Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course

By

Logic Post

Kanye West is a God among Men

Therefore,

Kanye West is above all men

God is above all men

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Genesis 1 v. 1-3, the very first book, chapter, words of the bible, says: In the beginning, God created the universe.When the earth was as yet unformed and desolate, with the surface of the ocean depths shrouded in darkness, and while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters, God said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. The almighty father God created life, he made the heavens and the earth and everything in them. In the bible it speaks of God this omnipotent deity, watching over all of his created, his sons and daughters, taking care of them, loving them, so much so that he gave his son Jesus Christ to die on the cross for the atonement of the worlds sins, so that we may be perfect and made new in Gods eyes and that we would be able to live with him; that’s the goal atleast. In the bible, you’ll see the word God once or twice or 3,969 times in the New International Version, It’s pretty clear that Christians hold God to a much higher standard than all men and women on earth. Non Christians even, I have heard many first hand accounts people who believe that, Christian or not, you cant deny that the Man has done many things both politically and societally that have changed the way the world works and have given generation upon generation hope in something more than what’s on this earth, some would even say that it’s comforting knowing that someone out there is looking out for you.

Doctor Kanye Omari West, is an American rapper, songwriter, record producer, fashion designer, and entrepreneur. Born in Atlanta and raised in Chicago. Kanye West is, as thought by man, one of the most brilliant minds of our generation, Kanye West has single-handedly taken the world by storm, reaching out and doing practically every sort of art medium there is, and excelling in everything he does, from his Yeezy 350 being the #1 shoe in 2016 to his newest album “The Life of Pablo” critically acclaimed the best album of 2016, his record label GOOD music has become a household name amongst the hip hop community, quickly becoming almost a throne where him and his label mate  and close friend Jay-Z release their music from. Now Kanye West has many followers, and I will venture to say that 90% if not more consider him a God, if not, at the very least above man guaranteed, I would even venture to say that Kanye West has the most loyal fanbase out there in all of hiphop. Love him or hate him, you must admit the man’s a revolutionary.

Now no one can deny that both men were equally influential, in their own right, the both have ridiculously devout followers, both have their own acolades which to a certain extent have taken the world by storm, both have claimed to be God.

I dont see any need for further questioning

 

By

Moon Landing Hoax?

featured-2-625x352

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” -Neil Armstrong

 

As we all know, Neil Armstrong supposedly stepped foot on the surface of the moon for the very first time on July 20, 1969. Many believe it, others may not. Some would say that the U.S government were so desperate to beat the Russians to space, that they faked the landing. There are many theories that people have conjured up surrounding the whole possible hoax, I found a few very interesting ones that are maybe worth the read:

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

I will be focusing on one particular theory:

  1. Premise #1: Wind makes a flag move
  2. Premise #2: There is no air in the atmosphere on the moon
  3. Conclusion: The American Flag was never on the moon

Evaluating for factual correctness, validity, and soundness:

  • Premise #1:

What is wind? Definition #1: “the perceptible natural movement of the air, especially in the form of a current of air blowing from a particular direction.” Definition #2: “Wind is moving air and is caused by differences in air pressure within our atmosphere.” Air under high pressure moves toward areas of low pressure. The greater the difference in pressure, the faster the air flows.”

Movement: “an act of changing physical location or position or of having this changed”

A flag is very similar to a sail on a boat and is quite comparable. Wind makes the sails on a boat move, so wind would also make a regular flag move. (“The air interacting with the sails of a sailing vessel creates various forces, including reaction forces. If the sails are properly oriented with respect to the wind, then the net force on the sails will move the vessel forward.“)

Image result for sail

Extra information to support:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind

http://www.encyclopedia.com/earth-and-environment/atmosphere-and-weather/weather-and-climate-terms-and-concepts/wind

This premise is factually correct, when wind blows against a flag, it will move.

