Beauty in Art

It’s been interesting this semester discussing opinions and philosophies about art. What’s great is that art surrounds all of us each day. While walking to class or even at a store, one can see creations of art everywhere. It’s up to the individual to see and enjoy, or dislike what is artistic in our surroundings. Discussing history and concepts in our world of art in the classroom setting helps us realize that many great minds really shaped and developed the origins and beauty of art that we all enjoy today.

And, each person can have their own opinion on what they view as what is artistically beautiful or unattractive. It comes down to one’s perceptions and experiences which influences a person’s opinions. The more exposure I have to a variety of artistic ideas, the more I enjoy it and look forward to unique experiences. It’s up to all of us to further develop our world of art by continuing to deliver unique ideas to the history and beauty of what artistic expression is all about.

dreaming and reality

Ryan for a moment mentioned the difference between dreams and reality. i thought for a moment that would be a major and interesting part of his argument but its importance was made unclear. anyway, i wanted to comment on how i know that a dream is a dream and not reality because according to the International association for the study of dreams the dreamer cannot interact with a person that they have never had a sense experience with in what we call reality, and that if a person would were to be missing any of there senses such as a blind person they would dream with smell, tastes, and touches. this study has proven to me that we must first experience something awake before we can experience it in the dream state. therefore i can conclude that our experiences in reality effect the dream states when we sleep.

I really enjoyed the metaphor Alex used to illustrate God in her presentation last class. I thought it was very thorough and there were a lot of powerful comparisons. It also made me think about how personal each individual's thoughts of religion are. It is clear that Alex has a personal relationship to the ocean, and since I've lived ten minutes from the beach my whole life, I can understand that. I think humans all share a deep connection with nature, whether it be the ocean, the woods, or whatever. I think people also have a unique connection with their religious views, whether they are Catholic, atheist, or anything else. Both are things only the individual can fully understand for themselves. And even though they might be part of a larger group of people who believe the same things, they are going to have experiences that affect their beliefs, making them uniquely their own. My experiences have formed by religious beliefs, just as all of my experiences with the ocean have created my deeply personal feelings toward it.

#29

I have been thinking a lot about Aurelius' 29th meditation quite a bit. I really enjoy the language he uses, its almost poetic. The first line says to discard your misperceptions which means a lot to me because I feel like so much of how we live our lives is based on snap judgments and assumptions. It's such a hard thing to do though, its so easy to hold onto misperceptions and let them cloud our thinking. That's definitely one thing I want to work on for myself is being more accepting and more forgiving. Next he says, stop being jerked around like a puppet. I guess I've explained before that I see a lot of people living and doing things for all the wrong reasons and all the wrong people. The rest of number 29 says, limit yourself to the present, understand what happens to you-to others, analyze what exists, break it all down, material and cause, anticipate your final hours, other people's mistakes? Leave them to their mistakes. Most of this really sums up how I want to live my life. I want to live in the present and not fret about the future or get caught up on the past and things that can't be changed. This year, especially in my foundations classes I spent a lot of time challenging our perceptions of things and manipulating interpretations with materials so I thought that one particular line fit in really well with my educational goals in life, perfectly really. Everything in art to me in material and meaning, so why not in some ways pull that into my everyday life. Finally, I think this meditation reminds me to let go of the things I can't change, like my mortality or other people's choices. I've really fallen in love with this meditation and I think it was the most valuable reading to me this semester.

Religon

One thing that has always really bothered me is the way people react when they here the word "religon" or "god" or anything related to this. I find it really disrespectful for people to be put off by it so quickly. thats not to say I'm not also put off by people with religous views pushing their thoughts onto others who clearly aren't interested. Another thing I really wish religons did was push the views alittle bit - i realize now in days you can be labeled as "non denominational" but people with other views- why can't they push the boundries alittle bit -actually think about whats out their and experience and learn about other religons? I do respect traditions that are often played in catholic, jewish, muslim etc. religons but they seem so meaningless and overdone. I also really dislike how one sided religous - or athiest people are. I really want people to be more open to the ideas of whats out their and not completely turn different ideas off.

How should you live

I want to live my life by being the best I can be each day. My parents have always emphasized to not put things off until tommorrow, that you can do today.

Acquiring material things like that new release of the iPad doesn't make a person complete or deliver real happiness. One needs to take a step back and understand that a simple act of kindness toward your classmate, a relative, friend or homeless person on the street is an important way to live a fulfilling life. Personal sacrifice should be a priority in our lives as we can lend a hand to help out physically or monetarily, it's really pretty simple. In times of crisis like the devastation of a Tsunami, hurricanes or tornadoes, we can get involved.

Part of living life each day is that we should be aware and respectful of the environment around us. The little things add up, as it's easy to recycle or donate items you no longer need.

Try to discover your own, unique passion in life and follow that path to the best of your ability. It sounds like alot to live up to, but trying to live a well balanced life is something we should all strive for.

The Real World

This is basically a response to both Keller and Chevy's opinions on the nature of reality. They both argued that reality is subjective, and that different people see things in different ways. It's extremely easy to see where they're coming from as artists. Give a classroom of twenty people twenty identical apples to paint and you will get twenty completely different paintings of apples.

Individual perspectives are extremely important to the nature of reality because without human observation, there would be no one to assert that it existed or had a nature at all. I agree that their are discrepancies between the way that individuals relate back reality both to themselves and others. However, that is an error in the communication of the mind and the senses.

There is an objective reality or we would not all be able to point to two apples and observe they look exactly the same. When we look at the apple we are seeing the same apple everyone else in the room is seeing, but it is impossible to copy all the complexities of the apple, even though we are seeing them at once, so we invent or simplify the apple in our painting.

I enjoy speculating that the physical world may very well not exist, that I could be creating a reality all in my own mind and that my memory is the only reality that will ever be. Or that since we can never know what reality is when not faultily relaid through human observation and memory, we can assume that only our differing versions of it exist, each equally true.

Despite this speculation, I am for all intents and purposes, a practical person, and so I will continue to operate as if the material world is real and objective.

How Should We Live?

I wish everyone would just live for themselves. Doesn't that sound selfish? Maybe but I keep getting caught up in Aristotle's Vices and Virtues theory. Selfless and selfish. The excess of a virtue is a vice. Sort of like to much of a good thing is bad. Everywhere I go I see people who live there lives for everyone but themselves. I guess this sort of goes back to the discussion we had in class but I feel like to some extent you have to make yourself happy before you can make someone else happy. To many times good, selfless people lose themselves because they stop doing what is right for themselves and they live only to maintain the happiness of others. Like a host for a parasite... but hey, I guess this is what I'm about to tell you all about tomorrow so I suppose I should stop there!

So Much

I went to Barnes and Noble the other day and took alook at the philosophy section. I first tried to find a book on Descartes only to find that their are a vast amount. Many differnt views on descartes readings and interpretations but not only on descartes but their is an incredible amount of different theories, views and ideas on philosophy. I would really like to read more into philosophy but I do not want to shorthand myself by reading an overview of many different philosophers ideas, I feel it does not do them justice. but at the same time, how could I possibly read so many different ideas and thoughts without complete confusion? It will take a lifetime or more.

a common thread...

you know, one thing that i'm finding, both in people's presentations and my own doodlings, is that we really cannot answer just one of the five questions without answering and questioning another. for example, what is god like? that leads into questioning reality, which in turn leads into what exactly it is that we can know. I found it entirely interesting that, when people were presenting, more often than not (so far anyways) the presenter would end up answering  or involving the idea of one of the other questions in their response. philosophy, i have discovered (occasionally with much frustration) is a very circular subject, meaning one without an end. you can banter all you like, but there's always going to be something you've missed, something you haven't answered. how can we expect to find any one truth if we'll never be done questioning it?! perhaps that is the truth, that there is none. anyways, just found that interesting. sort of went off there a bit. but i'm sure you get the gist. i can only hope.

