Guest Blogger #2 Will Haas

Part 2 of Socrates will have to wait.  My friend Will Haas has written a guest entry for my blog:

The advent of affordable, quality cameras has led to a world full of photographs. This has been multiplied exponentially when manufacturers began to include high-quality cameras in most mobile devices. It is safe to say that everything has been photographed. Since everyone has a camera, and is therefore taking pictures, we are exposed daily to the entire gamut of skill levels. Nearly every instructional booklet or text written about photographic criticism will begin with analyzing the technical qualities of the image---I believe this is exactly the opposite approach that should be used to analyze a photograph.

Instead we should start with the most fundamental attribute of any photographic image. The Subject - What is in the photograph?

The subject of the photograph is the most fundamental characteristic of an image. The subject exists without artistic vision, the subject exists regardless of post-processing, and most importantly the subject exists at any skill level. Since the 1800’s people have used a camera to photograph ‘something’, we do not photograph ‘nothing’. As photographers we have posed, we have hiked for a better view, and we have panned or zoomed to find a subject worth capturing. Capturing the subject is our true goal, the reason we photograph in the first place.

Simply put, any noun has the potential to become a subject. But when we analyze (or criticize) a photograph we subconsciously or consciously rank subject as the most important characteristic of a photograph. We “like” or “dislike” a photograph, regardless of artistic qualities or skill, based almost completely on the subject. I imagine that if we were teachers grading an exam, the Subject of the photograph would constitute 65% of the grade. Everything else that separates amateur photographers from top-ranked professionals exists in the remaining 35% of the grade.

Consider a soldier, entrenched in a foreign land months away from returning home. The soldier reaches into his pocket and pulls out a worn, faded photograph. Already in your mind you have pictured something on his photograph. The soldier does not concern himself with the kind of camera was used, how it was photoshopped, if the composition was strong or weak, or if the depth of field was shallow, it is the subject of the photograph that causes him to reach, with dusty hands, and take one last look at the picture.

Examine these 3 photos. Some were taken with advanced skill, while one was taken with no intentional skill whatsoever. However, it should be clear that what the skill-less photograph lacks in technique, it makes up for in subject.

I urge you, regardless of your skill level or familiarity with photography, to consider above all else what you are photographing.

Plato's Socrates Methods Myth and Man

Plato's Socrates part 1: So, I just started reading Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar... and so far it has been quite entertaining.  It seems like Socrates is probably the most famous Greek philosopher, several different ancient authors wrote about stuff that he did/said, but unfortunately or fortunately he apparently never wrote anything.

One thing all this study of ancient philosophers brings to mind is something I learned many years ago (high school) about ancient texts.  It was in a video about the trustworthiness of the biblical text.  I don't remember all the exact figures, but basically it went something like this: there are only a couple copies ancient texts and yet they are considered trustworthy (at least in the point of who wrote them and when) and there are ten times as many copies of the New Testament but people don't consider it trustworthy.  Seems a bit inconsistent doesn't it?  Anyways, I digress...  There are two initial points I would like to draw from Plato's version of Socrates, the socratic method, and socratic ignorance.

First, and arguably the most widespread lesson learned from Socrates is the Socratic method for learning/teaching.  Simply put, we as educators should answer students' questions with questions to get them to think through their assumptions.  This can be used incorrectly e.g. certain facts should be questioned/answered directly.  However, there are lots of times when we should use questions to seek out the roots of our questions and gain a deeper understanding of whatever we're studying.

Second, and I personally think that more people should adopt this self-image in order to drive themselves to continually pursue learning.  The idea of socratic ignorance is the conundrum that one much know that he/she doesn't know anything.  So, once you realize that you don't know anything you'll continue to seek out knowledge.

I love fireworks

Online Learning

As promised, or as threatened, today's topic is online learning.  The next topic, if I can tackle it (presumably it'll take more than one entry) is going to be (drum roll) Plato's version of Socrates.

So, first off...  Have you ever taken online courses?  Did you like them?  Did you learn as much as you did in "regular" classes?  Did you learn as much as you wanted or as much as was expected of you?  It's both a little sad and a little scary that so many schools are moving towards this new style of learning.  I've had the (dis)advantage of taking a few online courses since I joined the military.  But, before I get too deep into this topic a disclaimer: this is not a reflection on any particular university, education program, or professor etc.  This is about online learning in general.

