What is art?
Both art and photography are aesthetically pleasing to the human eye. Some view art more pleasing as photography and vice versa.
With art in the form of paintings, the aesthetic factor is how long it took the artist to do this work and the details one has when they drew it. Other artists have a different aesthetic look to another painting due to the ability to apply their own knowledge of art to an already drawn canvas.
While people such as myself crave the feel of being able to capture something that is already in this world in the components of a lens.While others find the idea of putting something that never exists (ie you may have drawn a flower similar to ones you have seen, but they are not the same flowers). As said in a discussion we had before the break.
For me I find this more aesthetically pleasing:
2013 Summer Photo-Alyssa Raco
More appealing than:
However, this is completely bias due to the fact that this suites my own appeal.
Intellectual knowledge is gaining knowledge rationally rather than emotional. Emotional aspect is second to the written word and the generic meaning of it.
Physical knowledge resides within the objects themselves and can be discovered by exploring objects and noticing their qualities.
Then our understanding of the world is the synthesis of the two, not one or the other.
An example of this are these two friends (See link) (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2488412/Best-friends-born-arm-finally-meet-person-years-talking-Skype.html)
They knew each other solely on Skype and online. Yet they described the other person as their best friend. They know each other more than their everyday friends because their only sense of understanding each other is verbally, not as much emotion was there because of the distance from one another. Although their knowledge of each other, is strengthened because of the use of talking. However, once they met in person a physical bond was formed. Everything they did had a more emotional aspect than just two people talking online. They can notice each others qualities in person, creating a better friendship along with it (or in another case could ruin a friendship).
Stereotypical people who have met one another in person are usually seen to know each other more than someone who has only talked online. If you take away the communicating aspect (IE texting or skype) with someone online, there is hardly a connection, and the inability to understand one another, If you take away the same aspect of someone you know in real life, you still have the other “senses” to understand one another. In our experiment on senses we took away half of the classes sense of hearing and the other half we took away sight. Somehow they were still able to understand the photos and information they were given, even if they were at a disadvantage when gaining that knowledge. If one were to do that experiment while online with someone, it would not work as well. By online in this case I don’t mean by Skype, but even that would be more difficult than having the people present in the same room.
Then does a cyber world really count as a “real world”? Or in what ways do the real world trump cyberspace?
If people are not with one another, how would they be able to perceive others thoughts. Can it be found solely on words?
Thought it would help with people going through the booklet and such. Enjoy!
“Virtually every Canadian has some experience, whether it’s a family member or a friend or a loved one, of grappling with these very difficult end-of-life decisions. This is about how people want to be remembered, how they want to say good-bye, how they want to spend their final days. These are decisions that cannot and must not be made by government.” lawyer Grace Pastine
Premise 1: Terminally ill people want to die
Premise 2: Government has control of others lives
Conclusion: Government has control of people’s lives, determining whether they can die or not.
Premise 1: Some people who have terminal illness want to stop suffering. They want to end the pain before it gets any worse.
Premise 2: The government has frowned upon having living people, put to death even if they ask for it. “The B.C. woman, suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), sought to end her own life, famously asking: “Whose body is this? Who owns my life?”.
Conclusion: The government has control of how and when you die. They ultimately chose whether you live or not.
I personally do not believe in this argument,someone who is in so much pain and wants to die, will find away either illegally or accepted by the government. Others may see it as something else. It’s not that they are wrong, in their eyes they think what they perceive is right. I on the other hand believe that, if someone is in a right state of mind, and they know the illness is terminal they should be able to chose what to do with their own body. Personal opinion aside, this argument is sound. I chose this argument because of its basis as a very controversial topic.Logic is not only based on facts and if the argument is sound, it can also be based on opinions.
We often see Science as someone in a lab coat looking at objects through a microscope with an abundance of technology behind them. Taking note of every little detail that comes to their mind. We also see Philosophers as someone who stares into the blank abyss, showing nothing of their findings.
Both essays we have read in class ( Talk with me by Neigel Warburton and Why not just weigh the fish by Robert Pasnau) both discussed that people generally think that Science has more value than Philosophy. Science seems to be something where there can only be one answer. Philosophy there can be countless. The lack of wrongs and the inability to put the dreaded “X” by your answer when handing back a test baffles the minds of some people. So if there is no right or wrong answer, how do we know that we are moving forward in the right direction? Granted, there are some things that can be deemed right or wrong; but I would suggest that go under the category of common sense.
While reading Why not just weigh the fish it occurred to me that just weighing the fish wasn’t good enough to answer the Philosophers’ questions. They wanted to know more. Where the fish was going? Did it reach its destination before it died? As well in this essay it discussed that maybe Scientists think they already have the answers to all these philosophical questions. If that is the case, wouldn’t that mean they used Philosophy, -The study that have mocked and ridiculed for many years- to answer these questions? Science is ‘how to get from point A to point B’. Philosophy is ‘how to get to point A to point B while still seeing the road it takes to get to point C”.
When I read about the Philosopher Thales falling into a well made me consider an old saying I always heard as a child. ‘Curiosity killed the cat.‘ Then I thought about what Thales might have been thinking the moments before he fell in that well. He could have been curious about what would happen to the stars one billion years from then. He could have been curious about extraterrestrials living up in space. So now I see Thales being the curious cat, and satisfaction brought him back after he fell into the well.
Scientist strives for the right answer. I personally enjoy coming to the ‘right’ conclusion after a long time figuring out the problems that I had to face to get to my conclusion. Philosophy doesn’t need a right answer, because their problem never gets solved. There are always more questions to answer. So if they have different viewpoints on everything, but are still similar in a way, why bash on each other? ‘Philosophy VS Science’ is like ‘Apple VS Android’. They are similar in one way, but in another they are very different. Yet people still have the need to differentiate which is better.