  • Premise #2:

As we all know, there is no air on the moon. Here’s a scientific explanation that I found difficult to put in my own words: “The atmosphere of the Moon is a very presence of gases surrounding the Moon. For most practical purposes, the Moon is considered to be surrounded by vacuum. The elevated presence of atomic and molecular particles in its vicinity compared to interplanetary medium, referred to as “lunar atmosphere” for scientific objectives, is negligible in comparison with the gaseous envelopes surrounding Earth and most planets of the Solar System—less than one hundred trillionth (10−14) of Earth’s atmospheric density at sea level. Otherwise, the Moon is considered not to have an atmosphere because it cannot absorb measurable quantities of radiation, does not appear layered or self-circulating, and requires constant replenishment due to the high rate at which its gases are lost to space.” –https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_the_Moon

Image result for moon

This premise is also factually correct.

  • Conclusion:

In conclusion, this argument is factually correct because all of its premises are true, valid because the conclusion follows from its premises and sound because the argument is both factually correct and valid.

 

By

The coexistence of universes and its connection to ours and the dreamverse

A two dimensional universe can only coexist with another two dimensional universe. The same goes for a three dimensional, the dream universe and any other universe that may exist.

From Carl Sagan’s “The Cosmos” Carl dedicates one chapter to solely explaining what a universe is and how a dimension can influence it. How it works is if we have an apple (A three dimensional object) that is coated in black ink and make it interact with a piece of paper ( A two dimensional object) the apple will only leave it 2-dimensional shadow, the apples base on the paper. The paper doesn’t know what hit it and it only has the remembrance of a time when there was ink and when there wasn’t. Times a key word in this because don’t we feel the same about time as the paper does about the apple coated in ink. We know when it passes when it wasn’t here but not the actual moment it was interacting with us.

Think about that concept that Carl Sagan puts on time and relate it to the dreamverse. When we have déjà vu we don’t just feel it passing and it not being there, we fully experience it. We don’t just have the mark the apple makes on the paper; we knew fully when the déjà vu was interacting with us. What that means is if the dreamverse interacts with our universe. And if only common universes can coexist either the dreamverse is actual our universe just in place undiscovered or is our universe the dream. These universes are common, and its one or the other.

 

Below Universe of Galaxies courtesy of NASA, Virtually every spectacle of light in this photograph is a distant, faraway galaxies consisting of billions of stars. How did we find ourselves in such a grand place?

Image result for universe of galaxies

 

By

Katherine: REPENT, YE SINNERS!!

(okay, so this is a bit late. still, better late than never????)

So, I’m goingto be real here: I dont remember if the “What is Philosphy?” presentation was a part of the intro to philosophy or the logic unit… so im going to tag it as both and hope for the best.

I don’t really want to pist my script here, as it is a lot of me yelling REPENT!! and waving my hands about. Basically, I found my original medium in the for of a soapbox preacher screaming on a streetcorner. Now, my soapbox was a piece of paper where I had written soapbox, but it worked. My metaphor? Philosophy….. is like….. a river. Or water, to be more general. But that’s the gist.

All in all, this project taught me I’m a lot better at talking in front of people if I’m yelling dramatic nonsense at them.

REPENT, YE SINNERS!

  REPENT, YE SINNERS!

you get salvation! you get salvation! EVERYBODY GETS SALVATION!

you get salvation! you get salvation! EVERYBODY GETS SALVATION!

 

By

A case study on bitter foods- David Fang


Bitterness is healthy

_________________________________________________________________________________

Premise 1: Most bitter veggies are healthy

Premise 2: Medicines widely attribute bitterness, and are healthy

Conclusion: Bitterness is healthy

_________________________________________________________________________________

A popular notion in China is that, the bittier the food, the more healthy it is. This popular concept of belief influences many parts of Chinese culture, primarily the Chinese cuisine and many traditional Chinese medicines. China’s heavy emphasis on herbal ingredients on both cooking and medicine shows their bias towards bitter ingredients in health related concerns. I will be delving into this notion and hopefully peek into the nooks and crannies of this argument.

Premise 1: Most naturally bitter foods are healthy

Many naturally bitter foods are indeed healthy. Examples include: arugula, bitter melon, brussel sprouts, coffee beans, cocoa and more. Bitter vegetables tend to pack more anti toxins and also more vitamins than non-bitter vegetables in general. Bitter foods also seem to be more easily digestible and helps to move things along in the bowel area much more swiftly.

