All posts by Jacob Yuan

Encyclopedia, Science

Science/Daniel

Leave a comment

Natural Science, being one giant part in the realm of science and philosophy, contains more than mathematics and physics. According to Wikipedia, natural science is “concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena, based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation”. (Wikipedia: Natural Science)

The eldest examines of physics perhaps starts from astronomy, where ancient people try to predict the motion of Sun, Moon, and stars. Astronomical charts were found in Senemut’s tomb in ancient Egypt (Wikipedia: Ancient Egypt); events were linked with stars by ancient Mesopotamian priests (Wikipedia: Mesopotamia); countless attempts to recording the dates based on stars were made. It is interesting to notice that these events related to physics are often religious rituals, trying to calculate the god’s creations, which eventually became physics. Of course, “the main goal of physics is to understand how the universe behaves” (Wikipedia: Physics).

Early physicists are also regarded as philosophers. According to Wikipedia, “a philosopher is one who challenges what is thought to be common sense, doesn’t know when to stop asking questions, and reexamines the old ways of thought”. (Wikipedia: Philosopher) More specifically, when we are looking into the old time philosophers, it is often interesting to link their theories to religion, or discuss their beliefs and claims towards god. In this passage, we will focus on four famous physicist/philosophers of all times: Aristotle, Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and Albert Einstein. Each of them have a different approach to describing the world, or rather have an interesting opinion towards the prescence of God.

i. Aristotle

As perhaps the earliest and one of the most unknown polymaths and as a student of Plato, Aristotle proposed a lot of interesting theories in various different regions. We will be focusing on his approach of explaining the world in the realm of physics (or rather, natural science), and analyze the more “religious” part of his theory.

In his On the Heavens, Aristotle claims that the universe is composed basically by five different elements: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and Ether (or Aether). These five elements exist in the shape of spheres, or spherical shells. The Earth, being the ground on which we live, is mostly constituted by the element Earth in a near-sphere shape. This sphere is then surrounded by a spherical shell of Water, and then a spherical shell of Air. Oceans and rivers exist in the layer of Water, while Air surrounds everything. Outside Air, a new shell of Fire exists, where comets and meteors are believed to originate from. Finally, a huge shell of Ether, called the Heaven, where the stars, the Sun, and other celestial bodies move. Here, the Ether is also called the “divine substance”. (Wikipedia: Aristotle) In Greek mythology, it was thought to be “the pure essence that the gods breathed, filling the space where they lived, analogous to the air breathed by mortals” (Wikipedia: Ether) This is one direct proof to the belief of Aristotle towards god and divination.

diagram showing Aristotle’s opinion on the universe. Graph made by author.

More information on Aristotle’s physics: Aristotle also created many qualitative claims focused on the motion of objects, which are mostly correct in a small area of application. More on this topic and contrast could be found in the following passage I wrote: C:\Users\Gebuyuan\Desktop\HGmlDroTMYfTXc62 (3).mht

ii) Leibniz

Gottfried Wilhelm (von) Leibniz. Picture from Google Pictures.

As another polymath, Leibniz was more well known in his Leibniz Notationcontribution in the field of mathematics and calculus. However, he also proposed an interesting “monad theory” which talks about the essence of life, creatues, reality, and god. We will delve into this theory a little deeper and examine the “monads” Leibniz defined.

“Monads” are like atoms proposed by Democritus according to Leibniz: they are uncuttable and unseperable. They are also “not matter”, because matter is always splittable. Monads are also enclosed in their own world, unable to interact with other monads. In fact, they “comes into existence when the world was made, and can neither disintegrate nor grow”, except one single monad. And this single monad is “GOD”.

Leibniz states that this “god monad” somehow “preprogrammed” all other monads so that after they are created, they can run seperately but synchronized. Each creature/life is controlled by dominating monads, which are assumed to have minds; physical forces and other substances “result from them”. In fact, the world itself is a “coordinated dream” of different monads predesigned by god.

In this theory, Leibniz proposed a logical approach to the regular execution of the world related to “god”. This is also a typical approach trying to model the world created by physicists.

iii) Conclusion

In this passage, we talked about four scientists’ relationship between god or religion. In early times, people tend to believe in god more; in recent years, seems like “religion” is substituded by science more. However, I want to point out that science cannot solve every problem; science does not propose values and ethics; and science is also based on induction. We should not regard “religion” as some sort of lie; it is also a precious part in humanity.

