Considering the fact that I have an idea about what defines each Philosophy, Art, Craft, and Science, I feel that I'm in the position to say that I believe that all human activities can be fully understood through some combination of PACS. Part of my decision upon coming to this conclusion lies in the fact that if it were not true, then how in the world would I be able to take a college course with the title "Philosophy, Art, Craft, and Science"? There is too much at stake to have a class that meets 2 times a week for a total of 3 hours, plus additional research and studies, to not have this theory be true. Maybe I am being naive, but quite frankly I don't want to find out, after countless hours of contemplation regarding this matter, and an abundance of student loans, that the whole time, this theory was a fluke.
Based on this aspect, and the fact that I find Mr. Achtermann to be quite an intelligent instructor, I do not think that the theory of all human activity being categorized into some sort of a combination of PACS would not be an accurate assumption. So far, from all the information that I have gathered from class, there is no reason for me to believe otherwise. Therefore I will continue to accept this theory to be true.
2 comments:
Part of the wonder of this world is knowing that everything you may think to be totally true, can in fact, have a flaw that makes it open for contemplation again. i would think that knowing something to be true would make that act or object un-interesting....and the fact that we spend time and money on this idea..we are really spending time and money on the chase for understanding. to me, you cant waste time thinking if you come away with a better understanding, or atleast something that keeps you thinking long after. but im glad that i have a better idea to the way you see things, ive always thought of you as a big "?", and i mean that in all the best ways.
-MAC
I don't think of you as a big "?", but I will say that one must beware always of the notion that an economic value is somehow equivalent to a spiritual or mental value, or (although I am flattered by your confidence) that an intelligent person produces in all instances "good ideas".
Broad interpretive strategies, such as the sociological understanding that all human activities can be interpreted through just five institutions (religion, family, economics, education, government), can also produce intellectual monstrosities such as racism and ethnic prejudice. These can be quite persuasive, and can be so because intelligent and, well, rhetorically capable people promote them.
In such matters as those we explore in this class, skepticism in institutions and persons might not be wholly misplaced. Perhaps my purpose is simply to see whether you can resist persuasion against convincing proof.
Post a Comment