Reflections

Today I had some very intriguing classes. My laboratory tutor is absolutely brilliant - my only complaint is that the sound of his voice is so quiet and gentle it makes me want to sleep, despite being so anxious to hear all he has to say. Today, we discussed Galileo and the abhorrence of a vacuum. Mr. B says, "In response to the question, 'Why do atoms move?' Democritus simply replied 'Because they have room to, so nothing inhibits them from doing so.' It seems akin to answering the question 'Why are you having more mashed potatoes?' by saying, 'Because I have no reason not to.' - Is the absense of a reason to the contrary explanation enough for an activity? If it is, I say it's getting something for, well, nothing. *chuckle* "

In my Ethics course this afternoon we studied the necessity of conclusions within the science of ethics. This inquiry covers, mainly, whether or not the fact that the premises we begin with proceed from dialectic, wherein the only probable premise (as opposed to the necessary one, as in mathematics) is required, requires us to admit of relativism in the science of ethics. Going back to our freshman logic courses we found that this is not the case, in fact it is far from it, since dialectic is the path of inquiry by which we discover all first principles, and although our conclusions can never be considered more certain than probable, that does not mean every conclusion must be treated as if it were doubtful, or that all conclusions are equal, since some premises may be more probable than others depending on who generally accepted them to be true (the many as opposed the the wise, for example). . . . . So relativism is just plain illogical taken as a blanket statement. I'm just realizing that I'm throwing out a lot of Aristotelian jargon. I apologize for that. It's just SO exciting!!! I could type five more pages on this . . . heck, I could write a thesis on this . . . but I dunno if I will. ;)

Another interesting topic of discussion in Ethics class was whether the young are fit for the study of ethics or not, since they lack experience (Aristotle claims that they are not the proper audience for lectures in this science, mainly for this reason). Although most of the class was under the age of 25, we were able by stringing together rational principles and working off of our tiny little bit of experience to understand why the young, dare we say, WE, might not be the best audience for the science we are entering into. The main reason for this is because the intellectual principle that is necessary for ethical study must be habituated to governing the passions (thank you Mr.M. - you're brilliant) - - - the young are not so terribly good at that, simply for lack of experience in which they might have the opportunity to instill that habituation. With this revelation we became less offended - it's not so much because we're evil - just that we haven't had a lot of practice at being good. That we were all fully prepared to admit to.

So, that's my day so far. Off to read more seminar reading.

Love to ya'll - -
ME