References

Wikipedia, Natural Science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Philosopher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosopher. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Physics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ancient Egypt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Mesopotamia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesopotamia. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Aristotle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Ether. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element). Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Leibniz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Isaac Newton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia, Albert Einstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein. Cited on June 24th, 2020.

Encyclopedia, Ethics

Ethics/Daniel

Leave a comment

In this passage, I would like to address certain values and ethics of people in this world crammed with “the Internet”. I would link several references to different western philosophers along my analysis.

The first value I would like to address is people’s denial of their ability of identifying truth. Nowadays, we live in a complicated environment. Information feeds we get is not only coming in faster (leaving us less time to understand and consider all problems), but also is personalized. Online applications and websites like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Weibo, are constantly pushing contents that they think you tend to watch. This causes a “polarization” in the knowledge we get.

From the very beginning, philosophers are talking about the topic of “reality” or “skepticism”. According to Wikipedia, philosophical skepticism questions “the possibility of certainty in knowledge”. (Wikipedia: Philosophical skepticism) Along with Descartes’s mind-body dualism which states that “the mind and body are distinct and separable” and the doubt that “he has a body or not” (Wikipedia: Mind-body Dualism), people feel that there is no “objective truth”. As Protagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher states, “man is the measure of all things”.

“Man is the measure of all things” by Protagoras. Picture from Bing Pictures.

With all these opinions existing, people tend to think “because I have my own perceptions and understandings, everything is biased, and no subjective truth exists”. This eventually leads to “we don’t need to try hard identifying whether the news are true or fake; we might not be in a physical world”. However, as Michael Lynch kindly pointed out in his TED talk, “we should agree that we are living in a common reality, and ignoring it could get you hurt”. (Xigua Video)

All these evidences lead to my conclusion: in the modern world, people constantly use ideas like “skepticism” as an excuse to deny their ability of identifying truth. In fact, “skepticism” no longer stay as a critical thinking attitude to all things; it became an umbrella shielding you from trying to figure out the truth. Even definitions of words we use are based on common knowledge and the authority. Denying to identify truth does not help, as they cannot change the fact that we are living in “a common reality”.

But how to solve this problem, and somehow “correct” people’s values? In his talk, Michael Lynch pointed out that “people should find out new active ways of gaining knowledge”. Only when we are constantly thriving for knowledge, we can burst through our “information bubble”, not letting the term “fake news” become the meaning of “new that I don’t like”. By gaining more truth, we can hear to other’s opinions and learn how to think critically.

The second topic I want to talk about is the anonymosity of the Internet. When the Internet gives us access to the whole world without having to leave our house, it also block off the opportunity of us meeting with friends face to face. It also opens up a portal to the vast world of voices, a place where you can easily get hurt.

Moreover, anonymosity does not just mean you can safely view contents on the internet without being tracked; it also means you do not need to pay responsibility. Plato, an Athenian philosopher during the classic period of ancient Greece, told an interesting story in his description of Utopia. In his Republican, a story of the “Ring of Gyges” was told: “A cave was revealed in a mountainside where he[a shepherd] was feeding his flock… he discovered [a] ring [that] gave him the power to become invisible by adjusting it. He then arranged to be chosen as one of the messengers who reported to the king as to the status of the flocks. Arriving at the palace, he used his new power of invisibility to seduce the queen, and with her help he murdered the king, and became king of Lydia himself.” (Wikipedia: Ring of Gyges) This was great piece of evidence on how bad in ethics could a human be when he gains anonymosity. Even the famous Lord of the Rings series alluded this, describing all but those who have a strong and simple heart could withstand the Ring of Power, which gives its wearer invisibility as well.

Another example of what bad things people could do without being watched was proposed by Hobbes. In his Leviathan, Hobbes states: “[When there is no political community, ] there is no industry, … navigation, … commodities, … knowledge of the face of the earth, … and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” As a philosopher exploring social contracts, he clearly states without people watching over, the society will be chaotic. (Wikipedia: Hobbes)

Of course, our country is not letting this happen. Officers and legalists clearly understands that when no rule is present, this anonymosity will cause great damage to the peace of society. According to Luo Xiang, a famous teacher in the realm of laws, put forth the following argument: “Human is an end; human is not a means.” Not only do the laws of the country protect those who are harmed, we also need to learn to respect others: “A person who respects others’ reputation will not insult others.” (Bilibili)

Luo Xiang’s quoted sentence, in chinese. Picture captured from original video.

