Altering the Self: A Note on Context and Philosophy

If you can think it, you can be it…

Ok – does that mean I can be anything I think that I can become? Context holds supreme value. If I think I am a unicorn…crickets. However, if I think I am I writer, I can be one. In fact, I am a writer as demonstrated by writing this very blog. Now, if I intend on being a successful writer…well, that takes a bit more time, effort, skill, and product. This is important:  Thought requires action as a follow-through.

Henry Ford is noted for saying:  “Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right” (Quote Investigator).

Excellent, but how do you apply the concept? As with many things, sheer belief is not enough. Belief in the self requires more than simply thinking, and one must act on their desires for effect in the material world. What that means is that one must apply their thoughts actively in their lives. In example, Steve believes he will become a brain surgeon. Steve knows he needs education and experience so that he may become a doctor. Steve toils away, challenging himself at university so that he has realistic tools that provide validation for his belief. Steve becomes a doctor because he believed in himself – but the only way he could make it happen was through action.

That initial belief in the self is a crucial element, but belief is not strong enough on its own and cannot produce results. Way back in Communications and Public Speaking, I learned about “self-fulfilling prophecies.” What one tells the self holds much authority with what that individual holds as true and/or possible. Consciousness is shifty like that, the more often we hear or say something is true, the more true it becomes.

“You predict something and then knowingly/unknowingly act to cause the prediction [to] come true” (KAAGMANDU).

In application, the concept works at improving or destroying one’s self-conscious opinion of what they can or cannot attain in life. This can be seen clearly in abuse. Imagine Molly has an abusive boyfriend who tells her everyday that she is unattractive, overweight, and stupid. Because Molly value’s her boyfriend’s opinion of her and trusts his judgement, she will eventually believe the negative comments are true and real. Molly’s judgment is clouded by outside prophetic limitations.

However, if she considered the statements with a positive manner, she could see that the boyfriend defeats himself with his claims. Molly cannot be completely unattractive or else she would not have attracted the boyfriend. Instead, the negatives listed are probably fears the boyfriend has in regards of himself. Abusive boyfriends often project their flaws on their victims. What Molly needs is a better self-image – and that goes back to what one thinks they can be. Molly can accept she is not a supermodel, and focus on her true qualities, hence altering her perception of herself.

“The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes” (William James).

William James’ quote caught my eye this morning on Twitter.Great quote, with excellent intentions. However, I wonder if people unfamiliar with James’ variant philosophies catch the meaning. And, I consider the dangers lurking in the Law of Attraction when taken out of context.

“Now the starting point is to see that Thought, or purely mental action, is the only possible source from which the existing creation could ever have come into manifestation at all…” (Thomas Troward).

I cannot accept concepts of the Law of Attraction. I’ve tried; I’ve read, researched, theorized, and exhausted myself searching for firm ground. I decided not to include a link because I cannot feel good about any of the sites I’ve studied. The main issue I hold is that struggle is necessary for growth, just wishing for something does not make it so.

I do recommend The Dore Lectures by Thomas Troward, but I caution that his look at Mental Science relies heavily on religious belief. Click HERE and read free online. Now, that’s not to say that there is no value in the theory of like attracting like – the fundamental holds true for implementing positive perception in life. However, perception must at one point come to terms with reality.

Ayn Rand said, “In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy. He cannot escape from this need; his only alternative is whether the philosophy guiding him is to be chosen by his mind or by chance” (Objectivism for Intellectuals).

And so…we must take a closer look at Metaphysics. What exists and what does not show face in reality. A deeper interest in reality has led me towards Objectivism. Ayn Rand developed Objectivism Philosophy and wrote novels that revealed societal issues, including The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Currently, I am about one-third through the latter, and I see numerous elements of corruption present in contemporary society as described by Rand in 1957.

The Ayn Rand Institute carries values of her philosophy and offers further study. Check out ARI and learn about Objectivism. Share your comments below. I watched Prof. Peikoff’s lecture yesterday, and I really like the sound structure of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics as seen in Objectivism. Of intense interest is how to implement laissez-faire Capitalism – it sounds scary, but I think that’s false-morality talking. Definitely deserves a .

