Ever wonder what people's first impression of you is? What if there were a service that could tell you exactly what the impression/image that you give off is and where it comes from? For example, you walk into the service, you look the "interviewer" in the eye and smile and offer a handshake. This might exude confidence in your mind, but a trained interviewer might see other things. He sees the way you jumped up when your name was called, the way you were laughing a little more then normal while waiting, and your eagerness to please him and ends up with a completely different first impression. These sometimes small movements that come involuntarily oftentimes demonstrates our true emotions often betrays a side of us that is
1.) not appropriate for the situation
2.) Not really us...whether from nervousness or overexcitement
So how about a service that will go over everything that you show from the moment you enter the scene till the moment you get the job-offer, leave a successful first date, or just make a good impression on a group of strangers. If you're trying to demonstrate leadership, the service would tailor your behavior to that impression, same with humor, friendliness or intelligence. Would anybody be interested in this? And since this is a business idea, it's not just interest but willingness to pay =P...and of course the service would be top-par! For those of you who worry that this isn't you...like in GATTACA, "it is you...just the best part of you" =)
Interesting class in intermediate microecon today where after singing along to a 60's song and dressing up in school colors for chocolate, the class talked about monopsonies (yes, not monopolies who control output, but monopsonies, who control input). Everybody hates monopolies, not just because of the income/luxury tax associated with it and not being able to pass Go, but also because it is socially inefficient. Why? Monopolies essentially attempt to maximize profits by reducing output so that they can raise outputs. Imagine a rectangle where one side is quantity sold and the other is (Price - the cost to make it) so profit. By selling one less good, these monopolies can jack up the price on all the other ones sold, thus maximizing profits. So basically, society loses when they do that since less people get the good and the ones who do are paying more for it.
But have you ever heard of monopsonies? Doubtful unless you're an econ major, but they are the evil twin of monopolies. Instead of reducing output to increase the prices of their output, monopsonies decrease the amount of an input they hire in order to lower the price. This is the law of supply and demand where if the supply stays the same and demand drops, then the price of that object drops. Let's say the world's sole hirer of people with a particular skill: we'll say computer gaming for this example, is the executive team of Ford. Now, if 100 people are professional computer gamers then, they would turn to Ford for employment. Let's say Ford hires all 100 and gives them the ridiculous salaries that they hand out: $3million/person/year. But now that they're bankrupt, they must get rid of some of these professional minesweepers and solitaire specialists, so they hire only 10 people. This makes 100 people compete for 10 jobs, which means that the workers will bid down the wages in order to get a job. This also causes social inefficiencies since the people who the company are hiring at $50,000/person/year now bring we'll say $200,000/person/year to the company. So the company is EXPLOITING these workers. In a competitive market, these employees would receive how much they are worth to the company, but in a monopsony, they can deliberately reduce the amount of inputs they take so that they can exploit the workers who they do hire. Who would do such a dastardly thing? Turns out it's your very own NCAA.
The NCAA started as a regulation method for college football, where some players were actually dying from playing each year. However, they not only revised the rules on how the game was to be played and how hard a coach could push his players...they also changed the payments that players could receive for their talents. Players like Patrick Ewing were supposed to have brought $5million to Georgia when he played there for college. What did he receive? A free tuition. The NCAA mandates that players cannot be paid to play, which means that these highly valuable resources for the schools are giving up all the profits that they bring to the school...to the NCAA and the school. Who actually gets the money? Ever noticed the high paychecks of the coaches? Millions of dollars are spent on coaches, why? Because if you get a coach who can attract the best talent when everybody is offering next to nothing in payments, then your school's profits are greatly increased. Essentially, the players' contributions to the team are transferred to the coach.
But, it is not yet completely fair for the NCAA to be smite for their barbarous economic schemes. Many sports programs fail to bring in enough revenue to support their continuation. One example is swimming, where the maintenance of the pool and team is probably higher than the quantity of admissions (a lot) multiplied by the price of admission (nothing). The excess profits that the football coaches don't take go into programs such as this and keep it alive. But is this enough to justify the monopsony of NCAA's? Or should these college players be paid for their efforts, just as any other worker is for their valuable time and labor? And of course the biggest question: is it fair that swimmers make nothing...that pool is cold!?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/science/20mammoth.html?scp=2&sq=mammoth&st=cse
That's right folks. We can do it, we have the technology. Well, almost. If you were too lazy to read the article, basically the idea is that pretty soon (hopefully) they will be able to recreate a a legit wooly mammoth egg and bring it to term in an elephant.
That's pretty cool. But, if they can do that, that means they can do it with neanderthals in humans (or chimps) too.
The question is, do you think we should?
On the one hand, there are a lot of good reasons to for the advancement of science.
On the other hand, humanoid cloning might present many ethical problems. Who wins?
So imagine you were involved in a car crash and you were severely injured and now you're at the hospital. To what extent could you consider yourself the same person you were before the accident?
Let me give you some situations.
You lost a leg, and now you're replacing the leg with a prosthetic terminator-like limb. Yes, most would consider you the same person. The only thing that's missing is a physical apparatus of your body. Even if you were to lose everything except for your head (assuming you could still sustain life) one might even be so bold to suggest you are still the same person.
But what happens when things go awry in the brain?
