Niccolo Machiavelli - The Qualities of the Prince CAL 103

            Niccolo Machiavelli writes a guide to being a prince. The qualities of a prince is about what it is like to work with your kingdom. It describes how you want to be a strong leader sometimes, but not all the time because you will become hated.
            I have to agree with what Machiavelli says because he explains everything with an example of it happening in the past. For example he explains how well it worked for a the leader Hannibal, when he commanded his troops under extreme cruelty. The prince must be liked but when it comes to war he must be a military tactician.
            Machiavelli describes how a prince must act, but he fails to see that becoming such a person would be almost impossible. He says that you must be either loved, or be feared. Being feared wins battles, but being loved wins the people.
           As a Prince it is also very important to watch what you say, this goes for any form of government. Saying something wrong or lying can be political suicide. Most men will lie, and you might need to break your promises considering others will do the same. Lying and deceiving is not something you should aim for, but only to protect the other person.
           By avoiding breaking promises you can avoid being despised and hated. If you are liked there would be no reason to go against you. Although he could be loved, the prince should always be slightly paranoid. "is it not reasonable for an armed man to obey an unarmed man willingly nor that an unarmed man should be safe among armed servants." (Machiavelli The Prince). The prince must always be aware and take precautions because he is the unarmed man. The prince must avoid making an armed man angry at him.

Nietzsche & Murdoch CAL 103

I struggle to find argument in Nietzshe's book Morality as Anti-Nature. His views on religion are my favorite so far because they basically align perfectly with my views. Religion explains how you go to eternal damnation if you do something wrong, but he explains that people should not be afraid, and should just do good when they feel like it. Another good flaw that he points out in religion, is that you should not live above your means or below your means. There is no good reason to not live above your means and enjoy what you worked harder to achieve.
           His target audience was people of Europe, because he mentions a popular book from Europe, The Sure and Certain Method of Attaining a Long and Healthful Life. This book explains how a man ate very little and managed to live to the age of 83. Anyone who tried to replicate what he did basically starved and became ill. Using this as an example for the bible, he explains that anyone who tries to be exactly like Jesus will basically "starve".
           Paragraph 10 is my favorite because he explains how priests say be just like this and it is almost impossible to be just like Jesus. Also much more back than, then now, priests were very closed minded about other religions and makes them bigots.
           Murdoch was an extremely tough writer to understand but i think she had an experience with God. Which is weird because she is a sinner herself. The question that is brings to mind why should I listen to a hypocrite. Although I've been told that they know both side better than you, it doesn't mean she should be trusted.

CAL 103 Gazzaniga

           Gazzaniga has some good points when it comes to ethics and morality. The only way to survive about a thousand years to ago, was to create a family, or village, it allowed for people to watch out for one another. If someone is in danger you are more likely to save that person because later that person will help with your survival.

           My favorite part of his book is when he explains how people will not throw someone else to save the lives of 5 people and give up one life. Although using basic mathematics, you would be right to save the 5 people instead of 1, but what does it make you when you kill someone? The other observation was to use the button, I myself would abstain from pressing the button, who am I to decide the lives of others. If it was saving someone with no other repercussions, I would most defiantly save that person. Gazzaniga's point is to see why people are more moral people when it is up close and personal, it has to do with basic survival. Your primal instinct is to save someone, we are animals after all.
            Rizzolatti explains how if we figure out how we learn, we can break everything we do into "basic movements". I agree with him because it is true, we would not have come all this way without learning from someone else. After we learn how people use the mirror system, we can learn why we do anything. For example we have a basic way of learning, monkey see, monkey doesn't do because the other monkey died. Our mirror system on how to survive, what to do and what not to do. A good example of this would be the monkey's and banana's experiment. We learn how to survive by just watching others, this ensure our safety.
The monkey and banana's scenario: http://www.johnstepper.com/2013/10/26/the-five-monkeys-experiment-with-a-new-lesson/

Collaborative Project Introductory Assignment

The End of the World: This is my favorite topic, I used to be a big fan of zombies, I watched almost all of George A. Romero movies. The movies consisted of different scenarios of people in different places, I loved all of them. I've also played games that consisted around the end of the world, a few of the games are trying to survive a zombie apocalypse, surviving in a nuclear wasteland, aliens invade, and much more. 

http://gizmodo.com/5969688/7-ways-the-world-could-end-tomorrow

This article discusses different ways the world is going to end. The likelihood of the world ending is extremely slim, but we have a better chance of causing out own extinction than something we can't control, like a asteroid or a solar-flare. We are more likely to blow ourselves up with a nuclear bomb or use biological warfare on ourselves. 