Premis 2: Medicines widely attribute bitterness, and are healthy

Bitter plants have had a long medicinal history and has been used to cure many problems in the past. Quinine for example is a compound that comes from cinchona bark thats been used to cure malaria in Africa, long before modern medicine was invented. Medicinal leaves and herbs were also grounded to be applied on physical wounds to speed up recovery times and prevent infection as earlier versions of ointments.

Traditional Chinese medicines have also been used in many parts of Asia to cure many different problems such as fevers and stomach aches.Chinese medicine called “Zhong Yao” (中藥) is widely used even today. It involves the heavy use of bitter herbal plants, and herbal remedies to cure complex health problems such as diabetes. This type of medicine is extremely popular in several parts of Asia, namely China, Korea and Japan. Its a very primal way to approach things, and have been growing popularity for a while.

Conclusion: Bitterness is healthy

In conclusion, through the premises that I have presented, the statement that bitterness is healthy is not valid, but the premises are true. Bitterness, may correlate with healthiness, but correlation does not mean causation. Bitterness itself is an abstract taste that humans originally developed as taste receptor to recognize faulty or poisonous foods, it was not a biological mechanism that developed to recognize more nutritious foods. However, it just so happens that bitter foods tend to have more nutrients. Eating bitter foods is definitely a habit to incorporate into a healthy and balanced lifestyle, and if you are incorporating a lot of bitter foods into your diet currently, I would continue doing so!

 

 

By

Another Post About Lesbians

Oh my god, it’s another logic post about being gay.

The idea from this originally came from one ex-friend telling me that being a “butch lesbian” was racist, but their argument held up about as well as you think it would. Instead I decided to write on a topic that’s filled with misconceptions – that butch lesbians have the male gaze. If you don’t know what the term male gaze means – it’s not the creepy dude who sits in the corner of subway staring you down for an hour.  The male gaze is the sociocultural phenomenon in media and literature, wherein the world is presented through a typically heterosexual, masculine point of view: presenting women primarily as the objects of male pleasure. If you’re not familiar with inter-community identity terms, here’s a rundown on butch and femme terms.

Butch and Femme are terms used to describe identities and cultural markers in the lesbian community. The terms aren’t to be confused with gender identity – they’re a form of gender expression. Butchness is associated with a masculine role in the lesbian relationship, while Femme is associated with the traditionally feminine role. There’s a surprising amount of politics and discussion around the two, as Second Wave Feminists, as well as some third wave feminists, view butch/femme as replicating heterosexual power dynamics.

PREMISE 1:

Butch identity is equivalent to being male

This argument isn’t truthful – your gender is your gender identity, as stated above, and the butch identity is more a form of gender expression and a cultural marker. You could argue that since butch lesbians attempt to emulate masculinity, that they’re close enough to just copying the male gender role and basically “acting like men”. However, masculinity is a social construct, but is made up of both socially defined and biologically created factors. This means that masculinity was originally derived from what it means to be male and encouraged males to mimic the male gender role of aggressiveness and power over women. Butch is not male, Femme is not female. Butchness isn’t based around power over women like the male gender role is. Butch identity is mostly defined by the butch aesthetic than any particular personality traits.

TLDR; Gender expression, or the way others perceive your gender expression, is not your gender identity.

PREMISE 2:

Men have the male gaze

To understand this premise we have to understand the male gaze. The male gaze is the sociocultural phenomenon in media and literature, wherein the world is presented through a typically heterosexual, masculine point of view: presenting women primarily as the objects of male pleasure.  It is not something you can accuse real life men of having or doing to women in their day to day life . Sexual attraction to women is not equivalent to the male gaze, and is not necessarily objectifying or misogynistic.

CONCLUSION

Butch lesbians have the male gaze

There’s not really a logical reason as to why butch lesbians would have anything similar to the male gaze – saying otherwise is similar to point one and implying that butch lesbians are men. The theoretical “female gaze” is non-existent in our media and literature – half of the examples you could use are ironic and used for humor.

The conclusion here makes this a valid argument, but it doesn’t make it a truthful one. The conclusion logically follows the premises, and the argument has the right form that makes it valid. However, the first premise isn’t true, and neither is the conclusion.

 

 

By

Homosexuality, Right or Wrong?

Passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, Same-sex marriage has been legal in Canada. Same-sex marriage is between partners of the same sex (as recognized in some jurisdictions), meaning that each gender has the choice to marry their own gender without having it viewed upon as wrong and illegal. Many people view same-sex marriage in different ways, some believe that it is a sin and should not be allowed in the world, when others believe that everyone should be treated with equality and respect with regards of their personal life and relationships. Every year here in Vancouver there is a Gay Pride Parade celebrating and acknowledging everyone rights to equality and individuality, but on the other hand there are places in the world where people protest and view this “LGBTQ” label as a sin or an inhuman way of living.

“Equality is not a concept. It’s not something we should be striving for. It’s a necessity. Equality is like gravity. We need it to stand on this earth as men and women, and the misogyny that is in every culture is not a true part of the human condition. It is life out of balance, and that imbalance is sucking something out of the soul of every man and woman who’s confronted with it. We need equality. Kinda now.”
Joss Whedon

This quote represents all aspects of humanity and the way we should view life

Premise 1:

  • Gay people or people who have relations with the same sex are viewed as sinners

Premise 2:

  • Sinners are spawns of the devil

Premise 3:

  • The devil is evil

Conclusion:

  • All gay people are evil

This argument in my opinion is totally false and should not be viewed as morally correct!

Premise 1

In the Old and new estimate the catholic and Christian religions, having a sexual relations or relationship of any such with feelings is referred to as a sin. A sin is an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law, meaning that is viewed upon as wrong and also an act of the devil. This statement has no validity or truth to me because I do not believe that homosexuality or being gay makes you a sinner, or should be viewed upon as a sin. In conclusion this premise “Gay people or people who have relations with the same sex are viewed as sinners” is not sound due to any truth or validity present.

 Premise 2

 

Everyone sins sometime in their life, it’s really hard not to. Saying this premise of “Sinners are spawns of the devil” holds no truth to me, but some validity. Saying people who sin are spawns of the devil is completely untruthful because if that was the case mostly every person in the world would technically have relations or connection with the devil, when that is not true at all. From thinking about someone in a bad way, to getting angry, almost every action in a negative way can be viewed as a sin, in this case making it very hard not to be a spawn of the devil. Validity in this case is hard to pinpoint the correct answer, in some ways I think this premise is completely invalid, but on the other hand it does hold some validity. I view this premise as invalid due to no clear evidence presented that all sinners are spawns of the devil, built on the other hand I view this can be valid because it is written in the old and new estimate which has been around for a very long time. I am not a hard core Christian but I believe in god, having this statement written in the bible gives some validity to me but then again there is no proven and possible evidence. Because there is not both truth and validity here, this premise cannot be sound!

 Premise 3

 

Now here we go! We finally have a truth! Yes this is truthful to me; the devil is evil and has been proven through many religions, stories, personal experience and beliefs. Known in many religions the devil is (in Christian and Jewish belief) the chief evil spirit; Satan, this is the main “evil” man, or the one to fear. There is also validity in this premise due to there being evidence in the past that the devil was real. This being said this premise has both truth and validity making the whole premise sound. The devil is evil is a very true statement as well as it being very valid as shown in previous evidence and experiences from others.

“The devil exists and we must fight against him. The devil is real and don’t underestimate him’

Pope Francis

Conclusion

“All gay people are Evil” Are you kidding me? This has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard if I may say that. That conclusion contradicts itself because only “evil” people in my opinion would say such a discriminatory, completely untrue statement like that. This is such an untrue statement it hurts my brain reading it, gay people are not evil! I’m not too big on this whole grouping situation going on in this conclusion either. Singling out one “type” is already categorized as inequality, then saying such a thing to add to that making it rude, offensive and bias as well based on pre conceived ideas. To me this conclusion is completely false, just because you may be gay does not mean you are an evil person, you are just as everyone else; no different. In my opinion no matter what religion you worship and how strong your beliefs are, no person personal relations should be frowned upon and made “wrong”; every religion should be stressing the importance of equality. If you are straight, imagine how you would be treated and feel if being straight was the “new gay” as in that was frowned upon a viewed as wrong to society. My opinion is, today in society if you are able to come out being comfortable and proud in whom you are, no one should be able to say anything about it, it’s our life, I have lots of respect for those who are just comfortable being themselves. This conclusion also shows no validity to it because again there is no proof, if it’s said that the devil is evil doe that mean that the devil is gay too? All these thoughts ran through my head while written this and none of it made any sense. To be valid one must be having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent. In this case there is not reasonable or logical evidence stating gay people are gay, if you ask me no matter what religion, sex, sexual orientation or race you are, anyone can be evil and anyone can be good; everyone is equal in my eyes. In conclusion because this statement had no truth or sound it was impossible to have it being a sound argument as well.