Retrograde and anterograde amnesia are possible outcomes that are both fascinating yet perturbing. Does one lose the essence of themselves having undergone this trauma? Can you really say that someone with retrograde amnesia is really the same person as you knew before? Again many would probably agree that as long as the personality is intact, yes; that is, under the justification that it is not necessarily always the person that makes up who he/she is, but the memories of those around him/her. Plus, the personality is still intact.
But what happens when things go missing in the brain?
Assume in order to live after having undergone severe head trauma, doctors needed to save your life by replacing 10% of your brain with synthetic neural networks. This means your brain is 10% machine and 90% still you. Those who justified that people having undergone retrograde amnesia are still the same person because of the memories existent among one's dearest, now will have to redefine the essence of existence. Can you really say after having undergone a 10% replacement of the brain, you are still yourself? Now, I want you to consider that this is a philosophical question, not a technical one. One could argue that the brain is compartmentialized and thus physically replacing 10% could lead to a complete transformation of one's personality. However, I'm asking you, what if only 10% of the personality was transformed? 90% is still you. Some might ask, indeed, as long as the majority of you is still you, you are still you.
However, what happens when you cross the half point mark, making it 49/51?
Now you are not the majority of yourself, but rather the minority of a synthetic entity. So can you really say you still exist? If no, then what is going on at 50/50?
My point is, this identity of one's existence is a blurred gradient. It's often frustrating trying to define borders in answer to this question. I've tried to think about it myself, but I couldn't come up with an answer. What do you guys thing?
Obviously someone hated the new layout so much that he voted 10 times...
I did not make the changes to go against your will, just trying to make some improvements for the common good. If you have any suggestion for the new blog layout, please let me know and I will try to accommodate your request.
Don't hide your hatred inside, it's not good for you :P
Overall, what do you like or dislike about the new template? Should we keep it?
Oook, calling all venture capitalists, investment banks and kids with big piggy banks'! Two more ideas for you.
*'s denote something that has to be thought out practically in more detail
1.) A big live map of available parking spaces!
So, each parking space (we'll start with a campus first) at Northwestern, including street parking, will have *cheap sensors* that will know when there is a car in the spot. When there is, it tells a *little parking map* on your phone or GPS that that spot is free! No more driving around looking for spots and no more fretting about parking.
2.) Speed sensors for highways
Not so much an invention as just "an improvement"...for me at least. When "Air Traffic 780" our local radio station talks about: "...18 minutes from the Dan Ryan in", from their "air chopper 780":
1.) I don't know which one the Dan Ryan is (although my invention won't solve that)
2.) I have no idea how long the mentioned lengths should take on a good or bad day...just the time it takes me to get from Deerfield road entrance on I94 to the Skokie exit on 41.
So how about, instead...they told me the speeds. And we're in a recession right now, so no need for choppers, a simple road-side speed tester'll do just fine.
destroy our society? Nuclear weapon proliferation, AIDS, poverty,
global warming, and the impending fuel crisis are commonly known
threats to society. However, there is a rot in our society that has
gone completely unnoticed. It is aggressively unhealthy, wasteful,
and useless. It is our obsession with sports. It floods the media,
drains our time, and all it does is fuel more devotion to sports.
It's not that sports are inherently unhealthy, but the fact that, as a
nation, we are obsessed. When Rome fell, it collapsed around the
Colosseum.
It is undeniable that our modern society has a sports addiction.
Every major city in America has erected sports stadiums. The
tremendous ticket sales pay the multimillion dollar salaries of the
athletes and coaches. TV networks and cable stations cover the games
live, and news programs review the results and highlights. Newspapers
discuss and comment on the games the next day, and the cycle repeats
itself.
This media bombardment has a visible effect on the American
population, dangerously consuming our emotions and brainpower. Sports
are a central topic for conversations and arguments everywhere in
America. The commentator's words are like the Word of God; the
statistics he mentions are unquestioningly quoted word for word by
anyone debating the topic. Fans (short for fanatics) often know the
whole history of their favorite team, and know countless random
statistics. Can you imagine how much time and money is wasted each
year on the media publicizing sports? Can you imagine how many
problems we could solve if we spent a fraction of that time and money
educating the public on the importance of healthy eating or the
dangers of substance abuse?
It's true that sports have redeeming qualities. They teach
discipline and teamwork, and that results come from sweat and hard
work. But for all the time and money invested into sports, what is
the result? What purpose does it serve? No matter how many times a
sports team grabs the national championship; they'll never grab the
cure for cancer. Regardless of how many millions of dollars spent, or
how many hours they train, they'll never fix the hole in the ozone
layer. America's fixation with sports tragically drains our energy
and talents, and it wastes our potential to really make a difference
in the world.
Here's a list of my thoughts now that free agency has started.
After rumors that the closer market would be bare, there are many quality arms available. With many teams balking at the price of Francisco Rodriguez and Brian Fuentes, the demand for Trevor Hoffman and Kerry Wood will be high.
