Thanks For Everything!

Thanks Dr. Dragan for the wonderful course! I really enjoyed it! Have a wonderful summer!

Critical Thinking Blog # 8

Ever since I was a little boy, I have enveloped myself with knowledge of the sciences. My curious nature about technological gadgetry and the natural sciences has always given me an interesting and unique perspective about my surroundings. I will be the first one to admit that this certain knowledge that I have, gave me an advantageous understanding about the world. I basically gravitated towards science as a young child because of complexities of the natural world. As an adult, I still do cherish and appreciate the technicalities of science. I would consider myself more knowledgeable than the average person but not to the extent and level of a person that would be deeply involved in such fields.

By taking this course, it has made me acknowledge more its importance in our society and its potential to help and improve mankind. I was more influenced with the positives of the sciences. However, this also made me more aware to the potentiality and dangers of such sciences. Having introduced to such knowledge, and having the background of some minor Philosophy courses, I was able to think about science in a more humanistic way. I indeed do acknowledge that science is a part of our existence and that mankind only leases such knowledge and power from our surroundings. Even though that man sees itself as the most dominant, smartest living being in the planet, we must be aware that our species is fairly young and we have a lot to learn from our mistake as a species. I just truly hope that it does not come to the event in where mankind obliterates itself because of the unconscious use and malpractice of science.

Critical Thinking Blog # 7

Robert Oppenheimer, the theoretical physicist and the head of the Manhattan Project created the atomic bomb that was unfortunately detonated in Japan. His personal involvement in such atrocity will always be connected with him. The fact that World War II was waning over, his imposition to continue the research only proved that scientific hubris has consumed his mind. The prospect of recognition and support from the government – and some from civilians, definitely made his scientific conquest more appetizing. His scientific work in the Manhattan project proved that reckless and blind science can lead to disastrous results, even though being not directly affected.

In a way, this historical fact can be paralleled with Mary Shelley work in Frankenstein. Mary Shelley’s classical novel alludes to this situation in time. It is known that Dr. Frankenstein had created a monster in which it eventually terrorizes him and his family. Like Oppenheimer, Dr. Frankenstein pursued a science that was forbidden. The conundrum that we must face thought, is to figure out how we should push the boundaries of science. It is indeed preferable to advance science for the sake of improving humanity and society altogether, but we must also remember that such limitless boundaries can be detrimental to a society – especially to us human beings in where we have only started to discover science and scratch the top of it. Regardless of such immaturity in such sciences, we must also figure out a way to walk the tightrope of morality and avoid falling to the precipice of humanity’s bane – hubris.

Critical Thinking Blog # 6

One of the most fascinating personality of the 20^th century happened to be a brilliant man named Albert Einstein. Ever since his breakthrough theory of relativity and his famous Mass Energy Equivalence (E=MC2), the progress of human science and technology was further accelerated by at least ten years. Tragically thought, the unfortunate events in Nagasaki and Hiroshima have left us to wonder if indeed human beings are indeed capable of handling such information and ease of access to such technology.

Either way, I was more fascinated with Albert Einstein’s own personal journey. His own grieving to his accountability with the atomic bombs made it apparent that his conscience cannot overcome the guilt. Reflecting upon Einstein’s historical past, for me, it seems that he has a lackadaisical demeanor. This is entirely apparent just by the way he acknowledges school work. It was noted that Einstein, though a genius, was never into academics – only being interested in the fields which he is interested with. Regardless of this demeanor, he was able to excel mentally, being able to create theorems.

Albert Einstein’s contribution to the sciences is unmatchable due to the social and psychological implications it has created. Reviewing our society today, pretty much everything that is involved with Physics can be all be retraced back to Einstein. It is indeed such a wonderful and fascinating story on how one person and his “dreams” can overtly change the course of history and manage to propel mankind into the future.