“Introduction to Objectivism” by Leonard Peikoff

 

I can think many things. I can imagine numerous thoughts. However, I must select which thoughts are worthy of implementing through action. What thoughts I will have in my reality, what is really possible. And here is where positive thoughts attract positive things. Whatever one looks for is what they will find. Why? because it was there all along, the mind just missed it because it was set to a different “channel.”

Altering one’s reality begins with altering the self, or how one perceives the self to be. Starting out basic, let’s set a sound, realistic version of who that self is, what that self can do, and how that self behaves. Think on it; really work it around in your mind. Then, realize that for the self to improve, that self must act on its desires, goals, and wants. Altering the self begins in the mind and continues through implemented action.

 

 

 

ShoutOut to SourcesQuote Investigator,

“To: R…”

all-seeing-eye-1235517

To: R…

 

All-seeing, the Eye blinks perspective.

Housed in the head, heated by the heart,

the Eye pulses with life.

 

Called “evil” as in warding off,

but… what is evil if not the reordering

of that which was once perceived as good?

 

The illumed see Truth

— sculpt reason, taste creation.

The Grand Observer, the Eye stares

into faces of untold struggles.

 

Woken, the “I” gazes universality,

relating theory as land-bridges,

building cities the blind cannot see.

 

The Woke are loathe to wait —

hurry the herd towards enlightenment.

But, the Eye knows: change is gradual,

not everyone is an “I”… not yet.

 

A. Shaffer July 2016

Hello Dear Readers and Fellow Writers…

I’m sharing “To:  R….” today, an electronic copy of my most recent works. We are fortunate to know R… and value his judgement and subjective outlook. That he also is on the Path of Optimism surely is not coincidence but maybe Quantum<>. For the original piece I invested more effort as the poem was a gift to my husband’s current closest friend. Their companionship is one of those unique connections that stand out in life. I created a “Thank You” card on the coolest textured paper, we’re going with pressed-bamboo. I wish I would have taken a pic of the card. I think it turned out well, even though I am not a “crafter.” The man, the myth, the legend, lol, is kinda a big deal because he is raising awareness right here in Wild n Wonderful — directly for Husband, it seems. Also, for me …not often enough do I encounter another “seeker,” and I value the philosophical hanglooses our friend endures. He has made the comment that he can understand how it is difficult for people to talk with me, in a sense that I am “too aware.”

He has a point, I come on very strong and lead with unsettling thoughts. Not many enjoy my thoughts, but… I will tell you a secret — I am not here for society’s enjoyment. My mission is to seek, find, question, contemplate, and create. There are plenty of others that may fill the role of performer. I am not here for amusement. I am looking for more. Entertainment is only entertaining if taken in proper doses. A life of constant amusement lacks substance. I am one that is more for substance. I take my amusement as a condiment, not a main course.

However, I sense a universal message:  “Use language as the communication that it is, but if none understand what is said then meaning is lost.”

The process of Awakening varies per subjective individual. I feel both of our ways could be correct — the value lay in effort. There are many people who will understand our friend as his charisma carries his intentions, he speaks words the majority of people comprehend. His works are good. I am not speaking to the same audience or through the same media. I will work at improving my interactions with others, but I do not intend on shifting my audience. I am here for those already Woke. I am ready for progression into higher depths. My concern is not for the herd but for the other shepherds. These minds are not shattered by my words, they already see similar truths.

The best way for my mind’s continued growth is through further contemplation and creation. Others who think like me are surely out there; the journey, then, is the leading together of like minds. O Philosophy! think of the thoughts formed by a society of seekers. This is the companionship I crave.

MmePhilosopher

Early Thoughts on #Brexit and Islamic Appeasement

10 Tidbits of Recent Concern

 

Hello Dear Readers…

This morning I am researching what is happening overseas. Curious, yes of course, but the way things go…if England is affected by something, there is a strong possibility that America will feel repercussions. I feel like if we research we will be better prepared to handle any outcomes.

That being said, there is much information available online. What can a reader trust? Personally, I trust no one. I find “truth” by comparing numerous articles and looking for similarities. Because, frankly, there is no hard “truth,” only subjective interpretation.