Speaking of Wood, I am still disappointed with the way that ended. I really believe that the failure of Zell and Tribune Co. to sell the team is hindering what the team and GM Jim Hendry can do. He basically told Wood that we could not afford a deal he deserves and instead traded top pitching prospect Jose Ceda to the Marlins for Kevin Gregg (who tied with the most blown saves last season). This was a terrible deal, not only because Wood is not the closer, but because this mean Carlos Marmol will be closing out games instead of setting up. Gregg can be effective, but the Cubs vastly overpaid for him. Jose Ceda is a top relief prospect, and more importantly he is under team control for the next 6 years. A 1-2 punch of Marmol and Ceda would have been dominant, this trade just baffles me. (/rant)
Other thoughts-
Will the Padres and Kevin Towers PLEASE FINALLY TRADE JAKE PEAVY. The rumors have been going on for the past two weeks with the Cubs and Braves seemingly minutes away from a deal, yet nothing ever materializes. Seems like no one has/is willing to give what the Padres want (a young shortstop, CF, and an elite pitching prospect). For those of that do not know much about Peavy, he is a former Cy Young winner and a real ace of a staff, although he has had some minor injuries over the last two years. Funny note about why the Padres are trying to shed payroll, their owner is going through a nasty divorce and is trying to get as much money as possible, it also doesn't help when the team completely fell on its face last year.
The Yankees are gonna outspend everyone. They'll get CC Sabathia after offering a historic contract and will probably get one more big time starting pitcher, especially since their owners think they are entitled to the WS championship. Plus, the CC contract will inflate all the other SP's demands (see Ryan Dempster asking for 5 years $75M).
The Matt Holliday trade was kinda surprising seeing that the A's were not competive last year, but Billy Beane is the best GM in baseball because of his ability to get a small market team to be contenders, plus he makes some pretty sweet trades. The A's gave up a really good CF prospect named Carlos Gonzalez (A's top prospect acc. to Baseball America), SP Greg Smith, and closer Huston Street. Gonzalez and Smith were acquired from the D'Backs in the Dan Haren deal from last year. The Rockies get a good looking out-fielder that they can move to LF once Dexter Fowler is ready. They get a decent/good SP in Smith and can use Street to fill the gap left by Fuentes.
If anybody has questions/thoughts I can help you out.
post deleted.
(Guys, Jake wasn't lying when he said that this post wasn't written by him haha! It was actually written by me. Since I'm actually becoming a part of the community, I figured I would repost this as myself. I'm excited to join the Idea Shop and look forward to contributing and reading insightful articles from other posters. :] )
We all have had this experience. You’re just minding your own business, secure in the knowledge that you know where everyone in your social circle stands. You know, you have certain people in your social circle who are “just friends”, certain others who you’ll casually flirt with while not expecting any sort of relationship ever, and certain others who you just want to shove up against a wall, preferably in broad daylight in a public place in front of your lousy ex. Everyone’s categorized and stays in their social niches, and life goes on perfectly.
Until someone in your friend zone causes you to have second thoughts about every aspect of your relationship.
You know how it happens. They go out of their way to do something for you which you consider to be really sweet, but of course it’s platonic! Except all your friends, who don’t even know this person, are convinced it’s a sign that that person is madly in love with you and wants to have your babies that very instant.
And then you begin to wonder. Of course, it doesn’t help that you’re oblivious anyway, and perhaps that person does like you and you’re just too dense to see it? And what sort of offspring would your combined genetics produce anyway? Come to think of it, they would turn out rather attractive…
But focus!
You had a crush on this person a long long time ago. But it was a moment of weakness, and it’s over now. But then all of a sudden you see this person after a long time and one thing leads to another…
And somehow you aren’t friends anymore. That safe green zone is now red (red with a mutual blaze of passion that is).
Oh and did I mention you’re not going to see this person again for a long time?
In keeping with the previous posts about what girls look for in guys and vice versa, here’s an important question: when you find your previously platonic relationship changed, how have you responded? How often has this happened? And what are your craziest stories?
Putting the spotlight on just the girls wouldn't be fair...soo, guys this is your chance to prove that you don't just look for hmmm... looks. What traits do you find most attractive (and yes looks can be in there) in a girl? These traits...prbbly like the girls' won't be the same as what our parents' generation was looking for. No longer is the story of the princess and the frog a story for just girls...maybe guys are now looking for good looking frogs too!
So, let's also shoot for a top 10 list! I hope we don't disgrace ourselves and just stop at the two that came first to my mind (and i'm sure is repeated in many guys here)...brains and brawn. hehe
People should leave their 10 items in the comment section, if you do not want your identity revealed please posted under No ID. I will eventually tally up the comments and stick it up for the guys...girls are just more controlled =P. And finally...results are out!
Top 10 List
1.) Trustworthy/Committed is our most voted for quality!...no playas plz, leaf that to the people who dunno how to spel
2.) Smart...we want the girls who can spell!
3.) Artistic...dunno, they voted for it so i'm putting it up
4.) Playful...not as in poking...virtual or otherwise, but genuinely fun to be around.
5.) Funny...Everybody's a comedian...
6.) Self-Confident/Self-Respect...if you dunno what this is go listen to arethra franklin
7.) Pretty/Beautiful...Odd, not hot but pretty or beautiful
8.) Creativity...Add some spice into everyday Life
9.) Caring...A hint of softness under that creatively decorated, funny, good-looking exterior
10.) And our number 10 (it was tied with many other ones) is Social...so you can ask us out on the first date (at least that's what i think the boys voting for it were thinking...)
Thank you for participating, I am sure it has dramatically changed the lives of many women...
So, for the guys out there, ever wonder what girls are looking for in a guy? Well here's your chance to find out...if the girls will step up =P.
Why don't we shoot for a top-10 list of what girls are looking for the most in their "prince of shining armor" or maybe their looking for just a Matt Damon...who knows...
