A Blank Piece of Paper

A blank piece of paper contains nothing. It is entirely up to the person looking at it to decide what it is. It is an empty slate for someone to fill. A person projects all their thoughts and experiences onto it in one moment. So when someone looks at a piece of paper, all that they see is a reflection of themselves.

A Mathematician's Lament

http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf

This is a great article on the failures of K-12 mathematics education. Descartes would be ashamed.

The thought process so essential to math has been all but eradicated in school. We are taught not to think philosophically (math is philosophical!); but to take in formula after formula, and find new way to spit them out through exercises and word problems. I especially enjoyed the section on proofs- the bane of all geometry students' existence! They create an illusion of the process that goes into thinking mathematically, but are really something else entirely. Geometry proofs once again involve the memorization of removed postulates, and finding inaccessible and uninteresting ways to "solve a problem".

What is sad is that we are all asked to wait eleven or twelve years to find out if we are ready to think mathematically. We can not be trusted with our innate ability to reason until we have taken in numerous rules and formulas that we have no understanding of.

God Is Absurd

Initially, it was somewhat difficult to swallow Kierkegaard's belief about the 3 stages, and the teleological suspension of the ethical. Kierkegaard assumes that God exists, without any kind of logical explanation or proof, because...he just does. It's impossible to provide proof of God's existence.

But isn't this a little unfair? We are simply supposed to accept something so grand and inexplicable, casting aside everything we've learned and grown up believing? That's a tall order. Kierkegaard even says that it may be easier for someone who did not grow up in the Christian religion reach the religious stage, which I also have a hard time accepting. So someone who's grown up in a polytheistic religion, and known nothing else, is supposed to wake up one day and realize that there's only one God, and then put all of their faith in Him?

This reminds me a lot of one of my favorite books, The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky's last book shows three different perspectives on how to live life, and takes on the lofty task of explaining and arguing in support of faith in God (it's very Kierkegaardian!). And he certainly does not skimp on objections to his argument. Ivan Karamazov delivers a grand speech on his objections to God in the chapters Rebellion and The Grand Inquisitor, possibly the most powerful sections in the massive book.I've often seen The Grand Inquisitor sold separately from the entire book.

In Rebellion, while discussing torture against children, Ivan states:

While there is still time, I hasten to protect myself, and so I renounce the higher harmony altogether. It's not worth the tears of that one tortured child who beat itself on the breast with its little fist and prayed in its stinking outhouse, with its unexpiated tears to 'dear, kind God'! It's not worth it, because those tears are unatoned for. They must be atoned for, or there can be no harmony. But how? How are you going to atone for them? Is it possible? By their being avenged? But what do I care for avenging them? What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don't want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price...

...Is there in the whole world a being who would have the right to forgive and could forgive? I don't want harmony. From love for humanity I don't want it. I would rather be left with the unavenged suffering. I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong. Besides, too high a price is asked for harmony; it's beyond our means to pay so much to enter on it. And so I hasten to give back my entrance ticket, and if I am an honest man I am bound to give it back as soon as possible. And that I am doing. It's not God that I don't accept, Alyosha, only I most respectfully return him the ticket."

In The Grand Inquisitor, Ivan goes on to describe why it is wrong that God should've made humans so weak, and then expect us to cast everything aside for faith.

Perhaps these objections were too strong?

It's incredibly rare that I tear up while reading. But these two chapters so beautifully explained all the struggles I was having with religion and faith. Even if God really is so incomprehensible and absurd, it's still not fair. It's not fair that people should starve, it's not fair that children should be abused, it's not fair that there is such an inequality of resources and freedoms between peoples.

It isn't fair that God chose to make us purveyors of knowledge and security in an absurd world.

With all-encompassing power and knowledge, why did God decide to doom us in this way? Even Kierkegaard states that he was not in the religious stage. Is there anyone other than Abraham who has reached that point?