What can we really know?

1. That’s a hard one. However, one must be steadfast. Opinion cannot be accepted as it varies per person. “Facts” cannot be praised because they were ultimately written by a person. If every event has at least two sides to the story — or fifteen sides in the quantum world — then reading a story is not going to assist that much in “truth finding.”

2.  There is one thing I can extend a gram of “trust” to, and that is historical themes. A theme does not depend on opinion, it is a trend in history. Cliches are annoying but some are right – history does in fact repeat itself. Not in the sense that each event replays continuously, but in the way that humanity moves in a zigzagging pattern much like evolution. We go out with our ideas, but when the ideas don’t work, we come back home to sort out a new plan.

3.  Considering recent European events with this train of thought, I do not think that it is unexpected that Britain left the EU. I am not taking either side – I do not know their politics enough to cast judgment. What I am saying is that the trend of the EU was progressive – they tried to bring democracy and drop walls. However, reality did not embrace theory. What looked good on paper did not stand up well in the here and now. Historically, the reasonable action is to withdraw – “go home” and lick one’s wounds, and then…develop a new method.

4.  Taking history into account, there are time periods that act as a “reply” for past occurrences. Currently, the entire world is trying to figure out what to do about the Islamic culture. On my small scale, my advice is education. I’ve said it before and will repeat it here:  Educate the youth in hopes of securing a better future. First off, introduce them to Darwinism, Biology, and Genetics. Science confronts life situations with empirical data. Certain cultures refuse to read any book that is not religious. This is a huge misstep. Human thought, expression, and consciousness expands at escalated rates. Yet, some people do not know “science is real.” Some people fail to notice the damages brought on by incest, or marrying one’s cousin.

w583h583_744206-spineless-leaders-of-democracy-political-cartoon

 

5.  When I think about “historical replies” I cannot help but land on the dangers of appeasement, or giving in to a “bullying” force who issues demands for a select group. Uncontrollably, the image of Hitler comes to mind. It makes me uncomfortable because I saw comments yesterday that Atheist sites were being taken down from social media. The motivation:  Islamic culture. Supposedly, since the Muslims find Atheists offensive, the Atheist viewpoint is restricted. How is that just?

6.  Ah, it is most definitely not just. I find sporting events offensive, but does that mean that the sporting industry should be dismantled? Nope — it means that I make the personal choice to not watch sports.

7.  Social media should include all aspects of human preference. The moment one group limits another indicates that the first believes they are “better” than the rest. Guess what…we are all humans. We are all species. Not a single one is better than another. We are all forms of life. Darwinism illustrates the connection of species. If all cultures accepted scientific evidence then much of belief’s illusions would fade away.

8. Western culture is filled with individuals. Individualism is our bag. However, older cultures still operate under collectivism. Huge difference. Here is another historical theme – Individualism developed out of the Enlightenment. In America, we recognize the Enlightenment era as sloughing off tired beliefs that no longer rang true because of the empirical evidence presented by science. Collective societies have not learned Enlightenment lessons – they refuse to read or accept the science. So why, for Reason’s sake, would progressive thought kneel to backward society?

9.  Society cannot give in to backward demands. Society strives for the betterment of the human race just like evolution. Or it should. Religion and Science are expressions of human thought. One relies on belief, the other on empirical evidence. The individual gets to decide which one speaks louder to them. What’s important is that each person should have the right to choose for the self.

10. I am not religious. I prefer understanding reality through science. However, I see value in both as dependent on the person. Humans should be able to believe whatever they want to believe, or believe nothing and look for knowledge. The point is that it is personal preference. I think if everyone recognized the effort it takes in constructing the self, we could realize that each person has a great task before them. Each person is in charge of their own reality, and nobody…nobody…has any right to limit individual growth.  –Not a government, not a Union, not a Culture, not a Religion, not even Science.

Dr. Faustus in 2016: Twisted Lyrics

“I Took a Pill in Ibiza” by Mike Posner from At Night, Alone.:

Looking for Meaning…

Song Interpretation:

I am so busy with research, but I cannot get this song out of my head. Nor, can I think of anything else until I unburden my mind of this flexing metaphor. There’s not time for a lyrical breakdown, but I’ll return to expound.