If you have a suggestion (and you're a girl...please just go right ahead and add your suggestions to this article, don't bother commenting...that's for the enlightened guys =P)
Top 11 List
1.) loyal/faithful
2.) confident, but not cocky!
3.) intelligent/talented (not in video games!)
4.) witty, but not a smartass!
5.) caring/thoughtful
6.) ambitious/adventurous
7.) mature/respectful
8.) athletic/fit
9.) romantic/sweet
10.) good looking/cute
11.) not possessive, but a little jealousy is cute
So, as many of you know, America (as well as many other nations) has a wide range between the very rich and the very poor. Much of the wealth is held within a very small percentage of the population. Here's how John Locke justifies it:
Back in the good ole days when cavemen and dinosaurs roamed the earth, probably back in the Roosevelt administration or early 70's for you non-history majors..., people were free and equal, nobody had any natural authority over anybody else. At the same time, this liberty was freedom to do what you wished...but only within moral limits. These limits were determined by "natural law", which meant that people had duties to respect the rights of others. This social situation is affectionately known as...THE STATE OF NATURE.
Now, in this state of nature, one of our "natural rights" is our right to private property (in the sense of property referring to both possessions and to rights). Locke's famous defense for capitalism and economic inequality follows:
God-gave the earth to humanity in a sort of communistic state, where "this land was my land...this land is your land...this land was made for you and me" correctly applies. He also owns us humans, so that if we murder another person, we have "sinned" against God's private property. How does this public property turn to private ownership? By the labor theory of value. If there is an apple lying on the ground or "the public state" if you pick it up and dust it off, you have appropriated this apple for yourself by putting work into making it ready for consumption. So for Locke, labor changes the normative property status of things in the natural world: from being commonly owned, to private. A more appropriate example is farming. Land that is wild gives not much produce, but once I put my blood and sweat into making it more productive, it becomes mine. Now, nobody can take it away from me, since I have mixed my labor with the objects.
Now, some of the greedy people on here are thinking...well I could own the whole world then. That's not morally correct according to Locke, who claims that
1.) you have to leave "enough and as good" in the common property for others
2.) You can only take what you and your family can consume- you cannot take so much that "waste and spoilage" occur.
Plus, in the state of nature, you're going to have a lot of farmland you won't work and a lotta dead deer that you can't eat or preserve (after you hunted them of course)...and a whole lot of hungry, angry people against you.
So now, for the change that allows social inequality through hoarding. Before, you couldn't hoard things in nature simply because it violated the Lockean Proviso that it causes waste and spoilage. With the introduction of money, a durable-non-perishable good, we can store the value we have created through our labor in goods. Locke claims that certain people are naturally more industrious than others, going around and mixing their labor with everything. These people now have a way of saving up the resources claimed by their labor. Before, they could not pass anything on to their children above perishable goods for consumption, but now, they can pass on their accumulated imperishable wealth, giving their children a head start. Over many generations, this will tend to cause great differences in wealth between families. However, as long as there is no acquisition by force, isn't the acquisition fair at all points? If so, doesn't it justify the economic inequalities we would have now (granted that our system is flawed because of acquisition by force)?
Especially interested in arguments that tear up Locke using his own statements...so logical fallacies or problems with his original premises (things he assumes). But feel free to discuss anything related.
Working against Locke from within his own premises:
1.) This system depends upon the existence of God for property rights to occur. Who says that's a sound premise?
2.) This isn't exactly within what I have written, but Locke claims that we are allowed to defend ourselves against people who have an intent to kill us. We are allowed to kill them in this case. Yet, what is the difference between these "enemies" and our competitors? Enemies are simply competitors to a stronger degree in the state of nature. Locke tries to lessen this effect by hinting at the belief that there is an infinite supply of goods, since resources seem to just be lying around for us to pick up and mix our labor with. However, waste can only be bad if it hurts other people, meaning that resources are not unlimited. Therefore, killing a competitor prevents the rise of a potential...or even a "mini-enemy", which is justified in Lockean terms. Therefore, this either forces him to accept the fact that we can kill others and hoard in the state of nature for our own benefit, or property rights do not come as a result of labor mixing with resources.
We've already discussed when it's OK to commit suicide, and I think most people agreed that suicide is morally OK when your suicide saves the lives of those around you, i.e. jumping on a grenade. People reasoned it out with different philosophies, but I think most everyone can agree that jumping on a grenade to save the lives of your friends is a brave and noble deed.
Here's a twist on that question: when is it OK to take the life of another human being? How does it relate to when it's OK to commit suicide?
To fuel thought, here's a couple scenarios that I came up with on the top of my head.
1. (Probably cliched but...) Imagine you were given a time-machine that allowed you to travel back in time to when Hitler was a young child. Would it be permissible to kill an (as yet) innocent child to save millions of Holocaust victims?
2. You're a doctor in a war zone, and your facilities are being overwhelmed by wounded and dying. You have limited resources and limited time, so is it permissible to pick and choose who to save vs. who to let die?
3. (If you've seen the Dark Knight) Pretend you were one of the people on the civilian ship, with the detonator to the prisoners' ship. You're told that if neither of you blows each other up, then the Joker will blow both ships up, so is it justified to kill the prisoners rather than have both ships blow up?