Critical Blog # 5

The research paper that I have picked and discussed primarily involved the author Thomas Pynchon. To be honest, I had a difficult time choosing a topic because of the vast possibilities and prospective topics. I thoroughly enjoyed reading the short story of Pynchon. Entropy was one of those fascinating short reads that I was enamored to. Acquiring the short novel itself took me some time but eventually I was able to borrow a friend’s book that contained the short story. Anyhow, Entropy’s combination of literary finesse and technical details to science was very intriguing to me. I was more impressed in how he incorporates scientific themes paired with social commentaries with surprisingly enjoyable literary wit.

I was very fortunate to find two very relevant source topics for my research paper. One of these sources was John Starks from the University of Wisconsin. His work was more of a critical essay, critiquing Thomas Pynchon’s work and his literary tendencies. A short biographical essay in a sense that included most of his body of work through out his whole literary career. The reason I chose this source because it adds a different layer of argument to my research paper. Mostly the articles that I have found about Pynchon have been very favorable to his reputation. With this short critical essay, I saw some critical arguments that I saw can be added to my paper.

The second source article that I found was from Joseph Slade which was published from John Hopkins University. Here, Slade claims that Pynchon’s works primarily focused more on overtones of Humanism. He also included the argument, that him, growing up in an era where technological advancements were prevalent and having a substantial amount of knowledge on science, that he was able to assess how technology can affect human beings and its society. He alluded to different interactions of human beings and the dependency it could create towards technology.

Blog 4

A great mind once said that “The danger of the past was that men became slaves. The danger of the future is that man may become robots”. This quote originated from a person whom I greatly admire. It was from a social psychologist and a person who seriously advocates the philosophy of humanism. This man was Eric Fromm. It is indeed true that the connotation of the word “robot” does not necessarily mean the literal sense of it, but as more of a metaphor to a mechanical mindless drone. Nevertheless, it is quite interesting that Fromm’s quote denotes the predicament, the paradox that man will face as he ventures on towards the sophistication of robotics.

In our present culture, we have this fascination with a dystopian society in where mankind is governed by robots and are being dehumanized. In this vision, man is relegated to either as a source of energy to be consumed, or is a nuisance in which must be eradicated. These themes may very well vary from different kinds of scenarios. This dystopian vision can be evidently found in our culture today in the likes of movies, tv shows, novels and videogames. Although I acknowledge the apocalyptic nature and themes of these visions and the message they are trying to convey, I am honestly more interested towards the social and psychological effects of these robots to human society.

What I am more interested in is the probability of the daily social lives and the prospect of interactions between robots and human beings. Well, let us picture this. The year is 3000 and our civilization has technologically advanced immensely. We now have the ability to create advanced and sophisticated artificial intelligence. We also have the materials and the processing power to create lifelike robots. From a moralistic point of view, I can clearly picture human beings taking advantage of robots. Traditionally, robots were meant to be a source of labor; but with the high possibility of the development of advanced a.i., I could see this as a potential root for conflicts between man and robots. Another form of abuse that I can envision is the use of robots for sexual gratification and crime. Let us take the movie, Artificial Intelligence as an example. In the movie, the protagonist was introduced to a “sex robot”. This robot supposedly interacted with human beings that gave away sexual gratification. With robots, I can see crime increasing due to human negligence. This topic has so much potential because of the possible repercussions of the acts that man and robots can do which I doubt is going to be pretty.

Critical Thinking Blog 3

I am currently debating whether to analyze a work of scientific literary art or whether to bridge the gap between science, literature and humanism. Trying to stay true to my nature and uphold my philosophy and ideas, I cannot help but be enticed to delve into the subject matter of the potential harmonious marriage of humanistic values and the wonders of science. But then again, as an avid fan of literature, I also cannot neglect to avoid the joy that I receive from reading.

I am indeed in a tight predicament. The only way to be able to solve this problem is to weigh the pros and cons. On one hand, me analyzing literature with scientific themes can be enjoyable to me. But is merely analyzing a work of literature can really convey what my deepest thoughts can express? Is the limitation of a single work of literature can hinder what I want to accomplish? Am I forever bound to be an observer rather than an active participant?

I might have just found my answer! It seems that from my deep reflection, I have accidentally stumbled onto my answer! I have ultimately decided to attempt to create a bridge between humanism and science. I would want to find out what are the repercussions of these connections and how the deeply ingrained association of technology can change mankind.