The Standard of Empathy

One thing I sort of forgot to go in depth about in my presentation today was my idea of the importance of empathy. As human beings we share experiences because we have the same set of emotions and react to certain situations in the same way. Although there are a variety of ways different people might react to the same situation, we can all put ourselves in the shoes of another person and understand on some level why they might react the way they do. At the very least we understand when we see a specific emotion in another person. For example if we see someone who is sad we have an emotional reaction in empathy for their sadness.

This is the reason we feel guilt when we fail to help another person. We know or can at least imagine the situation they're in, and we, at least subconsciously want to help them, just as we would want to help ourselves in the same situation. It's also the reason we have strong emotional reactions to plays and books and other forms of story-telling.

In this way, harming others really harms ourselves. This is an idea I borrowed from Marcus Aurelius, but he would say that the reason harming others harms ourselves is because we are going against the force of cosmic order, not because we feel guilt at inflicting harm on other people that we can feel through empathy on ourselves.

Doubt

I find it hard to believe that NO ONE ever questioned reality before descartes. I would guess that doubting started when philosophy started. Why would it be necessary to write down what somthing is until it was questioned on what it might be? Why have I never questioned how computers work? I know my computer can turn on and off although it breaks at times, but why is it that I can somehow plug the machine into a wall and it has life? do I trust this because it happens over and over again? Hume would say you shouldn't trust everything based on repetition, this is what he called "induction fallacy". We also base our lives on trust - I trust the fact that the world is round, but do I know for sure? No I trust the books that say this and every other person on the planet. But I have never doubted these things before now, but I still trust them as being true. Does this mean that we doubt more often now because of descartes and other philosophers views? Or did we always have this capacity to doubt? I believe that its a chain reaction, once one person doubts then more people doubt... and who knows - if everyone doubts reality will the world end up in complete chaos?

Solid literature or show me the money

Schopenhauer said, “Buying books would be a good thing if one could also buy the time to read them in: but as a rule the purchase of books is mistaken for the appropriation of their contents”.

Schopenhauer believed books were focused on making money. He felt the content of books did not allow people a resource to learn from or develop individually on a personal level. It almost seems like people are developing content to become a recognized expert on a subject matter, or noted as “that fantastic author” for the glamour of it all. I understand that some people write because they enjoy it, that’s what they like to do. I also agree people that have the knowledge and ability to convey their expertise on to paper in book form is a special gift. But, what is the author’s real objective.

Is the author’s goal to make use of global distribution and run thousands of books all over the world, concerned about profit margins? Or is that author sincerely focused on objectively sharing their perspectives and expertise to us with the objective of educating us and helping individuals become more well rounded about that topic. Schopenhauer has a great concept, that if we purchase a book, then we should also invest in the time to read it. Our books shops are filled with a cross section of literary masterpieces along with commercialized books targeting the bottom line dollar. Even way back in the 1800’s, Schopenhauer understood that authors misused their power to develop shallow literature for monetary gain as their primary objectives. Let’s not waste limited time we have on superficial literature. Let’s also give our authors the benefit of the doubt and try to learn from their powerful piece. I sure hope my next purchase on the “red hot sale table” at Border’s Books delivers the goods for me!

My own recipe

Arthur Schopenhauer felt that our world is basically what we recognize in ourselves as our “will”. It is up to the individual to successfully take on the responsibilities that life presents to each of us. Schopenhauer’s beliefs on reading books points out how much one can fall into dreams and allow authors to influence our thoughts and almost take over us. By reading, we do invite the author to deliver their point of view of a subject, but one must be strong and really take the content for granted. An authors point of view can be very strong, so keep it in perspective and enjoy the literary ride.

If I want to learn how to make an incredible pot of chili, I’ll rely on a book about foods with detailed recipes. It’s fine if we read to enlighten our knowledge base and really learn about history, or gain insight about the many subjects our complex world provides. However, I refuse to come away from a book I just read with a new, magic answer about that topic. I won’t allow that author to take over my mind and completely influence my opinions. I enjoy reading with an open mind and get into that piece, and learn from that author’s knowledge base. In the end, I’m going to digest and learn from the details of that topic, but I’m still going to use my own ingredients and cook up my own bowl of chili.

Reading Ourselves Stupid

In class we briefly discussed the idea of reading "paralyzing the mind". Schopenhauer argues that when you read, your own mind basically takes a nap and lets the author do the thinking for you. I was skeptical of this argument at first, but I came to agree with him.

It happens all the time in classrooms. You hear a lecture by a teacher who projects their views onto you. And even though you may question a teacher's opinion, rarely will you question the facts that they tell you. You could look at a piece from your art history textbook, pick out all the important visual aspects, study the time period it came out of and formulate your own interpretations about the piece. But that would take a lot of effort and a lot of time. Instead, it is much easier to let your teacher and art historians do the thinking for you, so you listen to lectures and read about the piece instead of trying to interpret it yourself.

I think this is what Schopenhauer is getting at with his argument. He says that if someone spends all of their time reading, not thinking or making, that they will "read themselves stupid", meaning they will no longer be able to form their own thoughts or opinions. I can tell that this is true, at least with myself, over time. The more I read about art history for example, the harder I find it to interpret pieces I see in museums. I often catch myself (and others) glancing at the piece and then going straight to reading the plaque on the wall, which gives us someone else's interpretation or the artist's statement. It's become easier to read about the piece than to rely on visual clues and our own thoughts about it.

I think Schopenhauer's argument is applicable to fiction reading too. The more we read, the more difficult it is for us to think up our own stories. If you've ever asked a little kid to tell you a story, you know that it comes very natural to them. They can go on forever, inventing new plot twists as they go along. But when little kids ask us to tell them a story, we find it more difficult. Adults' stories are more structured and have a plot very similar to that of a Disney movie. Why does that trend occur? I think it is because over time, as we read more stories and see more movies, our own imagination suffers because we become accustomed to letting others do the thinking for us. Whether fiction or non-fiction, I think Schopenhauer is definitely onto something when he says that people can "read themselves stupid."

"posers"

what is a poser anyway? most would say it's "pretending to be someone you're not". that's bollocks, i say. one of my ideas about things is that you can never really know someone. humans are very fluid individuals. based on this idea, in reference to "posers", how do we then that that's not how they really are? i have heard an idea expressed a number of times in a few different ways, and it is this: you emulate that which interests and inspires you. seeing as we're born basically a blank piece of paper, i would say this statement is definitely something i agree with. we all do it, whether it be with our choice of clothing, a way of speaking, or even a certain style of art. "but they're copying me!" i believe copying and emulating to be two completely different things, and i have yet to find someone who copies another out of spite. though, i have heard that "imitation is the highest form of flattery". so what're yew complaining about anyways?!

On Writing and Books

Although I find Schopenhauer's writing to be mostly the complaints of a cynical old man who despises anything new, I was surprised to find that his opinions on the literature of his time period are relevant to this time period, and I even agreed with a few of them.