4. You're a doctor, and you've identified 10 people with terminally ill patients, who will die unless they get a particular organ transplant. One person, who happens to be perfectly healthy, happens to have all the organs and is a perfect match for all 10 people. Is it OK to somehow kill the one person and use his/her organs to save these 10 lives?
Do you feel like these scenarios need more information? For instance, would the livelihoods of each of these people matter? Is #4 different if the one person were a surgeon or a businessman or a drug dealer? What if the 10 people being saved are young children? Or senior citizens? Does it change the answer?
Hey everybody,
1.) The results are in!
What do people think of the blog?
Bad: 7%
Mediocre: 12%
Above Average: 12%
Great: 69%
Looks like we're doing a good job! (According to ourselves mostly hehe...!)
2.) We've also been trying to get a good mix of funny and serious articles on here, something for every mood... and it seems like we're just right...just need one more person to think it's too serious for it to be perfectly balanced...
Too Serious: 10%
Just Right: 70%
Not serious enough: 20%
I'm sure you guys can map this one out in ur minds...would look something like this:
3.) Last thing, somebody mentioned not liking the color scheme here...does anybody have a suggestion for how to change it? Or would most people want to keep it?
"Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn. Only when the marriage of heterosexuals has the support of the whole society can we have our best hope of raising each new generation to aspire to continue our civilization.."Is gay marriage worth killing people over? If the majority of the people in the country want to impose something over others, should they get it? At one time, the majority of voting Americans wanted slavery, and didn't want women's suffrage. At one time, the majority of Americans wanted Japanese Internment. Is gay marriage an example of history repeating itself? Discuss.
This is by all means not a suicide note or I am not an emo kid. I should prolly give you some background before I present my questions.
This past weekend, my hallmate from my freshmen year killed himself in a cemetary. He lit himself on fire and took his own life. He was a christian, an athlete, high school valedictorian, and etc.
I didn't know him on a very deep level but I have talked to him before and would often enjoy playing Wii or bothering him while he played a game I've never seen before.
Ok that was a very short summary of the background. Now, I want to ask anyone willing to respond. When do you think it'd be okay to suicide? (like if you were being tortured... is it ok?) Do you believe everyone thinks about taking his/her own life the same amount? (does it differ depending on social status, race, religion, or etc.?) And what your opinion is of suicide? (such as religious views or personal views)
I know this is a very somber topic, but I felt like I needed another's opinion about it. Plus, if anyone wants to just give an opinion without answering a question, I welcome it happily.
Hello everyone!
Last night Ann Pan invited me to join this blog (This is John Li) so here I am!
I am really impressed by the level of collaboration and activity present on this blog.
Now that I should actually post some content:
Over the summer, while learning how to cook for myself, I stumbled upon a bunch of interesting recipes for various dishes. The one that I have loved the most is The Simple Dollar's Homemade Bread Recipe. Quote the introduction:
Over the last year, I’ve gradually moved more and more towards making my own food at home. There are several reasons for this: it tastes better, it reduces preservative intake, it’s more nutritious, and it’s often substantially cheaper than what you find in the store. It does take time, but once you get used to it, most food preparation doesn’t take much more time than going to the store, buying it, taking it home, popping it out of the package, and following the directions.
Breadmaking is a prime example of this phenomenon. Homemade bread is substantially tastier than store-purchased bread, isn’t laden with preservatives, is very inexpensive to make, and doesn’t take all that much time, either.
I've baked so many variations of this bread that kneading by hand is almost second nature for me now. The post includes clear instructions and photos. I highly recommend giving it a shot over the weekend.
Right now my dough is rising in the oven...
Judaism
Before I start, I want to give a little disclaimer. We have a saying in Judaism that goes: "Two Jews, three opinions". What I mean is, whenever anyone tells you "Judaism believes this", its not usually the only take (of course, you should believe everything I say...). I try to give the Jewish view of itself, mixing in a little objectivity, which you probably won't notice unless you are Jewish. When I use "we" I am referring to Jews, as opposed to people in general. I encourage you to ask any questions you might have, and even to be critical (in the constructive sense, of course). I don't get offended, in general. If you want to email me instead of posting, its seagull5000@gmail.com. A brief outline of my discussion:
- Diety and Belief
- Practice and holidays
- Theodicy and Afterlife
- Who is Jewish and Other religions
- Political issues such as abortion and stem cells.
1. Diety and Belief
Judaism believes in the existence of a single personal God. This God is all powerful and all knowing, and at the same time cares about the individual personally. If the relationship between God and man in Christianity is father and children, in Judaism it is sovereign and subjects. God commands and expects us to obey. God only gives us laws we are able to fulfill, and can therefore can hold us responsible when we break them. Beyond monotheism and the "yoke of the commandments" as it is called, there is little dogma in Judaism in the way of belief. More important, or at least signficant, than belief, is figuring out how god wants us to act. We do that by studying and expounding Gods laws. The most important book in that respect is the Torah. The Torah is like the constitution plus a history book. Traditionally, it is believed God dictated it to Moses around 4000 years ago. It contains the creation story, and the story of how the Jewish people came to be, starting from our forefather Abraham through our enslavement in Egypt for 400 years, which God liberated us from through our leader Moses, to wandering in the desert for 40 years until we reached the land of Israel. It also contains 613 commandments. The rest of the bible (the christian old testament) does not directly contain any commandments. It is the story of the people in the land of Israel up until our dispersion from the land in 70 ce. Afterwards, discussions called the "Oral Torah" on the commandments as well as new laws that were derived from them were collected in the "talmud" in around 400 ce. The talmud contains many debates about the way it is we are to act in different situations and about what the correct laws themselves are. Finally, the laws were officially codified around 1200 ce in the "shulchan orech". From the original 613, 100s or even 1000s more were derived. While many of these laws cannot be found in the torah itself, they are still considered to be the will of god because they are derived from the torah, as we in America might say a law is "constitutional". Judaism is preoccupied with correctly following the laws and thus worshiping god correctly. More on reward and punishment later.
