This is just the first article about it that came up in google: http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/30/doomsdaycollider.ap/index.html
If you don't want to read it, basically some people fear that this new atom smasher made in Switzerland and France might destroy the world. They believe that by smashing the atoms at this high of a power, tiny black holes will be created and will destroy the planet, Armageddon! Destruction! the END OF EXISTANCE!
While leading physicist Stephen Hawkings (a venerable genius if there ever was one) says that even if this would happen, they would still dissipate, some people who, i suppose, consider themselves more learned on the subject than him, claim that the world will end.
My question is this: So what?
Understand that this is not me being 'emo' or depressing or something along those lines. I'd like to believe i am simply approaching the idea of Armageddon from a purely logical standpoint.
If the world 'ends' and we all really do get sucked into an ever increasing vortex which consumes all matter, why does it matter? My biggest fear of dieing personally is that I will not have left any great legacy, that no one will remember me. If no ones around then why does it matter? The end of the world would in reality mean very little to the world as we know it. Simply put, because there would be no world as we know it. People sometimes accept death towards the end of their lives because they know their time here is spent. There will be no here for us not to be spending time in and so there is little to fear.
I think of it this way
We fear death because life is an earthly thing. Our attachment to this world is founded in the experiences we have while on the planet, the things we own in the planet, and the people we know on the planet. The contingency is the planet. remove the planet from the equation and the other things present no longer exist and can no longer cause attachment.
Perhaps i am reading too much Buddhist literature but if the prerequisite of an assumed existing object is removed, is it not true that the object no longer can be assumed to exist?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
First Post
Big thing here, my very first post.
I'm currently a student, this of course means that I am consistently bombarded with information. I love this aspect of being in school mainly because it forces you to think about new topics and consider new perspectives. One such idea that has recently come into my view finder if you will, is the idea of symbolic interactionism.
As a high schooler you are often bombarded with sayings such as these: "Be yourself! Don't let other people change you!" the message is clear; that we should each be a unique individual entirely unphased by the perceptions of others.
However this is, in short, what symbolic interactionism propounds. That we are what we are percieved to be. How does a class clown become a class clown? Not because he is studious and everyone treats him with great respect, but because his antics generate laughter! When someone laughs at something you say or do you become a funny person correct? I think of myself as hilarious but no one necessarily perceives me in that light and so i am not a class clown. The difference between one person and another is simply how they are seen, this molds our personalities. It relates back to the idea of operant conditioning in Psychology; we moderate our behavior based upon the reactions of others. If we receive rewards (people become our friends, laughter, pleasurable feelings) we continue the behavior that elicited that response. If we get punishment, negative feedback (mocked, laughed at, disappointment) we seek to stop these behaviors. These actions become our personality.
The idea of action becoming personality is an interesting one as well. Does it matter who we think we are if no one else sees that? If our actions are immoral yet we claim to be moral, then we are liars. It is that congruence that is needed, between action and idea, to create personality.
Perhaps this is why so many High schoolers have such identity issues, the convergence of two irreconcilable forces: The "dont go changin'" crowd and the overwhelming forces of symbolic interactionisim and operant conditioning. We all change from one time to another. Barrack Obama does not act the same way on the podium as he does in his home i hope. I do not act the same way in class as i do in my apartment. This is because i am in a different sphere, the climate has changed and so i must change my clothing!
When a teenager is meeting new people, developing social circles and creating personality they are going through a very intense stage. What they must do is attempt to maintain credibility by balancing thought and action (as i said before, if you think you are moral, be moral) while also balancing differing climatic variations.
My guess is that the final stage of development for the personality is when we discover that balance between how well we manage our thoughts and actions as well as how we respond to external stimulus.
I'm not 100% on if i believe everything I just wrote, perhaps it was me fleshing out ideas. I might review it later.
I'm currently a student, this of course means that I am consistently bombarded with information. I love this aspect of being in school mainly because it forces you to think about new topics and consider new perspectives. One such idea that has recently come into my view finder if you will, is the idea of symbolic interactionism.
As a high schooler you are often bombarded with sayings such as these: "Be yourself! Don't let other people change you!" the message is clear; that we should each be a unique individual entirely unphased by the perceptions of others.
However this is, in short, what symbolic interactionism propounds. That we are what we are percieved to be. How does a class clown become a class clown? Not because he is studious and everyone treats him with great respect, but because his antics generate laughter! When someone laughs at something you say or do you become a funny person correct? I think of myself as hilarious but no one necessarily perceives me in that light and so i am not a class clown. The difference between one person and another is simply how they are seen, this molds our personalities. It relates back to the idea of operant conditioning in Psychology; we moderate our behavior based upon the reactions of others. If we receive rewards (people become our friends, laughter, pleasurable feelings) we continue the behavior that elicited that response. If we get punishment, negative feedback (mocked, laughed at, disappointment) we seek to stop these behaviors. These actions become our personality.
The idea of action becoming personality is an interesting one as well. Does it matter who we think we are if no one else sees that? If our actions are immoral yet we claim to be moral, then we are liars. It is that congruence that is needed, between action and idea, to create personality.
Perhaps this is why so many High schoolers have such identity issues, the convergence of two irreconcilable forces: The "dont go changin'" crowd and the overwhelming forces of symbolic interactionisim and operant conditioning. We all change from one time to another. Barrack Obama does not act the same way on the podium as he does in his home i hope. I do not act the same way in class as i do in my apartment. This is because i am in a different sphere, the climate has changed and so i must change my clothing!
When a teenager is meeting new people, developing social circles and creating personality they are going through a very intense stage. What they must do is attempt to maintain credibility by balancing thought and action (as i said before, if you think you are moral, be moral) while also balancing differing climatic variations.
My guess is that the final stage of development for the personality is when we discover that balance between how well we manage our thoughts and actions as well as how we respond to external stimulus.
I'm not 100% on if i believe everything I just wrote, perhaps it was me fleshing out ideas. I might review it later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)