Schopenhauer's main argument seems to be that literature only has worth if it is a ground-breakingly insightful piece of writing that teaches us all how to be better people or a better society and is written in the most flawless beautiful prose possible. I wholeheartedly disagree. There is nothing wrong with a story intended only to entertain, or to inspire the imagination of the readers. Many such stories contain important perspectives or philosophies as well. I would agree with him that books written by people only looking to make a profit (ie, James Patterson) are not worthy of much praise or attention, but reading them on occasion will not cause society to plummet into the depths of literary despair. It may not even cause anyone to loose brain cells.

Even reading writing that's simply awful can be useful. It helps aspiring writers to learn how not to write. Which brings me to another thing I disagree with Schopenhauer on. Writing is not a talent bestowed in people from birth. Anyone can learn writing techniques by reading work that skillfully incorporates them; they just have to figure out what to look for.

From the point of view of an aspiring writer, one thing I found particularly interesting was Schopenhauer's idea that too much reading is bad. On the surface I disagree completely. You don't just blindly accept the ideas presented in whatever you're reading, you're constantly forming your own ideas that either conflict or compare with the writer's. On the other hand, I sometimes find that I can't read nearly as much as I use to when I was little because as soon as I start reading, I'm inspired to write, either because the book is so good or because it's mediocre and I can think of a way to do it better. I need a balance between reading the work of others and creating my own.

what makes good art?

i believe good art comes from a certain sort of excitement all your own. art should be made for yourself and because you wanted to. good art does not come from instruction. it is the result of individual expression through processed-information-made-personal. good art is not "because i told you so". good art is not "here's a butt-load of money". good art is, however, sharing your mind with someone else.

and then there are technicalities...

elsewhere.

i find i have the best ideas when i really shouldn't be deviating from the subject at hand. a good example being i tend to draw my best doodles in other people's sketchbooks. also, thinking of good blog ideas in the middle of class. or even pondering possible comic plots and drawing designs whilst listening to a story being told by a friend. could it be the natural rebellion in human nature? could it be a subconscious fear of being presently involved? could it be that i'm simply fascinated with distractions? i wonder if others have this odd tendency. do share your theories if, and only if, you can relate.

minds and reading

Schopenhauer says that when the reader reads they are reading the thoughts of the person who wrote the book, and if we read too much we will forget how to think for ourselves, and that we should reserve reading for only good books. I think he is on the right track i have never picked up a book that i wasn't interested in because like Schopenhauer was discussing life is too short to waste time on a bad book, but what qualifies a "bad book" besides opinion, experience, and others opinion's on the book in question. for me most of the time if someone has told me not to waste my time on the book unless i really wanted to read that book I' m not going to read it. I do think the idea of reading the other persons thoughts in there books is interesting because it is a reflection on what the person was doing at the time and that can brought to another level of interpretation when the visual arts is brought in because the artist can create an image or images to match up with the thought process and actions of the author. Besides it is always good to have the visual with the literal, if it is a good interpretation of what Schopenhauer says is a good book.

Dreams, Dragons and John Lennon

"I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?" John Lennon

How can we believe in things that we are not certain of their existence? I quoted John Lennon because his approach toward existents seems quite different from the general view. As humans, we doubt. Even Descartes who was eager to prove the existence of God started his study with doubting everything first. Then, what does it mean to exist, anyway? It is impossible to make a clear answer to this question, but we can approach closer to the answer by proving our existence. First, it is important to recognize that we are the ones who perceive existents. Think of dreams. Everything presented in a dream is a projection of our mind. It does not matter how real they look. The fact that they are just false images does not change. How about us? Now we know that we are surrounded by those false images while dreaming. Does it make us fake, too? No. Then what distinguish us from them? Consciousness. Even in a dream, we have consciousness since we are able to think, see and listen. And that consciousness is what proves our existence. In other words, although our world surrounding us might not be real, nothing can disprove our existence as long as we have consciousness.

Once we recognize our existence, the next thing we do is to perceive other existents. This is when our individuality comes in. When we are dreaming, our minds are deceived by false images but we cannot never be sure whether they are real or not until we actually wake up. We have no choice but to decide what to believe and what not to believe based on our own judging system. Some based on senses, some based on knowledge, etc. In my case, I always make that decision based on my experiences. So, unlike John Lennon, I do not believe in dragons or fairies. I do not agree with his idea that things can exist as a concept. People ask me, "Why do you believe in God then?" It was not because someone told me to believe. It was a decision that I carefully made based on what I have experienced through my life. Without those experiences, like fairies or dragons, God would have been just another concept to me. Some people would disagree with me. Like I said, everyone has his or her own rule and opinion on existence of certain things. Existence can only be defined by each individual.

Beauty

So you’ve heard that saying, “Beauty is in the Eye of the beholder”. When I view the landscape of our campus in full bloom this spring, and the hustle and bustle of students, I enjoy beauty every single day as I even make it to class on time. Wouldn’t you agree that the flowers budding and healthy trees blowing in the wind are absolutely beautiful? Well, you don’t have to agree with me. I’m comfortable listening to your opinions and respect your thoughts about what defines beauty and what you feel doesn’t.

In 1931, Albert Einstein said “the most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious - the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science”. Well done Albert, as I definitely agree that opening up to unique or “mysterious” experiences makes life great and helps shape one into a well rounded person. And, I agree that defining true art is open for discussion. If we visit the Nelson together and experience some art exhibits, we should be ready to share a civil discussion about what we just saw. I may feel the exhibit upstairs was too mysterious to be showcased, while you may define that same artistic expression as flat out beautiful.

That’s how we should experience things and enjoy the beauty in our lives every day. Allow people to express their opinions on what is beautiful, and what they feel isn’t. And make sure the next time you walk through the KCAI campus that you take the time to not only smell the roses, but really experience the emotions of what is beautiful – friends, our people on campus and the gifts of nature in full bloom!

No real beauty

Beauty is all in our heads those beautiful landscapes are not really beautiful because beauty is all in our heads it is an opion that is sometimes back up with logic such as when an art work is deemed beautiful by a person or group of people but that can easily be countered with logic saying the piece is ugly but as far as the landscapes and cityscapes some think one is ugly and the other is beautiful some people think both are beautiful. All I'm saying is nothing is really beautiful we just perceive the objects as beautiful or not depending on our opinions.

oh, by the way...

I've been so terrible about blogging lately! I feel like I never really have anything important enough to say to warrant a blog post about it. BUT for some reason my mind has been stuck on the whole Midsummer's Night Dream thing and Shakespeare's views on love. I think the message he was trying to convey with this play is that love is something we have no control over, that it has no rhyme or reason and even more so how easily we can mistake lust or infatuation for love. By that definition I couldn't agree more.

It seems like the world love gets thrown around a lot very loosely with out generation. I think about how many times I use the word a day, I LOVE avocados or I LOVE "insert male musician/actor/athlete here" or saying I love you to a casual acquittance, in passing. I think my friends and I started doing in in high school. Every person we saw in a day people heard some form of the phrase, "ok, love you bye". The word love has become so casual its as if in some instances it has no meaning at all. Now I'm thinking about it and I realize I'm not sure if I even know what love is. Of course you know that you love your family, your dog and your close friends. That's natural, simple as breathing and I'd say for the most part lacks your own decision in the matter.