My approach to this problem is also very easy to understand: gaining more knowledge. Just as the book Calculus Made Easy states, “people quarrel because they can’t argue”. When trolls are cursing and sending messages on the Internet, their words and phrases are no more than stereotypes; they cannot argue for themselves and become more logic because they can’t. Lack of knowledge leads to lack of fear; lack of knowledge also leads to a lack of respect.

Summarization: In the passage we discussed about two different values being deteriorated in the Internet era: the ability of identifying truth, and the respect to others. The approach, in my opinion, is fairly simple: we need more knowledge, not for defending ourselves, but to make us a better person in this era.

References

Wikipedia: Skepticism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Mind-body Dualism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%E2%80%93body_dualism. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Protagoras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagoras. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Xigua Video: (TED) Finding truth on the Internet. https://www.ixigua.com/i6766829672790491656/?logTag=nAZu9ycviVFYnCTTFIH-a. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Ring of Gyges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Wikipedia: Hobbes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes. Cited June 24th, 2020.

Bilibili: Discussion on Internet Trolls. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1rk4y1R7id. Cited June 24th, 2020.

P.S. Sorry again for the missing of deadlines. I was constantly not sure about my final topic and thesis, and I didn’t contact you frequent enough…

Encyclopedia, Politics

Whether Karl Marx’s Political Philosophy Is Fit to Modern Society/Jacob

Leave a comment

Introduction

In Modern life, we can basically divide the world’s political system into capitalism and socialism. Although a country politics sometimes complex than the system. For example, China’s one country, two systems and It combines market economy and socialist social architecture. It would be too complicated to look at it from a sociological and political perspective. My thesis will not discuss in this way. I will briefly demonstrate the idea of Karl Marx’s political philosophy. Then to analyze whether it is suitable for today’s society from a historical perspective.

What is Karl Marx’s political philosophy

Karl Marx’s political philosophy always been called as Marxism. Which a thoughtful understanding on politics, economy and sociology. His political philosophy, socialism, or communism, is often placed on the opposite side of capitalism. He first published his idea in “The Communist Manifesto”（1840） by him and his friend Friedrich Engels. His views provide a new ideology for the world. “The whole of his work is a radical critique of philosophy, especially of G.W.F. Hegel’s idealist system and of the philosophies of the left and right post-Hegelians. It is not, however, a mere denial of those philosophies. Marx declared that philosophy must become reality. One could no longer be content with interpreting the world; one must be concerned with transforming it, which meant transforming both the world itself and human consciousness of it. This, in turn, required a critique of experience together with a critique of ideas.” In his era, the first industrial revolution is almost over. The modern society construct by capitalism and free markets has basically taken shape. And then comes the class struggle. In his point of view, he thinks that” the bourgeois relations of production are the last contradictory form of the process of social production, contradictory not in the sense of an individual contradiction, but of a contradiction that is born of the conditions of social existence of individuals; however, the forces of production which develop in the midst of bourgeois society create at the same time the material conditions for resolving this contradiction. With this social development the prehistory of human society ends.” In capitalism, the inequality between supply and demand is the greatest contradiction and alienation. Karl Marx thinks Society doesn’t need class. Unlike Plato’s utopia in” Res Publica” and Hegel’s idealism. Karl Marx more values materials. He was not an empiricist. He believes that the course of history does not depend on a hero or a minority, but on the majority. So there is no so-called elite in his political philosophy. His political philosophy is also highly respected by the working class. The vision of socialism is that all people are equal. Without privilege, everyone enjoys the same resources.

The rise and collapse of Soviet Union(cold war)

After Marx, Marxism brought great influence and impact to people. This new ideology is increasingly being incited to be the antithesis of capitalism and Liberal Art. After the Russian Revolution, the Soviet Union inherited this ideology. “The person who originally introduced Marxism into Russia was Georgy Plekhanov, but the person who adapted Marxism to Russian conditions was Lenin.” The Soviet Union operated a planned economy, allocating resources on demand rather than free market. But the planned economy is to idealism. And based on the material enrichment and the high intellectual mindset of people.Karl Marx did not deny capitalism, he believed that when people accumulated a lot of wealth through capitalism can be transformed into socialism. Unfortunately, neither the Soviet Union nor China experienced capitalism. There was on issue both happened in Soviet Union and China. Which is Resources are not sufficient to allocate reasonably to everyone. Especially in China. At the same time, due to the closure of the media and popular culture, leading to the Soviet Union’s political ecology is relatively closed. Under Stalin, Marxism seemed to be a reason for populism and a political means of a dictator. And Soviet Union collapse in 1991 and China started to Open information and free market in 80s.

