Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

3b. I think I deserve a A for this class because I did a lot of work for this class and I didthe best I could with all of the work and I did all the extra credit.4. Michael Shabsin5. free_at_last_085a. C6.free_at_last_08@yahoo.com7. Michael Shabsin Philosophy Page.http://sites.google.com/site/michaelshabsinphilosophypage/ 8. I have done most of the reading, as much of it as I could. It was a lot.9. I watched all of the films except the two lectures for the last week.10. Aldous HuxleyThe conversation Mike Wallace had with Aldous Huxley, while insightful andmeaningful, was boring, old, and filled with information that everybody knows orat the very least should know. Aldous Huxley covered topics from politics todrugs to technology and made points that they are all interrelated in a mannerthat allows people to gain power and remove freedoms from the growing masses. Hebelieves because the population is growing at such an astonishing rate, there isa pressing need of the people in power to try to manage all of these people byany means necessary. He must understand the fact that people in power alwayswant to remain in power, and he believes these are just the means they are usingto maintain their power.While I agree with most of the things Aldous Huxley said, I believe that thisinterview is so outdated that much information that could've been discussed wasleft undisclosed. Today, there are many different techniques that are used tocontrol people and while many of the techniques fall into one of the catagoriesthat Aldous Huxley mentioned, the specific details have been left out andtherefore make the interview less powerful had it not been so outdated. I guessall in all though, the interview did offer up some very valid points and if onewas to look at all of the points and extrapoate them into the world of today,one could still draw meaning from all of the arguments presented.Wikipedia on philosophyWikipedia states, "The history of philosophy is the study of philosophical ideasand concepts through time. Issues specifically related to history of philosophymight include (but are not limited to): How can changes in philosophy beaccounted for historically? What drives the development of thought in itshistorical context? To what degree can philosophical texts from prior historicaleras even be understood today?" Wikipedia, while not a great reference most of the time, does serve its purpose as a jumping off point for almost any topic.This was a great start for somebody who wants to study the history of

philosophy. It had information on the history of philosophy from all over theworld and gave enough information for one to use to be able to find out more onany particular topic that interested them.This page was very informational and yet quite brief. It got directly to all of the information and kept the information coming throughout the entire article.It mentioned some of the most influential people in the different schools of philosophy. Although I'm not completely unaware of the history of philosophy, Istill found it informative. Yet, it was basic enought for even someone who hadno knowledge of the subject to be able to understand it.California PhilosophersAfter looking at all the different topics covered and all of the differentanswers provided by the many different philosophers just in California, itbecomes clear that the answers and possibly even the questions are quiteunclear. When asked whether they believed in god, some said yes and others saidno, but not the question nor any of the philosophers even defined what god was.How can they tell if something does or doesn't exist if they don't even have astandard definition for what it is they are looking for. It is quite apparentafter looking at all of the responses these philosophers made, their responseswere nothing more than opinions and it doesn't take a Ph.D. to have an opinion.While these people all claim to be philosophers, they all had answers forquestions that nobody really knows the answer to (at least not yet).With all of that being said now, these people did provide a wide range of veryinteresting answers that were quite thought provoking. No matter what one'spersonal beliefs or thought are about each of the subjects, there were responsesthere that one could agree with and expand on or disagree with and argueagainst. Sharing one's thoughts about topics that are really nothing more thanopinions can be very interesting and mind expanding, if one is willing to listento another's arguments and actually give them a thought. I of course have my ownopinions about all of those topics, but it could make for a long post to putthose all in. So, let's just leave it at, "I don't know."Professor Francis FukuyamaProfessor Francis Fukuyama's interview was incredibly dull and long winded. Hecovered almost every topic imaginable, from religion to the beginning of theuniverse to the color of his new car (he might as well have though). Every topiche covers he leaves no real information except that there are many differentpossibilities for every subject, which anyone with half a brain shouldunderstand. He seems like a very intelligent person, but this interview provided

little information and went by really slowly.Professor Francis Fukuyama during this interview, said a lot, while not reallysaying that much. It is a skill that most politician's have, which makes mewonder whether he has or is running or holding a political office. Everything hesaid, he said very vaguely and he didn't give a lot of facts with his fewassertions. He seems to be quite good at saying nothing, while saying somethingand wasted my time listening to him.SocratesI have always liked socrates and his style of philosophy. His arguments aboutpiety and his guilt were very interesting to read and really make one considerwhat it means to be intelligent. He argues with people saying that he knows not,but when he inquires of them it turns out that they don't know either eventhough they profess to know believe he is the originator of the philosophy thatthe only thing one can know is that they don't know anything for certain.Instead of making statements about what is or isn't, he just asked questionsabout what other people thought and continued to ask them questions until theycame to some kind of a conclusion.In my opinion, he is the originator of philosophy, because he asked questionsinstead of providing answers, which is what philosophy is about (I think). Iunderstand his methods and how they are superior to other methods, but I cannotunderstand how he attained this level of thinking. I would like to think like hedoes, but I always find myself telling others and myself that I know things. Iam not humble enough possibly to think the way Socrates does, or I don't knowhow to look for questions instead of answers. Whatever it is though, I am unableto attain his level of thinking and can only hope as time goes by I willunderstand how to think the way he did.Either orI don't know exactly what the point of this short video was supposed to be, butI didn't get it. This was a very random movie with clips that just didn't fittogether to make one cohesive work. I didn't get this video and I don't think itwould matter how many times I watched it, I still wouldn't get it. This videowas very bad and I don't know what else I can really say about it, except Iwouldn't recommend anyone waste their time watching this.I've seen videos that combined clips together to make a cohesive piece of work and they had some kind of a point to make by the end of the video. I am a videoenthusiast and produce videos myself. I give any piece a chance, but not allpieces of work deserve recognition, and this video falls into the category of