The article that really started me thinking about this topic mentioned an interesting notion that I've heard  talked about before, "Ah, you're a [teacher]. You must learn so much from your students."  His reaction was kind of humorous to me... do doctors learn from their patients, or lawyers from their clients?  Obviously that's rhetorical but still a thought provoking idea.  I also really like the author's analogy of teaching and music, specifically jazz.  Interesting enough, I never have been good at improv musically, though I've always enjoyed the idea and attempting it.  Good teachers are like jazz musicians... they are creative and adapt well.  On the language learning podcast I listened to the other day (which often digressed from the topic of language learning to general education issues) they (it was an interview podcast) discussed how it's good for teachers to study acting.  Specifically, they mentioned improv acting.

Think about it, what were your favorite teachers like?  Don't say the lazy teacher that showed videos everyday.  I mean your favorite teacher from whom you actually learned a lot.  He/she was probably a great performer, improvisor, and he/she could feel the educational climate/mood of the room/class.  I want to be that kind of teacher someday!  As I said I've not been all that good at musical improv and I feel like sometimes when I'm teaching I "wax eloquent" (read: BORING) and sound authoritative on whatever I'm teaching.  Don't get me wrong, a teacher needs to be very knowledgeable about whatever topic they're teaching.  But, I think one of my problems is that I've seen education as receptive (on the student's end).  I still feel like that's a good method, though we should be careful to avoid the stereotypically east Asian education mindset that sets the teacher on too high of a pedestal and doesn't allow for free thinking or discourse in the classroom.  Now, we have online learning that doesn't really have either option.

Oddly enough even while reading this article that's critical of online learning, I'm currently working through my individual online learning (philosophy, Korean, Japanese, Bible etc.) also while reading the article I went to the link in the article about Coursera and I signed up for a few of their classes on things that I find interesting.  So, as critical as I am of online learning, I'm constantly participating in it and promoting it.  I think maybe the issue is maturity and interest in the topic.  There is more information out there (we're living in the information age) online than has ever been available before, and anyone can learn anything if they put their mind to it.  However, making high-school or lower online is a bad idea (not including parent-led homeschooling with online assistance), but most people at that age are not mature enough to handle the responsibility of teaching themselves the information.  That's not an indictment of all high-schoolers, but by and large, age = maturity and the ability to handle responsibility.  So get out there and study/learn/teach, preferably face-to-face, but if that's not an option go online.

The new adventure dogs in the Space Needle in Seattle enroute to Japan

Doubt Versus Close-mindedness

Bear with me, this is the first entry I'm typing on my iPad with a tiny bluetooth keyboard, getting ready for my trip to southwest Asia. Since I've committed to planning my future blog entries each time, the plan for my next entry, will be about online learning. On to today's topic.

So, as I said in my last entry, I've started listening to a new podcast from Apologetics.com. The first episode in the podcast (as I've started it) is about doubt. One of the interesting points I started to think about was how doubt makes faith stronger after it's been overcome. A touch of doubt is healthy for anyone who believes anything. Then I began to think, if it's healthy for a Christian to doubt because it can strengthen one's faith is it healthy for an atheist to doubt? My assumption is that it's NOT in the sense that it makes an atheist more consistent in their disbelief in a deity.

So I was thinking something along these lines: Are you completely sure there's no such thing as God? There's nothing that I can say to make you doubt that? So, you're completely sure that all the facts about evolution, let's take a specific example here, the earth is millions of years old? What would convince you that that isn't true? Then you know all the science behind, say, carbon dating? I imagine their response would be: Uh, not really. But... Continuing with the questions: So, you're not really sure that carbon dating is guaranteed correct in every circumstance? Do you know all the variables that might affect carbon dating? Do you know that all those variables have always stayed the same? If you're doing an experiment the goal is to only have one (maybe two) variable(s) change. If someone had some way to scientifically prove that the earth was only a few thousand years old, would you doubt the science that says otherwise?

The whole idea, is that turnabout is fair play. If scientists can make claims of proving something without all the variables and call into question biblical faith, then we can use doubt against such close-mindedness on the other side of the fence. Especially in the discussion where scientist/atheists claim that a biblical view of the world is close-minded, because in reality, scientist/atheists are just as close-minded. Don't fear doubt, think about what you believe, study other beliefs, understand that people won't agree with you, don't worry about it all will be meted out in the end.

Tree climbing, always tons of fun

Sophists and Relativism

So, I've decided to try to state my plan for the next blog each time so that I have a plan for future blog topics.  I've switched podcasts to the podcast from Apologetics.com (which isn't the usual podcast format that I like; each episode is over an hour long and they're recordings from an apologetics radio talk show).  But the next topic for blogging will be doubt versus overconfidence/close-mindedness.  On to today's topic sophists and the (possible) birth of relativism.

