I’m going to have my promotion test tomorrow! It’s my promotion test in Taekwondo. Right now, I can’t sleep. I’m also trying not let myself think of it too much. The chief instructor of the Philippine Taekwondo Association’s going to be there too.
I had a great time yesterday. From 4 to 5:30 and my Kimono completely soaked and my legs lethargic. My left leg was about to cramp; after that, I just lied down on the floor and soaking the floor too! I smiled telling myself what a perfect Taekwondo session.
The fun didn’t stop there. Someone invited me to K1 after that. The problem was that I could hardly talk; to make it worse, my voice was hardly audible as it drowns in all those sounds. I guess that I was kinda’ shy. And then there was this girl who drank around three servings of tequila. Oh yeah, I drank my second tequila yesterday; I forgot how to drink it though.
I just realized that I should enjoy life more. For most my life, I have confined myself to this house and the bookstore. I should enjoy my life as a teen. I don’t know any teenager who studies morals or aesthetics. Should I leave this part of my life behind me? I have always loved philosophy as a kid should I just end it now? I should really think about this.
After that great game, I decided to go back studying.
I get irritated when people say that atheists can’t be good. After that, they justify the argument that "without God, there is no ‘good’"
I disagree. Plato has a very good argument against this one in his dialogue Euthyphro.
Plato considered the suggestion that it is divine it is divine approval that makes an action good. Plato pointed out that if this were the case, we could not say that God approves of the actions because the actions are good. Why then does God approve of this action and not otherwise? Is their approval entirely arbitrary? Plato considered this impossible and so held that there must be some stardandards of right and wrong that are idependent of the likes and dislikes of God.
What if you say that God is good and that he could not possibly allow torchering the second graders? Well, if you say this, you would have tacitly admitted that their is a standard of goodness that is independent of God. Oh yeah, this would also contradict the omnipotency of God.
It seems therefore that, even for those who believe in God, it is impossible to give a satisfactory accouint of the origin of morality in terms of divine creation.
Again, science gives a much better explanation on this. One probably explanation on the origin of morality is evolution. As long as the cost of helping others are less than the benefits for being helped and as long as animals will not gain in the long run by "cheating" — that is to say, by, recieving favors without returning them. It would seem that the best way to ensure that those who cheat do not prosper is for animals to be able to recognize cheats and refuse them the benefits of cooperation the next time around.
I believe that an action has no intrinsic value on goodness.
Things only have the value that we give them
-Molière
Here’s an example why I think so….
…The Greek historian Heroditus realates that Darius king of Persia, once summoned Greeks before him and asked them how much he would have to pay for them to eat their father’s bodies. They refues too do it any price. Then Darius brought some Indians who by custom ate the bodies of their parents and asked them what would make them willing to burn their father’s bodies. The Indians cried out that he should not mention such a horrid act. Herodetus drew the obvious moral that each nation thinks its own custom is best.
The book "Origin and Development of Moral Ideas" by Edward Westermarck explains that:
No ethical principles can be valid except in the terms of society in which they are held. Words such as good and bad just mean, it is claimed, "approved in my society" or "dissaproved in my society", and so to search for an objective, or rationally justifiable, ethic is to search for what is in fact an illusion.
I have now found the definition of good. Still, this is debatable; but this is my personal view on what is good.
Next, I need to find out, what is beauty? What is its purpose? When do physical vibrations become music? What is its criteria? Okay, I’m off for more answers!
The second game score was 14 for the Asuncions and 17 for the other.
What was very embarrassing was the third game. The Asuncions lost!
The score was 15/1 !!!
I can hardly believe it!
It’s the last day of the MVP Cup! Nathan Robertson and Gail Emms are competing witht he Asuncions!
I’m a hundred percent sure that Robertson and Emms are going to win. They’re the best mixed doubles team in the world! showing now, cya
Watching the MVP Cup! No time to study, last day tomorrow. Lin Dan and Nathan Robertson’s there! K, that’s it. hehe
After a long day at school, I slept the entire night at home. After 15 hours of sleep, I really felt ENERGIZED the next morning! I played badminton at 11 today and most of my smashes were hard.
Okay, that’s probably it….
… Oh yeah, I’m going to watch War of the Worlds this evening. hmmm maybe I should watch Fantastic Four instead?
What is "good"? How can I define it? My lessons in religion class teaches that "the very reason that
man wills is for ‘good’"
I believe that every voluntary action a man does (and I think even every species) is the result
of our desire for a benefit.
Does this mean that "good" is synonymous with self benefit? By saying that this person is a good murderer, is he a good person? I think not. I’m going to do some research on this.
I’m arguing with the philosophy teacher that divine foreknowledge does contradict free will.
Right now, he argues that one of my premises is invalid. My statement is that certainty contradicts free will; and it is necessary to be uncertain for free will to exist. Here’s why I think so…
…I am certain that Bach will do X five minutes from now, therefore he will do X five minutes from now. Bach does Y instead of X; therefore, I was wrong. The problem is that "God" is infallible; he is never wrong. So, if he is certain that Bach will do X five minutes from now, he has to do it. Okay, what if he does Y instead? Doing Y instead of X will contradict his infallibility.
I just realized that all I was doing was creating a red herring. His definition of certainty is synonymous with Infallible foreknowledge. I at first disagreed with him and stated that certainty can still go wrong. I can say that I am certain that there will be class on monday next week. On monday, there was a typhoon and there isn’t any class. Still, I was certain. He defines that certainty cannot be wrong. Therefore, I think that infallible certainty is the more appropriate term. This is where I realized that I created the red herring; because my definition of infallible certainty is his definition of certainty. In his opinion, my logic is circular; I disagree, I’m still going to study this argument further though.
Oh yeah, I’ve just read The Good Earth. The book was ok, 4 out of 5 I guess? I think the reason that the book became popular is because Pearl S. Buck showed the Chinese characters as normal people.
I’m thinking of reading the book called Les Miserables by Victor Hugo, another classic!
Badminton club’s starting two weeks from now. I can’t really hold this excitement!