2. Practice and holidays
Some important Jewish practices include prayer, shabbat (sabbath), and kashrut (dietary laws). Other laws deal mainly with a code of ethics (don't kill, don't steal, etc). There are three prayer services everyday, morning, afternoon, and night (or more appropriately, night, morning, and afternoon as the Jewish day starts at nightfall). Prayer can be done individually, but can only fully be done congregationaly (at least 10 people, or traditionally, men).
Kashrut is the system of dietary laws. Jews are only allowed to eat certain animals, and those animals must be killed in the most humane way. Some "unkosher" animals are pig and shellfish. Some Kosher ones are cow and chicken. However, if a cow is not killed in the proper, humane way, it is not kosher. In addition, Jews are forbidden to mix dairy and meat. Many therefore have two sets of dishes for this purpose. Most people wait a certain amount of time between the eating of one and the other (longer between meat and milk than milk and meat).
Shabbat, the sabbath, is every Friday night until Saturday night, and is the most important observance in Judaism, more important than all the holidays, including the "high holidays". (Note an exception- we are obligated to violate the sabbath to save a life). It starts on Friday night at sundown with a traditional meal eaten with family and friends. Through Saturday night, it is forbidden to do all "work". "Work" is a limiting translation of the Hebrew word "malacha". It includes things I do for money, but also other things like cooking, lighting a fire, writing, driving, using electricity, playing music, making plans, use money, etc. The point is to abstain from all things that might keep you from enjoying the day to the fullest as a special day free from normal worries. We take a step back from the world and appreciate the natural order of things, and time with our families. On Shabbat, I like to read, play sports, go outside, play games, and take naps.
There are a number of holidays throughout the year which also require the observances of Shabbat. These celebrate various significant events in Jewish history. Some holidays do not require these observances. In addition, there are a number of fast days throughout the year, all of which (except for yom kippur, the day of attonement) are connected to the destruction of the ancient Jewish temples and our subsequent dispersion and persecution amongst the nations. The high holidays (the new year and yom kippur) occur in fall. (note- the jewish calendar is a mixed solar/lunar calendar, which is why holidays occur at different times relative to the gregorian). On the high holidays, we ask god for forgiveness for the sins of the past year, and pledge to do better this year.
3. Theodicy and Afterlife
Unlike Christianity, there is no definitive concept of an afterlife in Judaism. It is something that is not highly emphasized or explored in Judaism. It is not even mentioned in the Torah. I want to reemphasize as I mentioned above about the relative unimportance of beliefs, that observance of the laws in this life is what is important. Beliefs about an afterlife come as an explanation for why bad things happen to good people (ie that rewards come in the afterlife not this life). Some Jews don't even believe there is an afterlife, that it and reward/punishment were introduced just to give those people who couldn't just obey because god says so a reason to observe. Other conceptions of the afterlife include reincarnation, a nirvana like state, a "world to come", or a revival of the dead in this world. Coming up with explanations for why bad things happen to good people became especially important after Jews lost self rule in 70ce, and were subsequently persecuted nearly everywhere they went for practicing Judaism.
Personally, I believe that whatever happens after this life, it is still better to do "good" things even if there is no reward. The "reward" is being closer to the eternal (god). The reason to do good, even when it may bring us harm, is that we have a partner in god as the one who commands us to do good.
4. Who is Jewish and Other religions.
You are Jewish only if your mother is Jewish or you converted. There are no half Jews. Judaism accepts converts, but not easily. This perhaps rises from the dual character of Judaism as a religion and a nation. It must be something one really wants to do. Judaism does not proselytize. If someone approaches you and asks to convert, you are supposed to turn them away three times. Then, if they persist, you are supposed to ask them "what do you see in this? Don't you know that the Jewish people are exiled, abused and harassed, and that great troubles befall them from time to time?" and if they still want to convert, they are then admitted to a process that takes around two years.
All people are required to observe 7 basic laws (against idolitry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, eating the limbs off animals, and an obligation to set up a just judiciary system).
There was a request to specifically deal with why Judaism does not accept Jesus and Mohamed as prophets, and to explain the Jewish messiah. Note, here I'm not saying that Christianity and Islam are invalid, just why i don't practice them. Prophets in Judaism were really only meant to serve one function: bring the people back to obeying God's laws. A prophet who introduces something new or outside of the original law is not believed to be a Jewish prophet. This comes from the belief that God said everything he had to say in the Torah, and he has no more to say. I think the differences between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are evident enough to show that these religions were something "new". From my understanding, Judaism is much closer to Islam practically and theologically in terms of submission to the will of God and prayer style amongst other things. Also, the trinity doesn't fit with Jewish theology.
