Infliction and Idea

What does it take to hit a woman? I’ve always wondered the influences one has when confronted with this very question. I’ve been reading The Freedom Writers Diary, along with many other works which reflect the idea of torment and trial. Why does one hurt another person? I’m not even being specific here. It could be any type of hurting, both physical and mental. In dealing with the physical the pain is seen and exacerbated by immaterial means. But with the mental, all you have are immaterial means and ends. How does one battle such an encumbrance? There is a German word for a person who loves torturing for the sake of pleasure. They are called a Schadenfreude, a German compound word indicative of enjoying oneself over the discomfort of others. How demented one must be to be at that point. All meaning of morals and ethics are derogated from the nature of how things in the natural order are meant to be. Reading each entry in the journals of the Freedom Writers taught me a valuable lesson. We are here for such and such a time. Use it wisely. Love others, enjoy your life, and love enjoying it, too.

Psych

I can't stop thinking. I think way too much. I've just finished the movie Garden State. It is so sad, if you think of the elemental role the film plays in the main characters. You have the main character (Zach Braf) who plays an indifferent adult, whose adolescent experience of a paraplegic mother's death plays an additional role. Then there's Sam (Natalie Portman), a friend of Andrew Largemen (Zach's character) who unwittingly helps him learn how to live life and enjoy it. Now I'm not going to write whether or not the means of enjoyment are ethical or not, but I am discussing the prime idea of being a human, viz. thinking individuals and their experiences. People who think are likely to think of what is right or wrong naturally. So I am not interested in ethics here. What I am interested in is just thinking. It is so funny how people come to think. We look at anything that could churn an idea in the simplest form. We can look at a bar (not an alcoholic bar but a metal one) and symbolize what it represents to us, the observer. Although it is nothing but a rod, we look at an experience that might reflect delectation or dejection. Today I found myself thinking of how relationships are so intermingled in the person's life. It makes you think, doesn't it? I remember reading vol.10 in the Shonin Jump's Naruto, and how the influence Naruto had on Sasuke. Naruto was changing the destiny of Sasuke. All Sasuke wanted was to kill, out of personal vengeance, his brother. Without getting into too many details, Naruto was changing Sasuke. This could not go well with the ominous Orichimaru. The dark ninja needed Sasuke's body; whatever his dark intentions are, they are not relevant here. What is relevant is the influence Naruto had on this Sasuke character. Many influences penetrate the mind when the interpersonal is meaningful to both the giver and receiver. I don't know why I began to think of this, but I know that it is important. Personal relationships are important. So get a friend. Pour your heart out to them.

The Great Handmaiden of Thinking: Logic

Logic is a great subject of study. As a growing student I have always loved fiddling with constructions, premises, and logical deductions. Of course, this would mean I would be dealing with a specific kind of logic--deductive logic. Now I'm no candor for singling out one over against the other, namely induction, but deduction has always been one of my favorites because it deals with absolutes. When we talk person to person we commonly use deductive reasoning to portray some message. I just happen to love to analyze this kind of rationale, how people talk and send messages, vice versa. One of my main texts for the study of logic is a book co-authored by Geisler and Brooks called, Come Let Us Reason: an introduction to logical thinking. I've learned that there are three kinds of syllogistic reasoning: categorical, hypothetical and disjunctive (either this or that). Since I'm dealing mostly with the categorical method, then it makes sense to breakdown all its parts, right?

In the first step I learned that a categorical syllogism has three main parts: major, minor and conclusive premises. These three only deal with valid statements--not whether they are true or false. Most common mistakes made in critical thinking are valid constructions taken for granted as true. This should not be the case when putting together a syllogism. And another important factor to note here is that there can be only three main parts. If, in fact, there are four parts, then it is most probable (HA! I'm using induction here) that there is an equivocal term dangling in there. Be very careful with these little bugs. I can't tell you how many times I've made the mistake of slipping them in my papers--and syllogisms are papers in themselves, except in tripod form.

Now aside from studying this book, I need to find a handbook that might better help me understand the process of logic, not only deductive but also inductive.

SAM

So today I've tried to name my journal, like Anne Frank and the Freedom Writers. So far all I could come up with was "SAM." Why SAM? I don't really know. It just really stuck out. As noted in my journal, I tried to give SAM meaning and significance to my life, which should encapsulate philosophical virtue, ethics, morale, and the Christian religion. I could find none, and still I don't have a sort of acronym to fit SAM. I mean, it's no diary, but it is the very source I pore my heart and soul to. A name for my journal. . . still pending.

The President and His Policies Questioned (a blog)

Will it work?

There were allegations that were mentioned by the president in the Oval office that would seem preemptive. "I’m the decision-maker," said Bush on Friday. He challenged the ominous skepticism of the lawmakers to come up with a new plan, if indeed they were not going to give the presidents plan a go. Personally, I don't see how this new plan can save and protect our troops. Aren't we putting them in more danger's way by sending them to Iraq--2,500 troops to be exact? There is an agreement that would not render the debate as an impasse, but it is not enough for the president to totter his aquisitions to his opposers both in his favor and theirs.

Plan for change
What then is to be pursued? Both Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus and the president agree that something needs to happen to improve the situation in Iraq, albeit the proposed plan seems dubious.

Entry 28

Today I found some rare idea in the the book The Freedom Writers Diary. I've been reading it--although I've been neglecting it for past couple days--and found some awesome ideas about method, viz. how education should be pursued. There was an instance in entry 28 that really stuck out like a big red zit. It was the notion that perpetuates all other methods to a disagreeable degree. Mrs. Gruwell received a "distinguished scholars" student into her class, mind you that the class was below her classification (she was smart-er). Why in the world would a person secede to a lower class, namely more elementary than her "distinguished scholars" class? Well, maybe she wasn't seceding like you would think. You see, I don't believe, as did she, that she was learning anything from that class. In fact, she was belittled and lost. Most of the students in her class could not even level with her notwithstanding her social standing (she was black). They were not only white, they were high class white people. So you see, in all face value she was not seceding as you would think, regardless of how it would effect her transcripts. I believe it is the educators job to train and teach the student to his or her ability. Students, like pods, function on platforms. These pods, speaking metaphorically of the students, must learn on a symmetrical level. If the method does not meet those demands, or I should say stipulations, then the students will lose that education because of inexpediency on the educator's part. Education must be symmetrical in idea and method.