So then I start thinking about my first boyfriend. "OH GOD NO" you're thinking to yourself right? "Doesn't this belong in a private journal somewhere?!", you're saying. It's part of my thought process though so I'm going to share a little piece of my past with you. I think the reason why I'm ruined on love now is because I thought I knew what it was ages 15-17 when I was under the illusion that a long term relationship was a good idea for a teenage...and then reality hit and people grow apart and I'm left thinking, if a person is always changing how can you love the same person forever? I'm definitely not the same person I was when I was 15. For that matter, I'm not even close to the same person I was 6 months ago. I think for me I feel this underlying pressure to want to get married and have babies and be in LOVE. But who knows if that's the right way, it all seems a little unnatural to me.

I think Shakespeare is right. I think love is fickle and fleeting. As deep as a fairies spell that can be turned on or off in an instant. I'm going to end this little tirade here, but be expecting another one real soon. Lots of blogging to make up!! Trying to learn to love(?) it.

The Beauty of Paint Splotches

In class we discussed beauty in terms of culture. I think most of us agreed that many people are conditioned by either education or popular culture to view certain things as beautiful. As a result, some art (Cy Twombly and Rothko are two examples from class) may only be regarded as beautiful because some people like to be pretentious, and they think that claiming to like this kind of art makes them seem superior. And that is a very valid point. But I think those who disregard these artists' works just for the sake of not being pretentious are missing something very important, and that is experience. Take Jackson Pollock for example. You can relate to his work in an exclusively visual way, but that would detract from its beauty. After all, they are just paint drips and splotches with no traditional consideration of things like composition or imagery. But once you consider the experience that went into the piece, once you can visualize the artist's body lurching over the canvas spread on the ground and once you know about the Native American traditions that Pollock was inspired by while painting it, it is really difficult to not see the beauty in it. However, many people do not see the artist's body in his paintings, and many don't know about his background, and many only think his paintings are beautiful because pretentious people told them that his paintings are beautiful. And I think many of us are turned off by the fact that a person who knows nothing about art will throw down Jackson Pollock's name for the sake of seeming cultured. But I would urge you all to look past that. I urge you all to look more deeply into the artists that you find hard to relate to or think are just too cliche, because they often offer more than just a canvas. They offer an experience, and that is what makes them beautiful.

A MATTER OF OPINION

Who is to say what is good art and what is bad art when art itself is one of the most subjective human experiences. I believe the idea of art derives from the natural urge to want to create, the urge to express ones self. Art is it's own entity, it's able to take on any form that the artist wishes to give it, it is simply a visual description of some point that the artist wants to get across to the viewer. If that is correct then we can not say what is good and what is bad simply because art is not perfect and has no true form.

I also strongly believe that all of our life experiences dictates the development of our taste. Everyone and everything has some kind of effect whether it positive, negative, or neutral on our point of view. I also believe many of us ignore the natural feeling we have towards a piece of work based on the opinion of our peers.

Not what it seems

I have always held the thought of, we think therefore we are, very close to my heart. However, put in the context of Descartes' writings, I feel as though I need to give him less credit. Descartes logic is completely absurd and self contradicting. The writing itself is also very manipulative, and for lack of a better term pretentious. It's interesting to have read the work fully, because I now know that instead of Descartes being a believer in a strong mind being a defining factor of human life, he believes more that life itself could be simplified into an equation.

Who to Trust

If the authority of others means nothing in comparison to reason then I believe you would have no way of knowing anything. There are certain events and circumstances in life where we have to trust the word of others such as the day you were born. Of course you wouldn't remember this day being only an infant so unless you felt like going through an exhaustive process to find the truth for yourself, you don't have much of a choice than to simply trust what you've been told. However that doesn't mean you should blindly follow the judgment of others because people will lie if given the opportunity, no matter who they are. It's up to you to use your own reasoning to decide if you want to believe them or not. And even if you find out that they're lying, you also have to decide whether or not to let them get away with it.

Descartes and the senses

Descartes does not state that the senses have no value, only that understanding is the function of the mind rather than of the senses. It might be said that if one hopes to understand something (even a physical thing) it must be done by the mind rather than relying only on the senses. Descartes had a dream that he argued if he was dreaming or not. this particular dream seemed to be real to him. In his dream he was sitting by a lit fire and while sitting next to it he could feel the warmth brushing against him, which made him argue if his senses can allow him to feel the heat while he's dreaming how does he trust if its lit and warm when he's awake. Descartes sense perception relies on the mind more than the body. Senses are revealed by the mind. I agree it is my mind that gives me reason and knowledge to control my senses. I may see someone walking down the street with an umbrella. My mind says its raining or going to rain or the umbrella is to keep out the sun. It is my mind that is understanding not my senses. But I can smell rain, hear the rain and feel the rain without being out in the rain. My mind controls my senses. When I have a dream and feel like I am falling, my mind is reenacting something I had done before. As if, falling off a bicycle, but in my dream I am falling off a cliff. I believe Descartes' feeling the sense of warmth of the fire is the realization of being familiar with fire and the warmth you get. It is his minds understanding that created the fire and warmth.

This begets a very natural question; What is meant by a skeptic? And how far it is possible to push these philosophical principles of doubt and uncertainty?
... I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension.
... There is a species of scepticism, antecedent to all study and philosophy, which is much inculcated by Descartes and others, as a sovereign preservative against error and precipitate judgement. It recommends an universal doubt, not only of all our former opinions and principles, but also of our very faculties; of whose veracity, say they, we must assure ourselves, by a chain of reasoning, deduced from some original principle, which cannot possibly be fallacious or deceitful.
(David Hume, 1737)

Who do we trust

I realize Descartes only gave a person one chance to gain his trust.But I feel there are circumstance sometimes beyond our control that would interfere with the person's ability to follow through.

As a youngster I was fortunate to have adult models who were always trustworthy. My parents and siblings and grandparents always followed through with anything they said they would do. They gave me the support and guidance I needed to become a young adult.

My grandmother would always say," Keep your word. Your word is your bond and don't say something you do not mean or will not do. It is the only way another person can trust you."

As I got older I realized what she meant. I had peers who did not have integrity. They would say one thing and then blow it off as unimportant. I am an optimistic person and would give the person a second chance. When the same thing happened again, I knew they could not be trusted to follow through on what they promised. When that happens you lose respect for them.

I see politicians get elected into a public office and conveniently forget to do what they promised the people who voted for them. Would you vote for them again-I wouldn't. Honesty gives a man self worth and gains the respect of his family, friends, colleagues and community.

Science Fiction and Philosophy

I love reading science fiction and fantasy and have been doing so since I learned to read. I realized recently the effect these kinds of stories have on the way I look at philosophic questions, and so I was surprised that we actually talked about a scifi story in class today.

The genre, otherwise known as speculative fiction, is based entirely on the question "what if?". By always asking this question, I can theoretically look at every possibility in every situation I come across. I don't feel any particular need to settle on one possibility as The Truth, but instead, am interested in these different perspectives in themselves as ways to define reality. When asked the question what is more certain, that you exist or that the sun will rise tomorrow, I think of the different ways that either of these things may not be certain: that I may be a programed artificial intelligence in some giant virtual world, that there may be a malfunction in this virtual world and the sun will not rise, that my mind and my thoughts are all illusions created by something much greater than me, and that I as an individual entity do not exist, that an asteroid will hit the earth, knocking it out of orbit, therefore it will not be rotating to create the illusion of the sun rising, etc. After imagining all those possibilities, (which essentially is what Decartes did, so I don't understand why he goes back and says that imagining things is a bad method from which to reason out knowledge), I decide that whether I exist or not objectively, I exist subjectively to myself, and that is good enough for me. Also, not being sure the sun will rise tomorrow is probably a bad excuse for not doing my philosophy homework so I will continue to operate as if it will.