First a bit of history...  The sophists, from the same Greek root for sophisticated, in general originally had a meaning akin to "wise man."  Though, as other ancient Greek writers reference these sophists the meaning changes to something like today's vernacular would say: "know-it-all."  There isn't really much directly written about these people but suffice it to say they were lecture-teachers-for-hire.  They travelled around Greece hiring themselves out to teach people how to win arguments.  They were so skilled at argumentation that they prided themselves on being able to take either side of an argument and make it the stronger (basically they could convince an eskimo to buy snow).  They were skilled unscrupulous orators that sold their skill to anyone that could pay.  Interestingly enough Socrates was sometimes lumped in with the sophists though he didn't take payment for his teachings, and in some texts is shown seriously disagreeing with other sophists.

All of that history and yet (to me) the worst thing that comes out of sophists' teachings is relativism.  According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy relativism is really only attributed to one sophist, Protagoras.  However, the influences of moral relativism have been huge.  This was (apparently) the main disagreement between sophists and Plato/Socrates, the idea that there is no true morality.  The moral relativist says "what's true for you may not be true for me," which can be played out in the social moral relativist argument, that society makes right and as society changes so does what's right and wrong.  There seems to be some distinction between moral relativism and moral skepticism (the idea that we cannot know what's moral), but honestly, the results are more or less the same.  As long as you can convince enough people that what you're doing is not wrong then you're in the right, morally speaking.

On the other side there are many problems with divine morality; I understand that.  However, does there have to be a resolution to all the issues in divine morality?  One of the main issues that comes from Plato's Euthyphro (about divine morality) is: Is something good because God commands it, or is something good commanded by God because it is good?  Ironically, it's kind of like the chicken or egg first question.  To me, the whole concept is a non-issue, because God is the source of all things, what we conceive as bad is all just a part of a grand scheme that God set in motion but He allows to run its course, and of course we can't see anything but what is right now and a fuzzy view of the past.  One of the best descriptions of the concept of God's omniscience and concept of time: All of time and the universe is like a section of the sidewalk, and we are like ants on the sidewalk (though we can only go one direction).  God is like a person looking down on the sidewalk; He sees the cracks at both ends, i.e. the beginning and the end of what we conceive as time, and he sees all directions that we (as the ants) can go.

While the analogy may not seem to apply think about it in terms of, because God knows all the routes to the end He knows which is the best route because he can see all the obstacles and can change them to be easier or harder to suit His plan.  So, the right way to live is BOTH what He says to do, and just the right thing to do, we don't need to make a distinction.  It is interesting to note that C.S. Lewis uses universal morality as an apologetic argument for God.  So, just the idea that there is a right/wrong, begs the question that there must be someone that determines which is which.  How arrogant is man to stand up and say that he is the end all be all, that he decides what is right/wrong and has all the answers to life and the universe.

My boys are so photogenic sometimes!

Rational Religious

I'm going to have to make this post into two different parts, I was planning on writing a post on rational religion and the far reaches of ancient sophists' relativism. However, since that would lead to a very long post I'll break up the two topics. Again, stuck on philosophy... I had more time in my car than usual today so I listened to two episodes of the History of Philosophy and I have even more time later (it's lunch time), though I might switch to listening to Korean for the remainder of my car time today.

Today's topic of rational religion actually comes from the episode on Hippocrates' corpus. That may seem like a stretch to go from the father of modern (western) medicine to religion but if you listen to the episode you'll see from where I draw my topic.

Here's a question for you: Why do people naturally assume all religious people are irrational? Why can't a religious person be logical/rational/scientific? Why can't religion be rational or logical (I can understand why not technically scientific in some cases)? That's one of the points professor Adamson makes with the Hippocratic corpus. Sometimes it may seem like they (the corpus was probably written by a number of people but all attributed to Hippocrates because he was famous) are trying to wrest medical study from the religious and place it into rational philosophy's (capable) hands, but not necessarily. Because, the way they seemed to view the gods made the study and treatment of aliments or medical study in general was actually a higher form of piety.

The same should be true in Christianity! It seems like atheists/agnostics (especially antagonistic ones) like to use the extreme examples. Often times such antagonists set up straw man arguments pointing out extremists and claiming those extremists are an equal/fair representation of that particular religion or of all religions as a whole. I'm religious, and I have no problem with taking a critical view of the world. LOTS of people in religion are not open-minded, but atheists, despite their claims to the contrary, can also be close-minded. AND, just being dogmatic on one particular issue doesn't mean one cannot be rational. The book I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist uses pretty clear arguments that atheism is (just as) dogmatic on the idea that there isn't a god as deists are that there is.