 

To conclude my blog post I wanted to show everyone a picture that represents my opinion on the equality of everyone especially relating to my topic.

“Before God, we are all equally wise, and equally foolish”

-Albert Einstein

578637_184982961636485_1220477418_n_50ae52299606ee705516dd1d

 

By

I spent so long writing this that I didn’t think of a title – Ryan

There are so many controversial topics out there, and oh so many that I am so strongly opinionated about but today for this post about logic I have decided that I’m going to get a little personal with the class. Of course I could have played it safe, but where’s the fun in that.

I would like to pre disclose, before digging myself into a hole so deep that I can’t see the sun, that the following opinions are not shared by me. I only wish to strengthen the opinions of other people by sharing such an unpopular (for so many obvious reasons) opinion and argument about a rather sensitive topic.

Not too long ago during a debate of sorts about political correctness in class I decided to play devil’s advocate, and to an extent I greatly regret doing so. Now, I in no way regret sharing the point of view that I did (I feel as if it lead the class down an interesting path that ended with some upset people but also some new wisdom shared throughout the class. Would it be crude to relate it to the break a few eggs to make an omelet idea?), however I do regret drawing a target the size of Texas on my back.

For those of you that weren’t in the class during block two on that one particular day here’s a little more context; we as a class had been talking about political correctness specifically through the lense of gender equality and LGBTQ+  opinions.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am a feminist. That being said I believe just about any educated and caring human being should identify as a feminist, it’s just right. I strongly believe that any civil individual who doesn’t actively oppress female individuals should identify as a feminists, so long as it’s understood that females are actually human too. Anyone who does not respect female individuals and their rights should be labelled a sexist (Why does there need to be a middle ground? Either you do or you don’t….right?).

Seems kinda right to add this likeminded meme. First and last meme I'll ever post

Seems kinda right to add this likeminded meme. First and last meme I’ll ever post

Read More

 

By

Captivity aint cool

From movies to the news many have talked about what zoos and aquariums are really like for animals. its movie like Blackfish that really open eyes of those who watch it, the movie talks about how orcas self harm because they don’t get enough exercise, food and space. It then goes in-depth about the death of orcas that were in Sea World, and how they were shipped from one country to another. If you haven’t watched it I proudly suggest you too, because it’s an eye-opening movie that would help you understand more about animal in captivity.