Decartes uses a similar method for studying the question of reality and what we can know about it, by doubting everything, but his and my opinions differ because he assumes he is thinking and that there is nothing that can construct these thoughts but himself. He also assumes there must be perfection, one form of truth in any situation, and that deception is a form of imperfection. I assume no such things, and thus can be certain of nothing. I guess that allies me with Shakespeare, Montaigne, and the skeptics. Well, Shakespeare did write fantasy.

Discisions and sources

We are influenced by people around us everyday i dont think Descartes took that in account. If we continuously look inside to much for answers and have internal conflict with every dicsion we become detached from other resources around us in the physical world. I believe it is important to use as many sources an influences as possible, but ultamently it is our decision on any topic in our head that should suggest we forget about the world and people around us to help find the answers we seek.

Dreaming

In class today we had a paper rating how sure we are of these things:
This is what I personally thought

1. I am thinking
2. I exist
3. I am now not dreaming
4. My mother is female
5. The ground feels hard
6. 9+6=15
7. The ground is hard
8. I am older then 15
9. Their is Oxygen in Water
10. Paris is the Capital of France
11. All Humans are Mortal
12. The Sun will rise tommorow

I thought it was really interesting how most put "I am now not dreaming" near the bottom because it is somthing we have to believe ourselves and no one can tell us this. I definately put this near the top because its not somthing I have to trust the knowlege of someone else for, I know I'm not dreaming because of what's happening around me and my awareness and knowledge of whats going on. In my dreams I let my imagination take over and I know I'm dreaming for you can move through time whenever you want and look in different views unlike reality. I'm told this isn't the same for others but the idea of dreaming is a very interesting concept and i guess other people view it differently as if mind cannot control or know whats going on in the time of sleep.

Des Cartes's idea of knowledge

In class we talked about Des Cartes's beliefs and theories. One of Des Cartes's points was that knowledge is accesable to everyone in the same way and that man has the capacity to come up with truth. This is a major point I'm going to make in my paper so I won't elaborate on it to much in this blog but I disagree with Des Cartes's theory. I don't think everyone can comprehend knowledge in the same way. Not everyone can reach to the same level of knowledge as others can. I don't think I could ever reach the level of knowledge as Albert Einstein could no matter how hard and how long I tried - its just not possible. I also disagree with the idea that we have the capacity to come up with truth. Although humans have the capacity to comprehend obvious truths like 2+2=4 and my mother is female. Man will never come up with an answer such as "Is their a God" and "How Earth was created" - Man can come up with a truth they believe in such as christianity or the big bang theory but this is not truth because it cannot be proven. This is only a small basis of what I will cover in my paper

Knowledge & Authority

The first two exercises we did in class today dealt with the idea of knowledge and authority -- on what basis do we accept things as truth? Descartes argues that reason is the only authority, but in practice we frequently appeal to authorities other than ourselves -- and this is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, part of thinking for oneself could include deciding whom to trust in which situations. Which authorities do you trust, outside yourself? On what grounds do you trust them?

Science of Sleep

While reading Shakespeare's A Midsummer's Night Dream, I kept thinking about the movie The Science of Sleep. In this movie, the main character is in a constant struggle to determine his dreams from reality. The movie depicts his dream state as a cardboard television set from which he crosses in and out of while dreaming. He often sleep walks, and so sometimes what he thinks he did while dreaming, he actually did in reality. At one point he even writes a love note to his neighbor and slips it under her door, complicating their real-life relationship.

This made me think that whether or not Shakespeare's characters were in a dream or reality, the night still had real effects on their waking lives. Their relationships were definitely altered after the night. The subconscious can often reveal truths about myself; things I was not aware I was feeling are often brought out through dreams. Reading into my dreams often lets me make connections and become more introspective.

It is one of my favorite movies and I recommend it if you are interested in sleep or the subconscious. Or you want to see something really beautiful. Here is a clip of one of the main character's dreams.

Lab Reflection

The structure of our lab on Saturday left me thinking about the classroom setting and the difference between Eastern and Western schooling. During class I realized how much I rely on my teachers to guide my thinking. They ask a question, and I answer it. My thinking is guided and in some ways limited by that goal of reaching a destination. So when Rebecca asked us simply to meditate on the passages on Saturday, I think a lot of us felt lost. Where were the questions? If there were no questions to answer, what were we supposed to be doing? What were we supposed to be thinking? After we were left alone with our passages and the sculptures, I read and re-read the paper in front of me. I didn't have anything to fall back on, no question to guide my thinking, so every idea I had felt completely original. I spent more time with the reading because there was no destination. I couldn't answer a few questions and then sit around waiting for everyone else to be finished, so I took my time. I had a better understanding of the message and found myself connecting it to my own life. Overall, I got so much more out of this text than others just because of the way I was reading it. I can understand why many people would hate this kind of class structure, especially at our age when we've had a very specific, question/answer based education our whole lives. But I'm curious to know, did anyone get as much out of it as I did?

Shakespeare on women

Women seem to be depicted fairly to what societies views were back then. Arranged marriages were commonplace and I'm sure that their were some women back then that thought of running away than to be forced to marry or face death. Character's like Helena and Hermia were very brash and bold in the film. Though it doesn't seem as if this is Shakespeare's way of trying to uphold women's rights, at least not entirely. It seems more that he is toying with the idea of women rebelling against their current standings in that time period.

Femininity and Shakespeare

I think that Shakespeare is simply accurately depicting the role of women in society at this time. He upholds cultural traditions and religious practices. What I can commend him for is giving the women on this play distinct personalities. Both women take a forceful role in getting what they think they want. He could have made them passive and docile like the women of this time were supposed to be but instead he gave them very strong personalities. In this was, I feel that he was actually ahead of his time. He was definitely referencing a type of woman that wouldn't necessarily be the "ideal". I really like the fact that Hermia is even given the opportunity to disobey her father and I think it says a lot about Shakespeare's views on women that he allows her to be that out spoken.

Shakespeare and Women

I think Shakespeare is portraying women of the era. He does not hate women but points out that arranged marriages were acceptable for most women. Women rebelling in this custom made a clear statement in the play. It was the beginning of women speaking out for the right to choose their own mate as we do today.

The trickery to conduce women to fall in love with potions and such makes for a dramatic scene to enhance the play. But as in today it would be called date rape and the person would probably be incarcerated.

In that era, women were not seen as performers on stage. To be a woman actor, I think she would have to have a strong take charge attitude, yet had to be submissive.

Fear of Change

In that sense it would seem that we are our own worst enemy. I don't remember where I've heard that before, though I do agree that what you've experienced in the past will mostly determine how you act for the future. I am curious to wonder if those limitations in our minds would always be a bad thing.

We are always afraid of change. However, throughout our lives, we sometimes face situations that require a lot of change in us. Then, what makes us afraid of change and hesitate going forward? There would be many answers to this question, but I would say our thoughts and mistakes, which we made in the past, are the main reasons why we tend to stay where we are now. As humans we constantly screw things up and make mistakes. Our negative thoughts always trap us and limit our abilities. Someone might say humans are flawed in this way. But there is one thing I am for sure: We are stronger than our thoughts and mistakes.