Philosophical Bend:

I feel Faustus lurking. Once one knows too much, they can never go back. Posner says, “You don’t wanna be high like me, never really knowing why, like me. You don’t wanna step off that roller coaster and be alone. You don’t wanna ride the bus like this, never knowing who to trust like this…” University and individual research presents more, and often conflicting, information as to what a person learned during their childhood and adolescence. Learning can enlighten the mind, but one must lose their innocent understanding in the process.

Sure, he’s referring to singing and his life devotion to music. Same concept applies to diverse artistic expression. High Philosophical Art questions and prods at reality, consciousness, meaning, and purpose. What happens when the “rules” are really figments meant to ensure group delusion? Philosophy demonstrates subjective and objective truth, reaching for but rarely attaining universal implication. Break that down:

nothing is real, nothing is true

amounts to feels, what can one do?

Well…once you kneel, then you must stew.

{read that last line in a deep baritone, just for snickers}

Posner’s chorus:  “All I know are sad songs…” – When one has searched for knowledge, toyed around with epistemology, learned to bend fact to one’s purpose, innocence is lost. Not sexual innocence, deeper than that – fundamental understanding. All that is left of personal experience is “sad songs” or a seriously hollow existence. Philosophically, there is a sense of false comfort that cushions the harshness of reality for those who accept “belief” or conform to society. Once one “knows” the rampant delusions, meaning is lost.

Man, the meaning…it has to come back. See…I feel that we can create meaning. Mount up, Artists. Lady World, she needs creative spin.

Reading Notes on “Twilight of the Idols”

When Leisure runs with Research

My session is nearing the end, two more weeks. I have minimal assignments due, and I note that I work much better under pressure. A few months ago, while carrying three courses, I thrived. Much writing and contemplation was required. Now, I have only one topic. And – as a cruel twist – I have to say that I am not real fired-up about said topic. The sad part is, I could be. Maybe one day, my non-traditional thinking will be noted as “ahead of her time” but for the present…’tis socially conditioned that I retreat “back to the mountain.”

Off I crawl, licking my wounds inflicted by society’s barbs, with a text from Herr Professor clung to my breast. Searching for inspiration. {for Life in general, not for the piece} However, while beginning my read the other night, one of Nietzsche’s maxims jumped out at me. Well…much of Nietzsche explodes off the page, but this one, it felt so true I have to share:

“There are times when we psychologists are like horses, and grow fretful. We see our own shadow rise and fall before us. The psychologist must look away from himself if he wishes to see anything at all” (Nietzsche 35).

The quote reminds me to remove myself from philosophical consideration as well as interaction with society in efforts to see the issue – whatever that may be – through an objective lens. By making the situation just that, a situation or a happening, instead of my situation, the experience may be noted from more than one perspective. Applying this to life, I see this method as able to reduce emotional connection to an experience. To look at problems as puzzle pieces to put together – the important factor is that the “I” is assembling the puzzle and not just another piece.

 

Works Cited

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Twilight of the Idols (1888). Trans. Anthony M. Ludovici. Ed. Dennis Sweet. New York:  Barnes&Noble, 2008.

Picture c/o:  http://www.jamesmaybe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Dominic_Rouse-Twilight_of_the_idols.jpg

The Pope, Durkheim,…and Quantum Physics

Reducing Human Importance

Animal, Natural, Small and Insignificant:  the Cry of Humankind

Pope Pius XII supported the Big Bang theory. Bowler and Morus said, “In 1951, Pope Pius XII delivered an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he explicitly appealed to the big bang theory of the universe as a scientific endorsement of the Catholic Church’s position.”[1] I learned about this in Catholic class {I converted to marry but cannot “believe”}. Father Robert said that the big bang does not disprove God but actually backs up the Catholic belief. What he meant was that the Catholic God speaks to His people in many methods. For the majority, the lessons in the bible are enough, but for the questioning mind that searches for proof religious parables do not supply adequate information. Fr. insisted that faith came without proof, and that Catholics are not dependent on the signs present in the Old Testament. At the time, I shrugged it off, thinking that Catholicism had to make room for the big bang because the scientists found the organic beginnings of life and religion could not deny the truth of fact.