Explore Gram – Boycott Aquariums

Premise 1) Some animals need to be in the wild to live a healthy life

Premise 2) Zoo and aquariums keep animal in captivity
Conclusion: Therefore all wild animal in zoos and aquariums tend to live an unhealthy life
First thing first, what is a healthy life style to me? A healthy lifestyle is the same for both animals and humans, it includes getting the sleep we need, exercise, eating right and a good mind set.
Premise 1: It is true, most animals are used to living in the wild and that if they are being kept in a smaller space they are more likely to change. Wild animals like tiger, polar bears, and elephants are used to roaming the wild and getting their exercise, they also searched for their own food which makes them strong (senses). A healthy life consist of have a healthy mind set, body and living style (exercise and such).
Premise 2: Is also true because most zoo and aquariums do keep their animals in captivity, where they are sometimes isolated (socially too). Some zoos and aquariums like Sea World are said to have animal rehab programs, where they take sick or hurt animals and nurse them back and put out into the wild. But sometimes they don’t release them, rather keep them in captivity or “sell” them to another zoo or aquarium.
Conclusion: Many animals that are kept in zoos and aquariums are neglected and isolated, most animals that are in captivity is found to be socially awkward, depressed, stressed and have other abnormal symptoms. When they are in a small space they don’t get the exercise they need, for example orcas swim up to 100 miles per day, but in captivity they swim a few laps around the tank or just float. Most animals are usually feed each day and performance animals are fed when they do tricks right (practices and shows), doing that it stops animals to hunt their food which lowers their brain usage making them lazy and depressed.
Predators are now being kept in small spaces and that they later develop self harming behaviour, that were rarely seen in the wild.
  • Elephants swaying back and froth
  • Birds plucking out their own feather
These signs were not only in zoos but in public aquariums too, a study by Captive Animals’ Protection Society found that about 90% of those animas have shown a neurotic behaviour.
  • Orcas hitting their head against the wall
Zoos and Aquariums have their pros and cons (mainly more cons) some do support animals in need of care but most don’t. A lot of animal advocate website like Peta and Born Free have talked what we need to do to prevent more animals being breed (since its dangerous and irresponsible), and to stop zoos and such, from bring more wild animals in captivity. Animals should be in the wild where they are free to roam, search for their own food and not have to perform shows. It’s important to know what they (zoos and such) are and how it affects us as humans. I hope that my presentation has given you more insight (if not, sorry) and help you form a new perspective on zoos and aquariums. To me it’s important to know where you are visiting and what it is actually like for animals, and to know that zoos, etc. are more than just a cute place for a date or fun but its rather more than.
Validity: It is valid because the conclusion that is reached comes from the two premises.
Soundness: Soundness is when all your premise is true and that it s valid, which is in this case. Both more premise leads to my conclusion and is backed up with information.
 

By

kirsten- an insight on insite

Vancouver was one of the first cities in Canada to start condoning safe injection sites for drug use. This is a controversial that has brought many discussions about the nature of these projects. The hope behind these safe injection sites is to decrease the number of overdoses in the area, and provide a clean and therefor safer environment for drug users. There have been many skeptics to this idea. One opinion expressed in thelinknewspaper.ca claims that the project is going to

“make the vehicle for drug abuse easier to access”

and cost cities too much to maintain. The Insite supervised injection site costs Vancouver just under $3 million annually to pay for clean supplies and worker pay.  I decided to look further into the arguments of the movement apposing the Insite project and ones like it all across Canada.

Premise 1: taking narcotics such as heroin and methamphetamine is an irresponsible and dangerous act.

True: Heroin is a hard drug that is often injected through needles. It creates a reaction in the human brain that releases dopamine and creates feelings of pleasure. This is a dangerous drug that has long term effects on mental and physical states, and users face a high risk of overdose.http://healthycanadians.gc.ca

Premise 2: supervised injection sites are a place open to the public designed for drug users to inject narcotics into their bodies.

True: Safe injection sites are open to anyone who may want a place to use needles or would like help with their drug use.

Conclusion: by cities supporting these sites, they are encouraging the use of hard drugs by making the narcotics easier and more accessible to the public.

Not valid: there is a flaw in the link between the two premises and the conclusion. There is often a misconception of the second premise where people will mistake the support for people on drugs as supporting the action of taking narcotics. These are two very different things, as supporting drug users is ensuring that people are safe while they are high, and trying to find ways to allow the ill to become strong and well once again. Many of these sites also provide help for people who struggle with mental illness and HIV/AIDS. By implementing theses places, the cities are not condoning to illegal drug use, but instead providing a place for those who are already struggling with addiction and abuse.

“Insite is the first rung on the ladder from chronic drug addiction to possible recovery”

http://www.vch.ca

The argument against these establishments may seem easy to support as it is hard to believe that heavy drug users are willing to use these facilities. Many of the arguments question whether or not it is worth our Canadian tax dollars to fund these establishments if they may or may not even be making improvements. Fortunately, there are facts produced by Insite that show the program is doing good things for the people who access the facility. In 2015 alone there were 263,713 visits to the site by 6,532 unique individuals with an average of 722 visits per day with approximately 440 of those visits to the injection room. In the span of a year there were 5,359 clinical treatment interventions. This means over five thousand lives were saved thanks to this program in a single year. By supporting and funding programs like this one, our city is creating a safe environment for those who are suffering and our help the most.

For more information and statistics please visit http://www.vch.ca/your-health/health-topics/supervised-injection/

 

 
css.php