Shakespeare and women

Shakespeare's female characters behave and are treated in a way that was appropriate for the time. i would not say that he stands up for women, but he does present a situation that often involves women having to give into the law of men like Hermia she is being forced to marry Demeterius by her father or face death. This could be shakespeare's way of bringing women's rights to the conversation. either way i don't believe he had any negative assumptions about women other than the time periods set standards.

Shakespeare and Feminism

In my own opinion, Shakespeare does not seem to be misogynistic. His female characters behave and are treated as it was common during the time period, but that nothing about their characters suggests that Shakespeare hated all women. Helena says at one point "you do set a scandal on my sex. Women cannot fight for love as men may do. We should be woo'd and were not made to woo." Obviously during the time period it was believed that all women were more timid then men, created to sit around looking pretty, whereas it is the men, ( like Hermia's father and Demetrius), have the ultimate say in any important decisions. Titania, although she's a powerful high-strung lady, fights with her husband, so he makes a fool out of her and she simply leaps back into his arms, thanking him for rescuing her. This seems to make a pretty strong statement about the place of women (at their husband's side), and the punishment should they disobey him (falling for an ass). The duke's wife seems to be forced into marriage because Thesues captured her from her native homeland or something, and yet she's cool with it, having a simple woman mind, or a short-term memory loss. Also, though as stated before, it's men who have to go out and do the wooing, Helena is the only one willing to be a spaniel to Demetrius. Demetrius doesn't have to demean himself for the sake of love, because he's manly. Maybe that's a little far fetched, and Demetrius just isn't trying as hard as Helena because he's already got Hermia via her father's permission. Anyway, besides the culture's general low opinions of women, I don't think Shakespeare had any unusually harsh criticisms of the fair sex.

The Fairer Sex

Of course Shakespeare wrote several hundred years before the feminist movement (and feminist philosophy), but his play offers us a nice opportunity to reflect on notions of femininity and the perception of women in Britain around 1600. Do you think women are fairly portrayed in the play? Does Shakespeare seem to you to be misogynistic, or does he stand up for the rights of women?

Understanding of "The Self"

From my understanding the self and mind are one and of itself. The self is how one operates on an individual level. For example, the way one brushes their teeth, the way one eats, the one carries themselves as they walk. It's a preconceived setting I believe we are created with that develops over time. I believe that we were created a specific way in order to play a specific role in the society that we live, I guess to say that none of us are at random but play a very specific role in each others lives. Also I like to think that our experience here on earth helps develop our "self", to say that the self is just way to distinguish us as unique and something that helps us stand out on an individual level. In summary "The Self" is a guide for us and helps us react in a specific way to any all experiences we have here on earth.

the self

I have a very strong belief in a set and solid self. While the thoughts of a person may change upon reflection of events that have happened to the person, the self is very much defined by the mind, which I believe, is very much consistent throughout the life of the person. There was some discussion about how life experiences can alter the mind for example. These life experiences alter behavior, but not the mind or the self. Say some events happen to you yet the same events happen to a different person and the effect on that person is the exact opposite. The reason for this, I would argue, is that the mind is a set thing and the defining factor of the self because of it's consistency. Effects vary from person to person because minds and selves vary from person to person.

Causality

I have to agree with Shakespeare, I do not feel that anything happens for a reason and I've never been a firm believer in Karma or anything like that. I tend to believe that experiences and events are random occurrences. I have the attitude that things in my life take place without any control by the universe or God or fate. I sometimes feel that people rely to heavily on the idea that there is a "plan" for our lives set for us to follow. It gives us comfort, maybe the feeling that we aren't alone but maybe just a crutch to lean on when things aren't going the way we hoped they would. I recently had a very close family friend pass away in freak accident at work. You do your best to comfort your loved ones and often I heard, "It was God's plan for him." I've never been so sure about this sentiment though, I think that as humans there is a vulnerability that we try to cover up with this notion of our planned out life, it gives us an outlet to blame the tragedy and pain on. I like to think that there is no plan for my life, the stars don't need to a line and I don't need God's consent. Any one event can change the rest of our lives.

Shakespeare= Philosophy?

-I wrote this before class on Monday and forgot to post it. I understand much better what Shakespeare's philosophy was-

Overall, I found it hard to see how the story of a Midsummer Night’s Dream relates to philosophy, and the five topics we’ve been talking about. It certainly isn’t about metaphysics or theology. I don’t see how it’s about epistemology. So it must be either ethics or aesthetics?

I guess it might be a representation of the idea of beauty during the time period both in in it’s poetic nature, and in the idea of love. Perhaps Shakespeare is indirectly making the case for beauty being derived from love.

Certainly love, and not just love in general, but romantic, obsessive love, is the main theme throughout the play. The characters are willing to do anything for the person they love: elope, disobey their parents, follow that person even though that person doesn’t love them, and in jealous, attempt to make a fool out of that person by making them fall in love with something silly, and also die. (Hermia says at the end of act 2 scene 2 that she’ll either find Lysander or die).

I suppose the idea of love could relate to ethics, in that, right or wrong, as long as you’re doing something for love, it’s the right choice.

Do things happen for a reason

I think God has a plan for us, we are not random and chaotic unless we make it so.

In the first Book of the Bible, Genesis, when God created the world, "All God made was good."

God formed order out of the chaos. God gave us the gift of life to keep the beauty and order He made, and to make a better world.

God gave man free will and man does not always do what is right to keep God's orderly plan. Man is here to keep repairing the world of disease, poverty, war, loneliness, by helping the orphan, the widow, the homeless person, the victims from the destruction of natural disasters-to bring about peace. To stop crime and hatred for all men are made in the image of God.

It is said ,'kindness is contagious'. Help someone and they will hopefully help someone else and bring about the order needed. If there is chaos, we bring it upon ourselves.

Metaphysics

Aristotle puts artist on a petastol at the behind of his metaphysics because we as artist have the drive to create, and at first only the artist is aware of the concept of the work, and just being the first to know gives us understanding of the experience behind the work something that a regular experienced person cannot experience. Aristotle puts metaphysics into categories starting with the nature, then to experience, understanding, and last is reason, the reason backs up understanding. The reason is mathematic, and how it explains the space around us. The relationship between the two is thy art describes the space around us, and math explains the space around us. The two work together to create a harmony in the question of what is reality.

Things happen for a reason?

The notion of causality is one of the three main philosophical issues Shakespeare tackles in his work. He tends toward a skeptical view -- things happen for no reason. What do you think -- is there any rhyme or reason to what happens in the world, or are we at the mercy of chaos and randomness?

Mid-term grades

At the risk of ruining your spring break by reminding you about school, I just wanted to let you know that I have posted your mid-term grades. Since we have not done the paper and presentation yet, the weights were as follows: Lab 30%, Blog 30%, Quizzes 15%, Class Participation 25%. If your grade is much lower than you expected, it probably means you have not turned something in. Don't panic, just talk to me when you get back so we can get these things taken care of. Enjoy the rest of your break, and see you Monday!

The Flying Man

Relativity is the key to processing anything. Simple concepts such as big or small, hot or cold almost all revolve around comparisons. Even more complex concepts, for example, good and evil, are based on comparisons. Without darkness, we would have no concept of either lightness or darkness because lightness would just be the way everything is all the time.