However, I read Emile Durkheim’s The Elementary Forms of Religious Life for HUMN 571 Individuals, Societies, and the Spirit, and now…what Fr. said makes more sense. The overall message of Durkheim’s text was that religion was actually the motivator for society, but not in the way a religious person would initially expect. First off, discard all elements of belief, myth, and promise. Religion in primitive society, specifically the Australian Aboriginal in 1912, orchestrated the basic needs of life and created a mutual system in which people could set rules and continue existence. Durkheim said, “[Religion] is not simply a system of signs by which faith is expressed outwardly, it is a collection of means by which it is created and periodically recreates itself.”[2] See, religion is adaptive, just like human beings, and it will shift into a substance that supports society…because it is society. For primitives, religion is daily life and expressed through the negative and positive cult; for the Ancient World, religion governed through feasts, celebration, and lamentation; for the Medieval World, religion developed chivalry and legend; for the Renaissance, religion began to be more personal as more people learned to read and write; for the Reformation, religion turned its back on luxury because the clergy morphed into a second monarchy; for the Scientific Revolution, religion began to absorb science because society looked for empirical evidence; for the Modern World, religion went into the rectory and licked its wounds, trying to find away to conform to the needs of the people; and for Post-Modern World, here we sit, consciously working our understanding to allow room for science and religion in our vast concept of what life really entails. Religion is adaptive, she has been shifting ever since the beginning of recorded history, and there is little reason to assume that she will stop. After all, as Durkheim noted, we are religion, we are the coming together of many energies in efforts to make one universal note. We are an orchestra of life, and that must include symphonies of each human expression.

{Peer} wrote: “the Earth and humans went from being the center and most significant part of the universe to a very small part, place in an insignificant corner of a very large and apparently expanding universe “

I think much can be said for perspective. On one hand, it is humbling to go from being specifically created by God to an organism reacting to one’s environment, and then to top it all off with Earth not being the center of the universe but just a planet in a system – then that system not being special but one of many universes. Yes, I see…it makes a human feel small and rather unimportant, but what if we shift the perspective without changing any of the fact. This is a beauty of quantum theory – many possibilities happen and are possible. Out of all of the known universes, we are still the only existing form of life (not just humans, but you follow) that we know of…to me, that does not say that there is no other life, but that we are not aware of it. {meaning other characteristics of life like light, radio waves, protons/neutrons, tiny particles of matter – I am not referring to little green men, or Star Trek heros} It was only the 1970s when science came onto this notion, that was not that long ago and I feel there is still room for advancement. Before Einstein, humanity did not know about the atom, and modern science is just beginning nanoscience – the extremely small universe. There are more answers, science must first be able to form the questions.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Science: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,2005.

Durkheim, Emile. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Trans. Carol Cosman. Ed. Mark S. Cladis. Oxford, New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 2008.

Picture c/o:  https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/b5/b7/46/b5b746fa6378e0252fbf7ffdda452131.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 291.

[2] Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, p. 312.

Deduction for Future Evolution of Species

Technology Encourages Advanced Intellect

Knowledge presented by the scientific method shattered scholastic consideration for real-time events. Society began to question instead of take for granted the origins and purpose of life. {Peer} wrote: “The changes that are sometimes so hard for the scientific community to make in the society at large can be even harder to make within the scientific community.”

Yes, changes that greatly impact human existence are difficult to accept or reject, depending on one’s stance. Science not only discovers empirical fact, but they then have to figure out how to introduce new truth to society after they battle it out with their peers.

I like to do comparisons to see if we can predict any future historical happenings via deduction. Evolution and the printing press, if we allow these to be classified as encouraging progress, prepared humans for modernism. Once modern, humanity took a step back and developed post-modernism to correct the errors created by aggressive reason (rising ethics and repulsion to barbarism). Around this time, society received new input from offices of authority – the Internet piggy-backed off the printing press and Quantum Theory came roaring in to make evolution look like Link-in-Logs. One of the most cliché sayings, “History repeats itself,” is lingering…. If the printing press (15th c) presented the ability to issue in the scientific revolution (17th, 18th, 19th c) then we may deduce that approximately 200 years after the Internet (20th c) – maybe less if we account for the advancement of the human brain as means to reduce the rate of improvement – so…let us allot for exponential growth, say 115 years… with this rough estimation, science (though it might be called something different by then, think “natural philosophers” becoming specialist scientists) may expect another revolution around 2131 c.e.