Again, there is no real dogma in Judaism, so the concept of messiah is ambiguous. It isn't mentioned at all in the bible (allow some will say it is indirectly). It was more fully formed after the dispersion in 70 ce. After we were exiled from the land and the temple was destroyed, a major focus of Judaism became mourning these events and hoping that we will one day return. Messiah arose as the belief in someone who would ultimately redeem us from our oppression and bring us back to the land. It is more of a political leader than anything. There are varying views on what exactly this Messiah will do. Some say he'll bring world peace, some say he'll rebuild the temple and reincarnate the dead. Some say he'll only come after we make world peace. According to the most popular tradition, in order to be the Messiah you must be Jewish, male, descendent of Solomon, rebuild the temple, and revive the dead.
5. Political issues such as abortion and stem cells
The views of Judaism get often misassumed here. Abortion is not against Jewish law. Life begins at birth, not conception according to Judaism. Still, Judaism would not have you say "I'm too lazy to put on a condom, you can just get an abortion". But it recognizes that the most important thing is the health of the mother- mental and physical.
Judaism is also for stem cell research, as it can be used to save living people. However, it believes the right way to do this is using embryos that would be discarded anyways as opposed to creating ones just for this purpose.
Please let me know if I have been unclear anywhere, or what needs more explaining. Also, please ask me questions. I don't get offended by anything.
The holiday season is approaching, my last exam before the Thanksgiving break is tomorrow. As an authoritative figure in getting the most return for your dollar I am asking readers "What items do you want for Christmas!" I will use my superior art of bargain hunting to find a deal for you. If you have an amazing deal that is not posted, please leave a comment and I'll update the post.
A neat gadget for those of us who spend a little too much time on our laptops...(me? guilty as charged)
Windows users rejoice! SlifeLabs is finally sharing the love with their windows version of Slife, a productivity manager.
Their website description:
"Designed around a set of intuitive visualizations, Slife 2.0 helps you stay on top of your activities and productivity automatically. Create activity groups, set goals and discover how you spend your time."
I for one have been looking for a desktop productivity manager for quite some time, and although I'm not sure if this'll fulfill exactly what I've been looking for, it definitely looks cool and worth trying over the next couple of days.
Check it out here and see for yourself!
Now that the election is over (go Obama!), we expect revolutionary changes perhaps in the near future...
Many believe that in 50 years we will no longer be using laptops, plasma TV, and many other high techs that we are lusting after today. So which direction is technology headed?
Futurama seems reasonable to me. Agree?
It's interesting that I'm discussing this topic under the religion section, because neither Chinese classical thought nor Buddhism were originally intended to be religious. Either way, what I'm about to talk about should still be relevant to the discussion on religion and belief systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some unique features of Chinese classical thought:
- The universe is self-creating and self-perpetuating. Because of this, the Chinese originally did not have a creation myth (though many were introduced later).
- Cosmic forces such as ying yang, qi, the 5 agents/elements, and the Dao are in dynamic interaction with each other. Thus, the universe is in constant flux and nothing remains stagnant or permanent. The idea of "to be" (that something just exists) so prominent in Western thought was not a part of classical Chinese thought.
As I see it, these cosmic forces were not exactly religious in nature, rather, they were means by which ancient people could explain the world around them.
- Everything works in correlation. The way that something is comes from the way it relates to everyting else, not from its inherent properties. Therefore, the whole is emphasised over the parts and, in society, the group over the individual.
- No mutual exclusivity. The existence of duality without dichotomy. It is possible to have two mutually defining entities A and B, such that A is A because it is not B, but A can also become B because they are ultimately both part of one big harmonious whole.
The same applies to belief systems; one could potentially be a Confucian in the morning, a Buddhist in the afternoon, and a Daoist at night.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With this as the fundamental structure of Chinese thinking, later schools of thought (mainly Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism) emerged and integrated themselves in the basic framework to create what we would now call today "Chinese thought."
Daoism
- claims that what's on the surface does not reflect reality, mistrusts words because they cannot fully articulate the Dao
- advocates non-action (wu wei) as the means of aligning oneself with the way of the Dao (which is the ultimate goal of human beings)
- Focused more on individual spiritual living and returning to nature than the other schools.
Confucianism
- The goal of humans is to become moral beings through education, which begins in the family with filial piety. A person must learn his/her proper place in society and act accordingly. Eventually, the things that one wants to do ought to be the same as the things that one should do.
- As you can see, this really isn't a religion, but rather an ethical code governing social relationships and individual life. The only reason why it's an "ism" arises from later historical developments.
Buddhism
- Life is full of suffering. When you die, it doesn't get any better because you are reborn and just begin the cycle of suffering over and over again.
- Desire is the root of all suffering. Buddhists have ascetic practices to control and ultimately eliminate desire. With enough training, one eventually reaches enlightenment and will no longer suffer the cycle of rebirth.
- When Buddhism was introduced to China, it became "popularized" so as to reach a broader audience. An afterlife was introduced, as well as Bodhisattvas (people who have reached enlightenment but choose to remain behind to save everyone else on earth).
Thus, Buddhism, originally more of a philosophy than a religion, became more of a religion than a philosophy.
Due to poor documentation and the abstract nature of the religion itself, there are several interpretations (and misinterpretations) of this religion. The core idea, like in all religions, is to somehow relate the self to the divine. Hinduism tries to offer different paths to this goal (every individual can pick the path that's right for him/her) and argues that they are essentially equivalent.
