Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
logic
found this course http://www.filozofia.uw.edu.pl/kpaprzycka/Publ/xLogicSelfTaught.html
working through it, have so far made it to unit 3 pg 27. want to complete the rest soon.
working through it, have so far made it to unit 3 pg 27. want to complete the rest soon.
quotes
life like a journey isn't abt reaching the destination. make the most off it while it lasts. -amar (27june2008;9.46pm)
Thursday, June 5, 2008
polictics
these r some of the comments that have cracked me up. u'll know whom they're abt if u've been following the 2008 elections. enjoy.
- Old Man's yelling at clouds again.
- Great speech from a guy who obviously doesn't need a teleprompter to string more than two sentences together! Loved his response to McCain's charge about visiting Iraq. Give that old man a US map and get out his flack jacket. He's got some more markets to visit.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
philosophy
russell's paradox: can someone help me see/understand the paradox?
let's say r is a set consisting of members (physical beings) crystal, roark, dominique. in set languate, r={crystal, roark, dominique}.
i'm stumped trying to even ask the question, is the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique a member of the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique? is there any physical equivalence to this seemingly rhetorical Q?
the original set r consists of three individuals, physical beings. now, that is simple and straightforward. the set is an abstract entity. does it make sense to even ask, whether an abstract entity, in this case the set r, is a member of the set which is a collection of individual physical beings?
doesn't the very definition of the set r, exclude those entities or members who r not physical beings?
let's say r is a set consisting of members (physical beings) crystal, roark, dominique. in set languate, r={crystal, roark, dominique}.
i'm stumped trying to even ask the question, is the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique a member of the group consisting of crystal, roark, dominique? is there any physical equivalence to this seemingly rhetorical Q?
the original set r consists of three individuals, physical beings. now, that is simple and straightforward. the set is an abstract entity. does it make sense to even ask, whether an abstract entity, in this case the set r, is a member of the set which is a collection of individual physical beings?
doesn't the very definition of the set r, exclude those entities or members who r not physical beings?
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
worldAffairs
Aung San Suu Kyi is detained 4 more time! big surprise! i find this a joke that the western world, especially the US, UK, France, Germany, Australia who cry foul over suppression of democracy have mere words on this.
i wonder where the knight in the shining armour (read Bush) is. i don't understand why there's so much double standards when it comes to dealing with burma, sudan, zimbabwe as opposed to dealing with iraq and iran?
maybe, there's no oil there! right?
i feel awful with the mere words from the world community on this. ugh! the hypocracy.
even the msm like nyt, washington post etc. who normally would open the articles for comments by readers merely report this as just another non-event. shameful journalism.
i ended up posting this on my blog since i couldn't do so as i normally could on sites like nyt, washington post etc.
i wonder where the knight in the shining armour (read Bush) is. i don't understand why there's so much double standards when it comes to dealing with burma, sudan, zimbabwe as opposed to dealing with iraq and iran?
maybe, there's no oil there! right?
i feel awful with the mere words from the world community on this. ugh! the hypocracy.
even the msm like nyt, washington post etc. who normally would open the articles for comments by readers merely report this as just another non-event. shameful journalism.
i ended up posting this on my blog since i couldn't do so as i normally could on sites like nyt, washington post etc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)