This, of course, is under the assumption that Isis does not behead or blow up humanity, and that overpopulation has not encouraged the other organic systems to eradicate the human species as means of defense. The good news is that the advancement of species displays the immense possibilities for the future, but the bad news is that our intelligence may lead to unimaginable morphisms, which current consciousness fears the loss of human nature. I do not think the latter will happen. Human nature is adaptive, it will undoubtedly change but it will not disappear. Religion will also change, adapting to the demands of society – it has to because it is a human expression and a collective effort that creates society.

In one realm of existence, religion may stay the same until the people who believe its mantras no longer exist, but quantum theory tells us that there is a realm where religion merges with science, a realm where religion dies as well as one where science ends, and realms where chaos or harmony may be the result. In 115 years, human intelligence may balk or embrace multiple dimensional realms – we, unfortunately, are not yet evolved enough to accept the truth of the future.

Picture c/o:  http://www.lightworkersworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/move-on-483×300.jpg

Hubble’s Image of Galaxies

{Peer} pulled up a google search to show the vastness of the universe. All those little swirls – yeah, they are different galaxies. This picture highlights seven small galaxies noted to be 13 million years old! Now that is some fascinating stuff.

I was so amazed, I had to share with all of you, my fellow wanderers…

@MmePhilosopher

Picture c/o:  http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic1219a.jpg

Was Einstein dependent on Darwin?

If Darwin did not discover and publish Origins of Species would Einstein still have came onto his Theory of Relativity?

That is an interesting question with two possible answers. On one hand, Darwin was not alone; nor was his idea singularly unique. Gavin DeBeers wrote “Biology before the Beagle (1964)” to demonstrate that Darwin did not pluck his theory of evolution through natural selection from the recesses of his unique mind or thin air. Darwin was a detailed natural philosopher – nearly obsessive compulsive – who categorized animals and plants. Wallace’s discovery encouraged Darwin to publish so that Darwin would still receive credit, which rather implies that Wallace was onto the same research trail. Not to mention that Lamarck published Philosophie zoologique in 1809, developing a “theory of ‘transformism’ or evolution, which he was the first to do, invoking descent of species during long periods of time from other species, so that the Animal Kingdom could be represented by a genealogy of branching lines, the last branch being that of man.”[1] Lamarckism did not flourish like Darwinism did though, perhaps much can be said for Huxley’s support. William Paley wrote “Natural Theology (1802)” to illustrate life according to the workings of a clock – dependent on a watchmaker. But Darwin found causation for adapted species due to Paley’s description of the select workings of the clock pieces and the altered methods in which species was able to adapt to different surrounds. Paley called to attention the human eye, and he claimed it was created specifically by the Creator to grant vision. The same eye, though, he noted, adapted differently for fish that lived in the water; it was still an eye, but the eye was changed.[2] Scientists, other than Darwin, worked on evolutionary concepts.

On the other hand, if we were to consider that evolutionary theory had not happened, that the concept of biology had not been founded, and religion still held the final authority…then no; I do not think Albert Einstein would have been able to come up with the Theory of Relativity because I do not think the collective consciousness (or ability to develop advanced concepts) would have began to form. In a very reduced example, I think I understood this course because I took Evolution of Life and Intelligence, which is basically the “Darwin course.” When I began, I was terrified because I am not a scientist. I read many articles. I watched videos and listened to lectures. The more I submersed myself in the concepts, the more I was able to understand. I think the large lessons learned, namely through the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution, was to question, to think, to experiment and see what all humans can do – because we are changing, and the more we learn, the more we evolve.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beer, Gavin De. “Biology before the Beagle (1964).” Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 41-44.