Critical Thinking Blog 1

As a member of a functioning capitalist society, it is naturally expected of me to participate in such daily exchanges of information. Also living in such a technologically dominated world, it is inevitable and explicitly unavoidable for me not to interact with such different kinds of technology. From the daily basic forms of subsistence, to the mechanical-like accessing of the internet, I have tragically submitted myself to the mercy of technology. But please do not mistake my willingness to submit as a sign of weakness. I am merely emphasizing the importance of technology and portray that mankind and technology would be forever entwined as long as one exists.

I consider myself, first and foremost, a humanist and a techno-romanticist second. I believe that as human beings, we must be responsible on how we use and apply science to our surroundings. Despite my stance on humanism and the effects of irresponsible technology, I still view technology as a necessary tool for human development. There is no denying the vast potential of technology. As a matter of fact, General Motors have just recently introduced a concept car called the Chevy Volt which is due out in 2011. This concept car apparently is a fully electronic car that emits zero emissions. This positive progressive thinking shows the potential of technology in both innovation and “green-mindedness”.

The “green movement” here in the United States shows initiation and promise. It is indeed true that human consumption and waste have negatively affected out planet. But with the growing awareness of our own destructive tendencies, change and progress have been made to avert such destructive actions. I believe that once Americans are educated about this growing concern and finally acknowledge these facts, change can happen. Unfortunately, these hopes for change are only whims from a techno-romanticist humanist.

Critical Thinking Blog 2

Ever since I was a little kid, I have been fascinated with prehistoric dinosaurs. I have always wondered what the world would be like with humans and dinosaurs coexisting with each other. Then come the summer of 1993, there was a movie that was released by a very popular director named Steven Spielberg; it was Jurassic Park. The premise was about a theme park in where dinosaurs were resurrected from the extinct gene pool of species by the wonders of science. As a young child, my imagination ran extremely wild. I was fantasizing about dinosaurs living with humans! Can you believe that? I even asininely assumed that within the movie dinosaurs were going to be awesome pets! After pestering my parents to go watch the movie, they finally submitted to my constant annoyance and exasperatedly obliged.

The first thirty minutes of the movie, my fantasy and expectations was well met. Seeing walking dinosaurs on the silver screen along with the paleontologist besides it was a sight to behold. Unfortunately, my euphoric sate of mind was shattered when the movie reached its climax. The dinosaurs were loose! Terrorizing and devouring the humans in the movie, I was terrified. After the movie, I left the movie theater flabbergasted.

Now as an adult and critically reflecting about the movie, I came to the conclusion that the movie revolved around the concept of the God complex. It is a psychological disorder in which one consistently believes they can accomplish more than is humanly possible. Coupled with a brilliant scientific mind and vast amount of resources, the man who was responsible for Jurassic Park in the movie blatantly abused science. Here we saw scientific hubris ultimately caused the demise of the park. The question we now must ask ourselves is how do we know if we are pushing science too far? What are the moral consequences of such actions? And how do we find balance between responsible and irresponsible science? And lastly, to what extent are we willing to push morality?

Science for humanity is essential for its evolution. It is deeply ingrained within our society that we have depended our survival on science since the beginning of time. Convenience, safety, health and productivity are all byproducts of it. Now that we have become more aware and sophisticated with science, we have started to walk the slippery slope of morality and responsibility. We have started to become irresponsible, arrogant and selfish. This is evident just by observing our own natural world. Rainforests are being scalped, our oceans polluted, our atmosphere poisoned. Looking within our society, we also see the friction of morality and science. We have the issue of the morality of cloning, the issue of life preservers and its vegetative patients, and to the simple abuse of narcotics.

We are ultimately destroying ourselves with our irresponsible use of science. To change this, we must change our mentality to a more holistic symbiosis of man and nature. Respect should be adhered to both man and nature to prevent the abuse of science. Pre-historic man have erected walls to keep nature out for survival, now the modern man now has to obliterate it to let nature in.

Hi

Success!