Therefore, a human being in a perfect state, suspended without senses, would not have thoughts. They could not think in sound, image, smell, feeling, or taste. They could not compare their state of being with anything, so they would not have a concept of not being, and therefore they would not have a concept of being.

The human brain is an organ that functions by receiving and sending messages to other organs. If the sensory organs don't feed the brain any messages, it can't react to anything. Babies and toddlers begin to understand things and formulate ideas as their brain develops. It is crucial for them to sense their environment in order for them to begin to form these ideas. From a purely scientific stand point, the floating person would not think about anything.

Most Christian and Islamic (probably Jewish too?) philosophers, such as Avicenna, who believe in a soul would disagree with me. But unless our brain is connected to some soul or intellect, separate from our physical bodies, it would be impossible for that person to think.

multiplicatives of negatives only result in negativity

i find it entirely odd that the mind reverts to the downside of things in any given situation, don't you? i suppose you could say humans are simply flawed in that sense, but i wonder why.


i hate that i have to trust in the receiver of my words to follow my gist.

the power of the human mind

I left class thursday a little disturbed, it seemed to me that a lot of people didn't have a lot of faith in the human mind's strength and it's ability to think. The question was "Does a human being suspended in air with no senses know it exists?" There was a lot of discussion leaning in the direction of saying it wouldn't which was surprising to me. Regardless, it got me thinking in large part about what the mind would be doing over long periods of essentially darkness and surrendering to a state of not feeling. We as humans, surrender our senses out of will for meditation in different ways, but I think the closest to complete unkowningness is a coma patient. What does the mind create in those dark periods of time? I think it would be something rather horrific, a second world filled with nightmares. If the brain isn't getting reference from things that exist the abstract forms it would create I think would be horrific in nature.

The Art of Basketball? Um, no...sort of.

First, let me say that I would not be the ideal art school student to ask about a basketball exhibit in an art museum. Unlike many of my fellow students, I am actually quite opinionated when it comes to sports, one of those main opinions being: I detest basketball. It's really nothing personal and I don't mean to be offensive to those who do like basketball but the last four years of my life have been spent in total devotion to wrestling. Being from the Iowa/South Dakota area wrestling generally takes precedence over basketball and that is especially true for me. It's more than a mild interest and anyone who's facebook friends with me knows that it consumes my thoughts, especially during the winter months. That being said, it is my duty as a wrestling fanatic to find distaste in anything basketball related. In a joking manner I believe I said something like, "I feel like they've defaced this poor beautiful museum", when I saw the tape applied to the floor.

That being said, Rebecca made a very good point as we discussed the exhibit. It was a fantastic marketing tactic on the part of the museum. Hundreds of people who might not have otherwise set foot in the Nelson went because of the exhibit. Regardless of whether or not the original rules of basketball belong at an art museum I think the most important aspect is that the exhibit only served to support the museum and gather a crowd of people that otherwise would not have ever gone and that's something that I can support.

unconscious inferences

After class and our little science experiments with optical illusions I decided I needed to know more. As it turns out, I retained very little knowledge from high school science. The short of it is that optical illusions are unconscious inferences that our brain makes. In its attempt to make sense of what we are seeing out brain puts things together that it might not otherwise. Basically, optical illusions aren't real but our brain interprets them as being true. I found the definition of "unconscious inferences" to be especially important because I feel as though this is something our brain is always doing and not just with illusions. For me, unconscious inferences in illusions, translated to prejudices in every day life. We are constantly making judgments on things we have been conditioned to feel one way or another about. What's unsettling about this is that this tendency may be hard wired into our brains. It makes sense though, when our brain sees something it can't naturally understand, it mashes things together in an attempt to comprehend. I feel like this works in a few ways. The illusions can be pleasing or not and much like what we see everyday we generally find distaste or acceptance in it because of how are brain interprets and makes sense of it. And in that way, life is just an illusion.

Basketball Exhibit

I didn’t leave the James Naismith “Original Rules of Basket Ball” exhibit at the Nelson Art Museum ready to lace up my Nike’s. Instead, it made me wonder why sports memorabilia is being showcased as an exhibit at the Nelson. The Rules provide historical information about Basketball as a sport. I stepped back from all of the media attention and excitement from my dad about “March Madness” basketball this month and realize that the Naismith Original Rules of Basket Ball are actually an artifact.

I looked up the definition of an artifact which is “something created by humans usually for a practical purpose; especially an object remaining from a particular period.” Indeed, the Rules are a rare and unique piece of history, but I kept pondering to myself, is this a real art form that should be showcased as a cool exhibit for lovers of art to enjoy at the Nelson? On one hand, it seems like a piece of history about a sport that sports fans would want to see. The most logical place for the general baskeball loving public to have access to this history is our beloved Nelson (which partially looks like a basketball court right when you walk in now)! The Rules provide historical information about the sport but don’t provide artistic value. So Kansas Jayhawk fans wearing your crimson and blue colors, there you go, enjoy the exhibit and by the way, take some additional time to check out and learn from the creativity overflowing at the Nelson while you are there!

I might also add that it was publicized that a University of Kansas family purchased the Rules for several millions of dollars. This situation at the Nelson makes me think further that the exhibit is actually showcasing a rich family that loves Jayhawk basketball, and the museum is allowing the sport to be emphasized instead of expressing artwork. However, I’ll step back a bit and understand that James Naismith did invent the sport of basketball, and he did put down in writing the “Original Rules of Basket Ball” in 1891. An artifact does provide our community real value and historical importance. So, you could say it’s a “slam dunk” to make some room for the Original Rules of Basket Ball to be featured, and allow some sports fans the opportunity to see them. At the same time, these people can also experience Kansas City’s original rules of artistic expression and the most unique, and creative environment provided by our reliable Nelson Atkins Museum of Art. Lace ‘em up Kansas City….

Signs in Medieval Art Continued

I began to suddenly not feel well during the middle our class at the Nelson Atkins. I wish I could have paid more attention to others presentations of signs in their work, but since I can't go back and re-listen, I want to talk more about the piece that me and my partner picked, The Altarpiece with Scenes from the Life of the Virgin.

Since the piece is so complicated, we probably should have picked one panel. I'm picking the top left image, which shows a woman seated while receiving a flower from a kneeling figure which appears androgynous.

The signs directed by souls include the woman's hand gesturing toward herself and the angel's kneeling, both indicating that she is the focus of the narrative, and the more important figure in the image. The angel's gesture indicates he is offering the flower to the woman as a gift.

As far as natural signs go, most signs in this image could only be interpreted by a person from western culture, specifically one familiar with christian traditions. The writing is a sign, however, only a person who can read latin can understand it, which, during the time period it was created would be a person wealthy enough to afford an education (and or paper for writing). The wings on the angel indicate that he is angel, also his androgynous features were associated with angels during that time period. The fact that the woman is mary and that the angel is informing her of the fact that she with give birth to jesus can be assumed from the similarity the scene bares to other annunciation scenes as well as the image of a small man in the clouds with speech lines coming down toward Mary in the same path that a dove is flying, which can be assumed to represent God sending his holy spirit down to Mary in the form of Jesus. Also we can assume both figures are holy by their halos. The flower most probably represents purity and the virgin Mary. I can't even tell what flower it is, maybe a lily, but lots of flowers symbolize the virgin Mary.