There are three so-called "major paths" classified by the nature of the human. Jnana Yoga (Path of Knowledge) is suitable for Sattvic people ("Pure" people, usually Brahmanas (Priests) - more on the caste system in a later article), Karma Yoga (Path of Action) for Rajasic people ("Dim" people, usually the Kshatriyas (Warriors) and Vaishyas (Merchants)), and Bhakti Yoga (Path of Devotion) for Tamasic ("Dark" people).
So to sum it up, the goal of human life is salvation (called Nirvana = release from the cycle of reincarnation), which can be achieved through Knowledge, Action, and Devotion.
Speaking of different religious belief, it has become a rationale for terrorism, a way of justifying what is "right" and "wrong".
In the past 200 years, we have gone through 4 waves of terrorism and modelski. we started out with terrorism due to anarchists from 1880-1914, then moved on to nationalist and ideologists from 1920-1960 and 1960-1990 respectively. Finally, religious terrorism initiated after the 1990 and has become a transnational and comic one. The state is no longer the political arbiter, which in turn leads to larger and more violent acts of terrorism.
I can't say what's Al-Qaeda's ultimate motive, but his ideology is justified by his religious belief. He opposes all nations not governed to a particular interpretation of Islam and the US forces in the Middle East, therefore he "attack the enemies of God" in order to create a unified Muslim-state.
Though he might've used religion only as an excuse, but it's sure powerful enough to bring his people together and follow his lead.
So does religion advocate peace or war?
Hey everybody, I'm glad to see that we have so many new authors for the blog, as well as visitors who just drop in. I'd like to just say welcome to the new authors, and it would be great if you guys could briefly introduce yourself, either in a post or on the post called "Introduce yourselves" lol. I'd also like to encourage readers who feel like they have things to say, but are not sure if their comments will be well received to definitely share their opinions. Differing viewpoints is a big goal on this site!
But I also think that we have suddenly gained a large number of different expectations and viewpoints, without a sense of what this site is truly about. I know that many of the new authors may have joined so they wouldn't hurt inviter's feelings (if only the people i invited were that kind haha) but now's the time to decide if you would like to stay on as a contributing author.
MISSION!
To have a site where everybody can go to and find that all of the posts are stimulating and fun.
Key notes:
Quality not Quantity- Most sites are going for size...amounts of posts, authors and readers are huge...But the fact is that the quality just can't be good on those sites and readers are not prompted to read posts outside of their pre-determined interests.
Here, I'm hoping that each post is good enough so that I will be willing to read and respond to something about politics or sports (things i usually avoid cuz of the lack of personal creative thought put into it). Essentially, you should not have to sift through the site to find something remotely interesting.
Creativity- Sure news stories are interesting...but there's a lot hmmm...everywhere.
*************************************************************************************
Well, that's it for me, if you have suggestions or ideas for the direction of this site (where u want it to go) by all means share it. O and btw, I know everyone's busy so no worries if you don't post for awhile, it's the thought that counts.
Heaven-hi!
Joey wanted us to form a religious discussion (not necessarily a debate) allowing us to share our view points. I guess Kevin went ahead and posted an article concerning the FSM, although Kevin is an atheist, so I wasn't sure how serious he was about FSM...
Before I bring this challenge to you, I would like you to watch this random youtube clip:
I thought this clip really demonstrates how small we could be, and it raises the question of the existence of a god, or whatever else may be out there.
Obviously religion is an important issue amongst us. As far has history has been able to recount for the existence of human beings, religion has also co-existed. This discussion is really here to reach far into all corners of philosophical thought pertaining to religion. For example, how do we validate our religion in our own perspective? To what degree of devoutness do we ascertain? What do we believe happens to others who do not follow our religion? How do we justify our religion as being correct? How valid is the historical background of our religion? Certainly do not limit your post to these questions as I encourage those to touch all base necessary. If time permits in your schedule, I, amongst others (I'm sure) will be willing to read the articles to its entirety, so be certain to be thoroughly extensive with your thoughts.
I presume there will be no swearing, hate messages, bigotry, and etc. Again, I encourage those in discussion to avoid attacks on other religious thoughts in hopes of avoiding heated and circular debates.
So I open this discussion to 6 people in particular, though I encourage as many people as possible to participate:
Kevin Tao to discuss Atheism
Roland Liang to discuss Christianity
Wei Luo to discuss Buddhism and Chinese Traditional Thought
Sujeeth Baradawaji to discuss Hinduism
Jeremy Siegel to discuss Judaism
Ibrahim Mekki to discuss Islam
So...get to it
Joey asked me to write a little about my religious beliefs, and so I've decided that I will write about that.
Hey everyone,
I haven't really been on here in a while, so I hope I didn't miss this, but who are you voting for for President and why?
Also, what do you think of the electoral college? Is it time to do away with it?
I have my ideas, but I want to here what you guys think first......
hey all, so i've been thinking about this for a while. say you're in a crowd of a hundred people, the human mind can channel out 99 others and "listen" to just one. To mimic this, they have directional microphones. An interesting problem is to come up with some algorithm that can channel out (and actually recognize the speech, to some level of accuracy) a hundred speakers with a single microphone. I haven't read too much about it, but please let me know what you guys think of it. For those who want to read more about it, this idea goes by the name of "speech diarization" in the signal processing literature.
A powerful song for you to enjoy.
Posts
