Cave theory, as well as its relevance in today's times where modern science has resulted in radical paradigm shifts. This brings us to the question of whether Plato's arguments are still valid, given that modern science today results in the invention of many new, novel ideas.
The interesting example of the iPad was brought up. If Plato's theory were true, does this mean that there was an iPad in the realm of Forms? Does this mean that the iPad is a manifestation of what was already present in the realm of Forms thousands of years ago? This is a contentious issue that we all have our arguments and opinions towards.
Linking this idea of manifestation to the attributes of Forms, the first attribute is stated as: Transcendent--Does not exist in time or space, it's timeless and unchanging. Therefore, this could have possibly meant that the iPad is just known as the iPad; similar to the analogy of what defines a tree. If Plato were true, what defines an iPad? A larger version of the iTouch? Then what defines an iTouch? This question of doubting goes on and on, and is once again related to what we discussed earlier--Descartes and his Cartesian method of doubt.
Descartes questions everything down to its backbone. He problematizes everything, especially for dominant truths, he does not take them for granted accoridng to his method of asing questions. His ability to do so emphasises the importance of self-reflexivity; i.e. the ability to look into oneself and understand how pre-conceived notions are formed and that they might be problematic.
Questions for us to think about over this weekend may be:
1. Is Plato's theory applicable to Modern Science?
2. Is everything we see a manifestation of what exists in the realm of Forms?
3. Is a priori (Rationalist) knowledge superior compared to a posteriori?
4. How is the knowledge of Mathematics formed? Rationlism or Empiricism?
Feel free to blog here and comment on the posts. Share your thoughts with the class and the community!
The interesting example of the iPad was brought up. If Plato's theory were true, does this mean that there was an iPad in the realm of Forms? Does this mean that the iPad is a manifestation of what was already present in the realm of Forms thousands of years ago? This is a contentious issue that we all have our arguments and opinions towards.
Linking this idea of manifestation to the attributes of Forms, the first attribute is stated as: Transcendent--Does not exist in time or space, it's timeless and unchanging. Therefore, this could have possibly meant that the iPad is just known as the iPad; similar to the analogy of what defines a tree. If Plato were true, what defines an iPad? A larger version of the iTouch? Then what defines an iTouch? This question of doubting goes on and on, and is once again related to what we discussed earlier--Descartes and his Cartesian method of doubt.
Descartes questions everything down to its backbone. He problematizes everything, especially for dominant truths, he does not take them for granted accoridng to his method of asing questions. His ability to do so emphasises the importance of self-reflexivity; i.e. the ability to look into oneself and understand how pre-conceived notions are formed and that they might be problematic.
Questions for us to think about over this weekend may be:
1. Is Plato's theory applicable to Modern Science?
2. Is everything we see a manifestation of what exists in the realm of Forms?
3. Is a priori (Rationalist) knowledge superior compared to a posteriori?
4. How is the knowledge of Mathematics formed? Rationlism or Empiricism?
Feel free to blog here and comment on the posts. Share your thoughts with the class and the community!
Introduction
Welcome to this blog, All K.I. students!
Have Fun and Fire Away with your Discussions, Views and Anything you have to say with regard to the subject of K.I.!
If you have not been added as an author of the blog, please indicate to me during K.I. lesson and give me your email. I will add you as the author of the blog.
You are highly encouraged to voice your opinion over anything we discussed or were taught in class!
All K.I. Scribe Reports will be posted on this blog too! Class and Examination Details may be found on the links above.
Have Fun and Learn Effectively!
Cheers
K.I. Blog Master
Looi Qin En
10S60
Have Fun and Fire Away with your Discussions, Views and Anything you have to say with regard to the subject of K.I.!
If you have not been added as an author of the blog, please indicate to me during K.I. lesson and give me your email. I will add you as the author of the blog.
You are highly encouraged to voice your opinion over anything we discussed or were taught in class!
All K.I. Scribe Reports will be posted on this blog too! Class and Examination Details may be found on the links above.
Have Fun and Learn Effectively!
Cheers
K.I. Blog Master
Looi Qin En
10S60
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)