1.for something to be purely invented, the only requirements is the non-existence of said thing, and then the creation of it. but for something to be created one must go through different processes. either discovering it within one self in which case the only invention would be that of the manifestation of the discovered idea into physical form, at this point it would be ambiguous to classify it as an invention. or the process of taking things from the outside world and processing them into something new. but to make them into something new one has to have the idea and process one would be repeated. either way both processes involve the non-existence of a thing which then results in both processes being parallels and equals. nevertheless they all get to the same thing, creation.
2. they are similar in some ways: they both use previous information to build up on itself and then create more complex ideas, they rely on evidence, and they can be interpreted and manipulated to convey different messages. they are different because mathematics involves the processes of invention, discovery and creation to attain new kinds of knowledge while history can only rely on discovery to and the learning experience from previous events
jueves, 9 de junio de 2011
For Monday May 16th
d. According to a well-known adage, 'history is written by the victors'. How different do you think it would be if it were written by the losers instead?
If history were to be written by the losers then we would have no progress. when history is written by the victors they usually glorify their success. not only do they tell the story on a somewhat reliable way but they also tell why they won and how they did it. it is true that most of the time they omit the shameful details of for example genocide or the atrocities committed in war, but they have a larger view. history is written by them for a simple reason. almost no one takes pride on failure. one could say that the losers should write the history so then we could learn from the mistakes, but if so, one could never learn from the good things in life. if one has learned from the mistakes of the loser and then becomes the victor one would not be able to teach the rest through history the good things achieved.
also progress is made, at least in some parts of the human behaviour by trying to overcome the achievements of someone else. if we knew nothing of those achievements how could humanity advance?
If history were to be written by the losers then we would have no progress. when history is written by the victors they usually glorify their success. not only do they tell the story on a somewhat reliable way but they also tell why they won and how they did it. it is true that most of the time they omit the shameful details of for example genocide or the atrocities committed in war, but they have a larger view. history is written by them for a simple reason. almost no one takes pride on failure. one could say that the losers should write the history so then we could learn from the mistakes, but if so, one could never learn from the good things in life. if one has learned from the mistakes of the loser and then becomes the victor one would not be able to teach the rest through history the good things achieved.
also progress is made, at least in some parts of the human behaviour by trying to overcome the achievements of someone else. if we knew nothing of those achievements how could humanity advance?
Work for Monday May 2nd.
KI's
1. To what extent can History provide a larger perspective on certain issues.
2.To what extent does emotion play an important role on historical interpretation
3. to what extent does language shape or view on historical events
Essay Re-write:
In modern times, reason has been the way of knowing to attain truth. We have been conditioned to accept this fact. We assume that anything reasonable, by nature can be proved in some way and therefore it is valid. It is in some way true and relevant to our lives. This of course has undermined some of the other ways of knowing. One cannot say “it is true because I feel it” and expect it to be accepted by the most part of society. We have recurred to reason because in a way it is an easy way out. We do not have to live through the process of reason as we do with emotion or sense perception. But how can this way of reason possibly work in isolation? Furthermore, to what extent can reason alone attain a truth and later on communicate it?
I could never communicate my personal truth in a reasonable way. In Spanish class we are taught to try to find the central theme of a work, a poem for example, but our teacher had told us that we might never exactly know what it is, we may work our way around it but never exactly “get it”. Of course this is because in analysis, we are trying to figure this theme by undergoing a process of reason. We see words and because we know the feelings that are related to this words, we make connections and assume this feelings. If we were to use emotion instead, we would feel the poem, live in it, experience its depth, but at least in my personal experience never communicate this feeling in a reasonable way useful for a literary analysis. So the truth that we have attained from the poem through reason is not exactly “it”, it is only a version.
What I am trying to convey at the moment is of course said in a reasonable way. It was to be or else it would not be an essay. If this is said in such a way, it is not fully true. We try to find a reason for reason by using reason, and we may never reach this point of truth. We may find this reason using other ways of knowing but not be able to express it in a reasonable way. In this sense reason fails when isolated.
When using this specific way of knowing we have to first find some solid ground. Then from this build up our argument. Everything we say must come from somewhere and cannot suddenly pop out from empty space, this would not be logical, now would it? But to find this basis we have to have gotten it from somewhere. If we were to state that all apple trees produce apples we got this from sense perception and experience, and not from the mere logic of the name. To know what something is and then later on reason with it we have to have gotten it from somewhere outside of logic. So if logic only exists within itself, it will never move forward. It will never attain the truth, let alone communicate it.
1. To what extent can History provide a larger perspective on certain issues.
2.To what extent does emotion play an important role on historical interpretation
3. to what extent does language shape or view on historical events
Essay Re-write:
In modern times, reason has been the way of knowing to attain truth. We have been conditioned to accept this fact. We assume that anything reasonable, by nature can be proved in some way and therefore it is valid. It is in some way true and relevant to our lives. This of course has undermined some of the other ways of knowing. One cannot say “it is true because I feel it” and expect it to be accepted by the most part of society. We have recurred to reason because in a way it is an easy way out. We do not have to live through the process of reason as we do with emotion or sense perception. But how can this way of reason possibly work in isolation? Furthermore, to what extent can reason alone attain a truth and later on communicate it?
I could never communicate my personal truth in a reasonable way. In Spanish class we are taught to try to find the central theme of a work, a poem for example, but our teacher had told us that we might never exactly know what it is, we may work our way around it but never exactly “get it”. Of course this is because in analysis, we are trying to figure this theme by undergoing a process of reason. We see words and because we know the feelings that are related to this words, we make connections and assume this feelings. If we were to use emotion instead, we would feel the poem, live in it, experience its depth, but at least in my personal experience never communicate this feeling in a reasonable way useful for a literary analysis. So the truth that we have attained from the poem through reason is not exactly “it”, it is only a version.
What I am trying to convey at the moment is of course said in a reasonable way. It was to be or else it would not be an essay. If this is said in such a way, it is not fully true. We try to find a reason for reason by using reason, and we may never reach this point of truth. We may find this reason using other ways of knowing but not be able to express it in a reasonable way. In this sense reason fails when isolated.
When using this specific way of knowing we have to first find some solid ground. Then from this build up our argument. Everything we say must come from somewhere and cannot suddenly pop out from empty space, this would not be logical, now would it? But to find this basis we have to have gotten it from somewhere. If we were to state that all apple trees produce apples we got this from sense perception and experience, and not from the mere logic of the name. To know what something is and then later on reason with it we have to have gotten it from somewhere outside of logic. So if logic only exists within itself, it will never move forward. It will never attain the truth, let alone communicate it.
Suscribirse a:
Comentarios (Atom)