Conclusion

In Karl Marx’s idea, philosophy must have its relevance. I think the core idea of Marxism is thoughtful and inflammatory. In this complex age, every schools needs to consider a problem. That is, whether the concept can adapt to the complexity and change of society. I think that’s why the school’s ideology is going to iterate and evolve. I am a supporter of Karl Marx’s materialist view of history. I believe that every schools reflect the essential problem and thinking of that era. I think Marxism is a outdated goal of humanity and it doesn’t fit for modern society.Perhaps Marxism will fit when human morality and wealth reach high levels. But not for present.

Work Cited

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. Origami Books, 2020.

Chambre, Henri, and David T. McLellan. Class Struggle. 24 Mar. 2020, www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism/Class-struggle.

History.com Editors. “Karl Marx.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/germany/karl-marx.

Aesthetic, Encyclopedia

The difference between Plato’s aesthetics and Aristotle’s aesthetics/Jacob

13 Comments

Preface

The word aesthetics is origin from the Greek word “aisthetikos” means the sensible object. In the eighteenth century it became a branch of philosophy. I agree that aesthetics has a strong relationship with sensation. Because when people talk about beauty, or to define beauty. it starts with self-perception and sensation. In linguistic way, the negative form of aesthetics is anesthetic. Which a medicine degree the sensitive of sensation. Nowadays, aesthetic is not only a topic of philosophy but also highly related with others subject. Such as architecture, design, literature. All in all, we called it art. Aesthetic is a major which discuss about art. What is beauty and what is ugly. I will briefly demonstrate the Plato’s aesthetics and Aristotle’s aesthetics and find out the difference between them.

Plato’s Aesthetics

Plato believes that art and poetry are imitations and demotions of real life. Base on Plato’s “Mimesis”. He thinks the real life is the imitation of ideal life, and the art is imitation of real life. In ancient Greece, poetry had a high status. People will sing poetry in public as a tradition. But Plato thinks poetry is untrue and immoral. He put poetry and art on the opposite side of philosophy. In his metaphysics of binary relations, art is nothing more than a simple imitation of real life. In Plato’s “Republic“He forbids poets and artists from entering his ideal country. I think Plato’s negation of art stems from the innate infection and incendiaryness of art. At the same time, some Plato’s idea are outdated in modern conception. Some neoteric philosopher such as Nietzsche and modern philosopher such as Gilles Louis René Deleuze and Jacques Derrida think that Plato’s argument of “illusion” is “Achilles Heel” which the weakness of him.

Aristotle’s Poetics

Compare to Plato’s aesthetic, Aristotle didn’t over stress the relationship between truth and illusion. But focus on the real feeling that art brings to people. He thinks that art should not be assessed by morality. What really matters is the relationships, understanding, interaction, emotions and feelings that art brings. Like Aristotle, he believed that the origin of art was imitation. But he doesn’t think art is false, or lower than reality. Aristotle thinks In poetry and tragedy, we will encounter a variety of ideas: the goal of choice, success and failure, honor and suffering, good at evil, sin and innocence. Aristotle valued the fictional nature of art. He believes that it is precisely because art is different from reality that people can appreciate the lack of attraction and pain in reality. According to Aristotle’s aesthetic concept, his “cathartic” concept was formed. It provided the foundation for ancient Greek drama.

The difference between Plato’s idea and Aristotle’s idea

Both Aristotle and Plato believed that art came from ” Mimesis.” But their attitude towards virtual is different. Plato’s attitude to virtualision is negative and immoral. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that art should not be ethically audited. What matters is the message and emotion that art conveys. I agree with Aristotle. In today’s art iteration, Aristotle’s idea is still essential to art conception.

Works cited：

Aristotle, et al. Poetics. Harvard University Press, 1999.

Kul-Want, Christopher, and Piero. Introducing Aesthetics: a Graphic Guide. Icon Books, 2014.