Most of these signs are probable. It is theoretically possible that another religious scene is depicted and the figures aren't Mary and the angel Gabriel, but it is probable that they are. Probably if I could read latin, it would be certain that that is who is depicted.

The Art of Basketball?

Since so many of you seemed to feel strongly about the "Rules of Basketball" exhibit at the Nelson-Atkins this weekend, I thought it could be interesting to open up the topic for further discussion here. Do you think this is a legitimate exhibition for an art museum? If so, why? If not, why not? If you do think it is appropriate to show the rules of basketball in a museum of art, do you agree with the way the Nelson-Atkins carried it out? Look forward to hearing your thoughts ...

After reading about Thomas Aquinas and talking about the floating man with no senses in class and got to thinking about somthing. Each person believes in the idea of "god" or no "god" differently. I, for example, am a christian and have always been one because I grew up with it in my family. For most people their beliefs and view coincide with what they've been taught and what they've experienced.
My Question is - If we all grew up with no experiences or beliefs and we were given equal knowledge of how the earth might have developed - what would we believe?
Are some people more apt to believe in god then another?
Are some going to rely on a more logical explanation rather then supernatural explanation of things?
I truthfully don't know what I would believe - I'm a christian now because I grew up that way, and I will probably never stop believing in god because of my experience with the religon. But at the same time, our culture has been given this horrible stereotype of what religon is - theirs so many stereotypes of christians, catholics, jews, buddists, athiests - whatever, their all so stupid.

What it really comes down to is that you believe in an all powerful god or not - yes its much more complex then this depending on the religon but a lot of the rest just has to do with culture and how god was interpreted throughout history.

What many philosophers agree with is one argument - Their may or may not be a higher being that created what we live on today. whether you believe is is up to you.
let's try and think about that without the ideas of what religon is today.

For me, I'm completely respectful for what others might believe, but what I think is that their are way to many "coincidences" in our world for their not to be some sort of higher being.

Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher who talked about faith and reason. He believed it was good to be logical and rational in our world - which was called the order of natural knowlege and then their was the supernatural order - things that could not be explained and exceded our knowledge in which we have to use faith (divine truth under god)

Aquinas states that faith is a neccessary part of life because their are things that will always be left with no logical answer - with this he came up with five proofs:
the mover argument - somthing is only set in motion because of somthing else moving - their had to be a first "mover" for anything else to move
the second is the creator- created theory - "did the chicken or the egg come first" aquinas believed that god created one of them first and this created the process
the third - contigency - the idea that what we observe isn't neccesary but if somthing wasn't neccesary why would it excist? - so god is why its all necessary
4- in order to see somthing as good or bad we must have somthing better to compare it to and that would be god
5 - the idea of us working towards a goal and somthing has to direct the entire thing and that would be god

The thoughts of Aquinas are obviously argued with non believers and other philosophers but I have to say that I completely agree with all of aquinas's arguments - they make complete sense - Aquinas was crowned a saint because of his ability to create religon as a science and as logical thinking.

Philosophy and Science

Even though reading Avicenna’s “On Nature” and understanding his ideas toward light was like eating raw meat to me, I found it interesting because he tried to apply his philosophical thoughts to science. Then, here comes the question. Can we say that science is a philosophy? According to the basic concept of philosophy that we have learned in class, philosophers tend to talk about wisdom while scientists handle knowledge. Although it is hard to say wisdom and knowledge are the same, it is true that they are closely related to each other. An American philosopher Will Durant once said, “The sciences are the windows which philosophy views the world.” In other words, philosophy handles the bigger topic but scientific methods can help it reach the ultimate goal, which is to understand the world. So, what’s the relationship between science and philosophy? In my opinion, they are like a married couple, though philosophy is currently having an affair with religion.

Learning from life, St.Augustine

The experience that impacted how I think about life is when my Grandmother was diagnosed with, and battled breast cancer. My family calls my Grandmother, “Bubbie” and she is incredibly supportive to me and my entire family. Bubbie loved taking me to movies, plays and museums throughout my childhood to help me experience life in general throughout my childhood. We have always been very close, as we talk about school, friends and things we deal with each day in life. Overall, Bubbie is a powerful role model and helped shape me into the person that I have become.

13 years ago my entire family was shocked to find out that Bubbie was diagnosed with breast cancer. We gave her a set of toy army men because she kept telling us that she is ready to fight the battle, beat cancer and learn from this experience. I suddenly stepped back from my Friday night dinners and going to events with Bubbie and realized just how previous life is, each and every day. Bubbie had such a positive attitude, a calmness about her situation and she researched breast cancer so that she was prepared to maximize her medical care. This experience changed my perspective about life. I was a happy kid taking on what life dealt me in a happy, go lucky mind set. Bubbie’s positive mental attitude and warmth inside of her really showed me what life is all about. I learned to cherish every day of my life. Enjoy and appreciate experiences with my family and friends. Above all, be responsible in taking on the challenges that life brings my way and be positive and learn from these challenges. My Bubbie has been free from cancer for 12 years now and she continues to support me and my entire family every single day. I now realize just what a powerful and incredible woman she is in my life, and I have learned to be prepared to overcome all challenges, learn from them and become a better person.

I love Ibn Sina's and Aristotle's ideas and thoughts toward light and illumination. It's amazing how much information they were able to get with so little technology and available knowledge.

The idea of extramission and intromission are both great theorys for vision although the idea of extramission has been much more popular in history.
Plato describes color to be the mixing in air of two beams of fire, one from the the eyes and one form the object being viewed. Aristotle, like many of Plato's theorys, disagreed and thought that color was carried in only one direction - light reflecting off of objects.

The idea of sight and color and how we're able to see things has always and always will be a huge discussion in history.

what a sight.

I find it rather spectacular that, without much of the technology we use today to understand the complexity of vision and how light and color play fundamental parts in the process, Avicenna was able to logically describe his discoveries on vision.

As artists I feel that this sort of scientific process to philosophy plays a big role in how we deal with the problems we engage in with our art. More specific to Avicenna's first discoveries on vision and all that we know about it now, the majority of us consider ourselves artist that deal majorly in vision and how our work is taken in optically.

Thoughts on Sin

sinnoun1 a sin in the eyes of God: immoral act, wrong, wrongdoing, act of evil/wickedness, transgression, crime, offense, misdeed, misdemeanor;archaic trespass.
After our discussion in class concerning the ideas of sin I decided to combine it with my favorite meditation.
"No Matter what anyone says or does, my task is to be good. Like gold or emerald or purple repeating to itself, No matter what anyone says or does my task is to be emerald, my color undiminished."
-Marcus Aurelius
So first i'd like to take a moment to explain what I observed and the relation of our opinions on 'sin'. We all had very similar views on the subject wether we considered ourselves to believe in Religion or not. We all understood that sin was indeed some kind of wrong against something or someone. It's an action done and as a repercussion has and effect on those around us. It is something that causes harm or makes the mind feel a certain kind of weight. I think most of what we believe to be wrong is developed by those around us, in the society that we are apart of. The influence of others and what we observe on a daily basis. Therefore since our opinions were very similar I can't help but believe that has to do with the chunk of land that we've landed on. I looked up the word sin and after finding that the definition of sin was a combination of both Godly law and man made law i've decided to rest on this theory as one that works for me and for others.
I believe in sin, I believe in the repercussions of sin. I've seen bad decisions change lives including my own. This is were the Marcus's meditation comes in. They idea of striving and longing to live a virtues life is the way I want to live my life.