I believe, at one point or another, we all experience fear and trembling. When we realize that at one point we will die, and that we may not be ready to. When we realize that our lives don't mean much; eventually we will be forgotten and no worldly acquisitions or achievements will matter. How do we come to terms with our own mortality? Perhaps Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky are correct and we can only overcome such dread through faith. But I am not ready to accept this. I'll live out my life, and hopefully continue to search out meaning in this world and my own existence. As of now, I'm lost as to what to believe in.

Kierkegaard vs. Nietzsche

This was an interesting debate with so many fantastic arguments from both sides. As others have stated, Nietzsche was not really opposed to Kierkegaard in the way that Kierkegaard was opposed to Hegel. I believe this made it a bit more difficult to come up with attacks and rebuttals, since both of them make similar points. Both philosophies center around the importance of the individual, and transcending societal law for a more meaningful existence, whether it be through teleological suspension of the ethical or through the process of exercising will to power and becoming an Ubermensch.

Before this class, Nietzsche was one of the only philosophers I had any interest in learning more about. It was disappointing to see that his philosophy was summed up in about a paragraph in Sophie's World! So I'm glad we chose to focus on him for the debate, instead of Hegel. I have a lot to say about both Kierkegaard and Nietzsche and I'll write about them tomorrow.

Unfortunately, I can't find the conclusion I had written out for the debate. If it doesn't turn up, I'll update this post with one as close as I can remember.

Technology Changing our World

I've never been much of a technology person. I got a cell-phone in 9th grade without asking for one, often misplaced it, forgot it, lost it, and never answered it. 3 years later, I still don't know how to check my messages.

Cell phones are certainly convenient, but they also feel like a burden to me. Why should someone expect me to communicate with them at any place, at any time? I like feeling cut off from others once in awhile, able to live fully in the moment. With each innovation in communication technology, we become more closely connected to other people and places. At the same time, we become more disconnected from our immediate surroundings.

I feel that our world is starting to exist more in digital technology, and less in our physical surroundings. We learn about others lives from facebook statuses. We hear of major news events from twitter. We text friends even when people are talking right next to us. *

This all ties into the concept of multitasking, which was discussed and criticized in the documentary Digital Nation. With so many options for communicating with others and for finding new information/entertainment, we are faced with an overload of decisions to make. And often, when we can not decide what one thing to do, we try to do everything at once! When I'm on the internet, I'll often have up to ten tabs open. There is such an expansive world existing within the internet that I am tempted to take in all of it, without the work and patience needed to understand any of it. I constantly switch between tabs, forgetting what I was thinking about seconds ago.

People "switch tabs" constantly in everyday life. Text friends, do homework, talk to classmates, do other homework, surf the internet. This can all take place in minutes. We are overwhelmed by distractions, and struggle to commit to any task at hand.

Digital technology has a profound impact on our everyday life. We can learn anything, and talk to anyone, at any time. While this has great benefits, I feel that we often don't know how to handle the magnitude of it all. We linger between different ideas and different virtual worlds, unable to focus on any of them, ignoring the physical world we exist in.

----
*This is a huge pet peeve of mine. I wanted to punch all students in the documentary who spent their dinner with friends texting other people! I'm not a very social person, and it's frustrating to try and talk to someone when they are focused on something else. Some of my closest friends will spend the time we hang out on iPhones, even when we haven't seen each other in weeks!

Hume

Hume would find Descartes attempts to rationalize the world futile and pretentious. How can a person attempt to know more than what they themselves have experienced? Socrates himself said: "All I know is that I know nothing." Although Descartes claims that he can use his reason to realize that a puddle of wax is still wax, or that a mirage in the distance is just sensory deception, Hume does not think that is enough. Why is it wax in the first place? Can you ever really be certain that it is not something else?

This is why Hume champions empiricism. We interpret the world through our experiences and our reactions, not through the "facts" that scientists and mathematicians simply assume to be true.