Robotics, Computing, Artificial Intelligence: I always loved computers ever since I was young, when I was 7 I received my fathers old computer and I fell in love with it. Also when I was seven managed to download millions of virus's and ended up having to wipe the hard-drive several times, but still I loved playing around with that computer. I later learned how to program in Java and C++ and make all sorts of cool games like battleship. This is something I still have a passion for and probably forever. 

http://online.wsj.com/articles/its-time-to-take-artificial-intelligence-seriously-1408922644

Technology has come far from what it was, you can talk to Siri and it can recognize what you are saying. Artificial Intelligence is coming closer and closer every day, Google has used deep-learning algorithms on a computer made a computer learn what a cat is from millions of pictures on the internet. The Wall Street journal talks about a lot of different uses for deep-learning algorithms and different ways AI have been of use to us already.

Food: This has been one of my passions for a long time, I enjoy cooking and eating. Ever since I was young I used to bake and cook with my mother. Than we were able to enjoy eating food afterwards, it was always enjoyable. My grandmother used to make all of these Ukrainian dishes for us because we were Ukrainian. Although I didn't enjoy a big some of them it was always fun to try them. 

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/nutrition/healthy-eating/fast-food-nutrition-junk-foods-effect-on-your-body.html#b

This article about how bad junk food is for you. Junk food is something people tend to mindlessly eat when watching TV, but what are you really eating? Junk food makes you loose energy and will ruin your motivation to do things. Junk food also contributes to obesity, and damages your heart. It can also bring unwanted things like diabetes. 

CAL 103 "The Case against Character" by Kwame Anthony Appiah

                Being virtuous is not something you can obtain, you either do it naturally, or you force yourself to do it for your own motive. For example, the Catholic Religion is somewhat based around helping the poor and being virtuous, but are you really doing it to help them? Or are you helping them so you can get into heaven? If you are doing the latter, you really aren't being virtuous, you are being selfish. The definition of virtuous to me means, going out of your way to help someone for no reason.

                My biggest problem for me being virtuous is the statement of "No good deed goes unpunished.". An example of this is letting your neighbor borrow your lawn mower, and you may not receiver the lawn mower back, or at least in the same condition you gave it to him. Why lend it to him in the first place? Aristotle explains eudaimonia, it will bring happiness to you and your neighbor. I think eudaimonia can only be effective if everyone was virtuous all the time, but than we would live in a perfect world. 

               Although there is punishment for good deeds there is another side of the spectrum that Buddhist's and Hindu's, would love to argue about and that is karma. They explain how good deeds give you good dharma and vice versa. Once again, does it really make you a virtuous person if you are only helping people to benefit yourself? But how do we make people virtuous without a reward?You can't, you either do it naturally, or you force yourself to do it for your own motive. 

                 What I don't understand out of everything I read was the line, "Being virtuous is part, at least, of what makes a life worthwhile."(402, The Case against Character). I don't understand how being helpful to everyone around you, will benefit your life. 

Cal 103 "Deep Play: Notes on the Balinese Cockfight" by Clifford Geertz

             Why do people cockfight in Bali knowing how illegal it is? Cockfighting is a way of living, distinguishing people, winning money, supporting your family, and establishing masculinity. It is one of the most important ways of life in Bali. It is a reason to bring the community together. It is something to bring all the father's to one location to see who can do the best at picking the best chicken.

             Although cockfighting is important, the main reason I think that people participate in cockfights, is not for the money but for the entertainment. It's like watching TV in Bali, but a little bit more exciting, especially with a wager. Watching to chickens fight to the death puts on a show for the whole village, although some people may be sickened by it. Cockfighting is probably one of the most exciting thing to happen in a village, participating in it like the author did helped him assimilate into the discourse community.

             Cock fighting is like the local sports team playing, only your sports team will never play again if they loose. I've watched a cockfight before and I have found it to be very entertaining, yet the outcome is really random because they are flying and just jumping into each other. Although the author says there is a strategy of betting on the bigger cock, there doesn't look like there is any skill to picking. It is probably more luck based if anything, although the bigger cock does have a small advantage, it really isn't that important. The author claims to have statistics saying that the bigger cock has an advantage over the other, it doesn't seem to matter because the payout for choosing the smaller cock is much higher. The game is basically luck based, you will break even if you place enough bets. Cockfights, although pointless can be a lot of fun just for the thrill of gambling.