What's shakin', Bacon?

Francis Bacon was a 16/17th century philosopher who believed in the sapeartion and co-operation of science and faith. This idea is different from Scholaticism, since Bacon's idea is not that the two should be working closely together, but rather off in separate worlds yet still complementing each other. In addition to these new ideas that he proposes, Bacon accuses the church itself of committing sinful acts of 'idolatry', as they were in a sense put other things before, or beside G-d. According to Bacon, this was the major problem with the church and educational system. Bacon outlines four different types of said 'idolatry'that were being committed by the church.

1. Idols of the Tribe:: this occurs when people jump to conclusions based on ideas they consider new or strange rather than taking the time to understand and analyze what is true (modern day example might be global warming, a controversy that has made it, in a sense, 'cool' to be 'green' and environmentally friendly whil there are strong arguments on either side that most people tend to ignore)
2. Idols of the Cave:: this occurs when an individual creates a bias through the educational system (modern day example would be core, a largely liberal and privileged sect of Cleveland which consists of opinionated teachers that can at times impose on the beliefs of others)
3. Idols of the Market:: this occurs when language meant to share knowledge is actually limiting it (modern day example would be the whole system of lawyers and defense attorneys who are more concerned about their win/lose ratio than about doing what is right and achieving justice)
4. Idols of the Theater:: this occurs when the credit, or spotlight is given to a certain group of people while the others are ignored, as in a play with one main character and other lesser important 'townspeople', so to speak (a modern day example would be the credit given to Columbus for discovering America)

No perfection is so absolute that some impurity doth not pollute

"You must be perfect-just as your Father in heaven is perfect"

-Jesus (Matthew 5:48)

St. Aquinas is one of the first to use logic and reason to justify the existence of God. To do that, he uses his 5 Proofs. in my opinion, his best argument (based on my ability to form a counter-argument) is the fourth proof. with this proof, aquinas says that, since one, says, painting may be considered prettier of better in some way than another painting, then there must be some standard by which we measure. this standard must be perfection, and the only thing that can embody perfection which we can compare other things to is God. this is called the argument from degrees and perfection. we often say nobody is perfect, and aquinas is basically saying that the only way we know that is by comparing things to something that IS perfect. so, the saying should be 'nobody is perfect....except god'. but then, i guess he would be naturally exempt from that saying since he is not a person....hmmm.......

You Can Do It!!!

During class discussion it is very apparent that there is a strong link that connects the topics in art history with those in philosophy. first, st augustine has an idea reminiscent of plato's allegory of the cave. augustine believes that we must remove faulty impressions given to us by our senses in order to attain divine wisdom. in other words, through god's grace one may break free from the lies within the cave ad reach the light outside for salvation. now, since augustine was literate and educated, he was able to reach this proverbial light on his own, but what about all of those who could not read or write? this is where art history comes in. abbot suger spreads the idea that light must be let into the church, because light is goodness and divine. also, everyone has some of this light, god, inside of their soul. to let in this light into cathedrals, taller windows were added and the windows were painted with stories from the life of jesus and the bible. so, as the ligt reflects off of these windows, one may feel enlightened and aan illiterate person may escape from the cave through what was taught in these pictures (if they actually went to church, that is...). so, now instead of being stuck in the proverbial cave, common illiterate people can understand the bible and reach god's grace, like augustine did, through cathedral art.

From titmouses to....humans?!? Hitler's Faulty Logic

among his many other 'accomplishments' or what ever you may call them, hitler wrote a book called Mein Kampf meaning My Struggle. in chapter 11 of this text, as well as many other chapters im sure, Hitler makes several points which are actually fallacies

1. according to hitler, different races mean different species, different levels of strength and dominancy. this fallacy can be considered 'begging the question', as he speaks on the subject as if the claim has already been proven to be true

2. hitler's conclusion that the mating of people of different races is comparable to mating of separate species (foxes do not mate with titmouses, so why should people of different color mate?) is a 'false analogy'. this is because, upon looking deeper, one may realize that skin color does not separate humans into dfifferent species-we are all in the same species which is bipedal primates.

3. a third fallacy in this excerpt from hitler's book ir found in the first sentence of the chapter. here, hitler says that these ideas he is proposing have always been right under our noses, but everyone is too ignorant to notice. this is an 'ad hominem' fallacy, as hitler is attacking the opponent rather than his argument.

4. another fallacy that can be found is 'faulty use of authority', as hitler refers to the Bible to support his argument. he says that we were created separate and we must stay that way, because it is mother nature and God who intend for us to be segregated into our own race, or supposed 'species'

overall, much of the logic in this chapter of Mein Kampf is not difficult to discredit. one must simply look and understand deductive and inductive logic, and fallacies.

Divine Creator? or Scientific Phenomena?

where some believe that God is the creator of the universe and everything in it follows his plan, i do not. God and the bible are, in my opinion, things that people refer to only to explain things they do not understand. that is, ultimately, the origin of all religion. people didn't know why things work the way they do, so they came up with an idea that explains everything in what i believe to be a fairy tale like manner. just because humans cannot provide a bulletproof reason as to why or how the universe was created or, for that matter, came to be how it is today doesn't mean that the reason is God. while scientists back their theories up with logic and fact, believers in intelligent design always revert back to the bible, saying 'well, the new testament says...' or 'well, that doesn't explain...' or 'well, we humans are just too complex...'. i am not agreeing with scientific theories on the creation of the universe, rather i am simply stating that science provides more support for the argument against creation than intelligent design believers provide for their argument that everything is because of god, because some book says so. DISCLAIMER: i have nothing against anyone who believes in creation or any type of religion, this is just my opinion and i am open to listening to both sides of the argument so feel free to share your opinion with me. in fact, please do.

F.Y.I.

my profile picture is not OF me it was taken BY me lol

Affirmative Action

as a half black and half white american, i am pro-affirmative action despite the presidency of Barack Obama. one multi-racial president cannot erase our long history of privileged white male presidents, or the persecution and racism that minorities have faced. no matter how much one may try to avoid it, racism and prejudice against minorities still exist today, as hundreds of years of this type of mindset do not go away in a few short decades. when it comes to getting into colleges or universities, the matter is no different and thus minorities need the help of affirmative action to in a sense balance the playing field. this argument could go on and on and on but in the end i believe that minorities need the advantage especially those who come from an underprivileged background (not saying that all minorities do) and do not have the resources that most take for granted.