Paley, William. “Natural Theology (1802).” Darwin: A Norton Critical Edition, Texts, Commentary. 3rd ed. Ed. Philip Appleman. New York:  W.W. Norton & Company, 2001. pp. 41-44.

Picture c/o:  http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/0a/0f/1a/e3/cosmocaixa-barcelona.jpg

[1] Gavin DeBeers, “Biology before the Beagle,” p. 34.

[2] William Paley, “Natural Theology (1802),” p. 43.

Darwinism: the Most Revolutionary Movement in Science

Which scientific revolution incurred the most change?

While revolutions in thought were present in chemistry, cosmology, geology, and physics, the most altering discoveries were in biology via Charles Darwin’s considerations for evolution through natural selection and adaptation of species. The fundamentals of evolutionary thought seized society with an urgency to unite scientific theory with everything, applying direct causation via biological matter to reality. Darwin’s dangerous ideas disrupted the religious hold on society by preferring scientific method and empirical evidence to scholastic considerations of the Golden era. Bowler and Morus said, “The original Darwinian revolution turned out to be only a transition to an evolutionary interpretation of an already-existing worldview based on faith in the idea of progress as the product of divine providence or of nature’s laws.”[1] Darwinism, and later biology, oriented the human being as an organism victim to alteration by its environment to encourage continuation of species. However, it would not be until the twentieth-century that society adapted the notion of the effects of a nurturing environment as able to improve the nature of humans. Victorians believed: “Environmental effects are powerless to alter the characteristics inherited by the child from its parents,”[2] but genetic discoveries would reveal the human ability to adapt based on external factors incorporated through experience.

 

Yes, cosmology demonstrated a scientific revolution. Astronomers of the 1930s agreed about the shape of the universe, but instead of considering the system as static they saw it as dynamic or a universe that was producing energy; Bowler and Morus said, “No longer was the galaxy that human beings inhabit to be considered as the center of the universe.”[3] The Milky Way was one of a number of other galaxies; much like humans were not unique creations but evolved animal species, the universe resided in one galaxy of many of galaxies. Bowler and Morus said, “From that perspective, the transformation might certainly be regarded as truly revolutionary in the same sense that the Copernican revolution was.”[4] Early twentieth-century held a revolution in the understanding of space and time. Relativistic physics replaced Newtonian theory, Bowler and Morus said, “…replaced with the standpoint that time and space were relative to the position and velocity of the observer.”[5]

 

In “The Elegant Universe” PBS Nova discussed Quantum Theory, a possibility that multiple realities existed in different dimensions of time. Based on statistical data, Quantum theory dealt with extremely small matter, atomic elements of protons and the nucleus, that Einstein’s theory of gravity did not effect or relate.[6] Modern scientists, since the 1970s, developed String Theory to unite “heavy” science with small science. Working with the stuff of Einstein’s dreams, as inspired by his notebooks and personal record, Alan Lightman wrote Einstein’s Dreams to illustrate the creative spirit of the famous scientist. Einstein questioned everything, and while he did not agree with quantum theories, Lightman showed that Einstein thought more than one possibility could exist. 14 April 1905: “Suppose time is a circle, bending back on itself. The world repeats itself, precisely, endlessly.”[7] And later, on 14 May 1905: “There is a place where time stands still. Raindrops hang motionless in air. Pendulums of clocks float mid-swing. … Pedestrians are frozen on the dusty streets, their legs cocked as if held by strings.”[8] Einstein allowed room for the possibility of alternate time and space, but he rejected quantum theory. Is his rejection due to gravity not be unified? What would Einstein have thought of String theory?

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowler, Peter J. and Iwan Rhys Morus. Making Modern Scienc: A Historical Survey. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 2005.

“The Elegant Universe.” PBS Nova, 10 Aug 2014. YouTube.com. Online video. 25 Jan 2016.

Picture c/o:  http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AJA5JD/the-survival-of-the-fittest-application-of-darwinism-in-the-21st-century-AJA5JD.jpg

[1] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 161.

[2] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 158.

[3] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[4] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 286.

[5] Bowler and Morus, Making Modern Science, p. 287.

[6] PBS, “The Elegant Universe.”

[7] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.

[8] Alan Lightman, Einstein’s Dreams, p. 8.