Makes me think of the whole "grass is always greener on the other side" cliche; though oftentimes it's the opposite! People raised in the country stereotype the city (and it's inhabitants) as being full of crime and poverty, while city folk often stereotype the country dwellers as backwards and uneducated etc. People on one side of an issue, often times without realizing it (but sometimes intentionally), vilify those on the opposite side of the issue. A clear example is in the debate (which saddens me because there shouldn't be a debate) about abortion: those for abortion call themselves "pro-choice" and vice versa "anti-abortion," those against abortion call themselves "pro-life" and "pro-abortion." Honestly, the point broke down a little bit there because pro-lifers don't really have a negative term for pro-abortionists. But, in the case of "pro-choice" advocates it's clear that just the term "anti-abortion" clearly has a negative connotation to vilify the enemy.

Is it unreasonable to assume a deity? As I pointed out yesterday the concept of infinity points to the idea that there's a deity... That's not the only argument either. The evident design of the observable universe indicates a deity, a universal/common moral compunction points towards a deity, as well as many other apologetic arguments. Interestingly enough on this topic of apologetics, in my search for the Amazon.com link to that book I found an interesting book: Apologetics Never Saved Anyone I just might have to read it.


Okinawan glass blowing

Infinity

So, I've totally failed at my plan of studying a different subject every day (already). I'm doomed, the philosophy podcast is too interesting and easy to listen to; each podcast is about 15 minutes which fits well into my commute time. Anyways, one of the podcasts was about pre-socratic philosophers and their ideas of atomism. Which, as you may know atom comes from the Greek meaning, (essentially) uncuttable. Amazingly enough, with just logic and some shrewd thinking they, more or less, came up with a correct understanding of how the physical world is ordered. Though I take issue with one of their concepts.

They stated that there must be an infinite amount of atoms in the universe. This cannot be possible. Do atoms take up space, i.e. have mass? If the answer is yes, which it must be, then there cannot be an infinite amount of atoms, because if there's an infinite amount then there cannot be any space between atoms. Think about it, infinite is a really tough concept to grasp, but if there's an infinite amount of anything then there cannot be any space. If it's infinite then there can be no room between because that space must be taken up by more of whatever, because there's an infinite amount of whatever. One response could be; then the only thing that's infinite is space. That's not possible either because there's stuff in the space bouncing around, which means there must be a lack of space where things exist. A thing cannot move from one space to another if there's infinite space because there would always be more space.

Nothing, in the material universe can be infinite. We can try to conceptualize infinity in the material universe (e.g. cut the stick in half, now in half again, and again, on to infinity; conceptually we would never achieve "nothing" because you could always cut it in half again), but as humans we cannot ever hope to achieve an infinitely small part. Same with the size of the universe, it must be finite at least in our hope to understand it. Think about it... Even if you had a spaceship that could travel a billion lightyears an hour and lived thousands of years, and you wanted to go an infinite distance, it would take an infinite amount of time to get there, which you could never do. Because, it would take infinite amount of time, no matter how fast you go.

Only God is infinite, in any way; only God could exist before the concept of existence. Only God could be outside of time able to make something out of nothing, and know all future and all past. Only God can conceive infinite, because only the infinite can understand infinity.

The light at the end of the tunnel (if the tunnel was infinitely long you'd never see the light)

Hobbies

Do you have any hobbies?  I think I have too many!  It seems like I never have time to do them all!  One of the other problems is hardly any of my hobbies go well together.  Pretty much the only hobbies I have that go together are the ways I like to workout (e.g. biking running and swimming all go together well, in triathlon'ing).  Other than that, it's hard to mix my other interests, like photography and chess.  Then there's all the studying I want to do, like philosophy, language, Bible, Korean, Japanese, music, etc.  But, there's no way I can make time for all that and my family and the rest of my life (like work, that's kinda important).  How can I juggle all these different things?  How do you?

There is such beautiful flora and fauna here

Study Plans and Fireworks

I've been listening to podcasts about learning languages, and learning philosophy but I really haven't done anything about applying what I've been learning (e.g. learning a new language myself). Since there's really not a direct way I can apply my learning in philosophy, I really feel I should learn Japanese! I think I'm going to try starting a study plan, wherein I study philosophy one day, Korean the next, Japanese the next, and Bible the next. So, I'm going to have a four-day study cycle for Korean, Japanese, Philosophy, and Bible. I'm hoping that I can quickly advance in Japanese and someday have it at the same level as my Korean. Hopefully, I have plenty of time this deployment to keep up this study plan. I really can't let my Korean slip like the last two times I deployed.

On a totally different note... We went to see the fireworks tonight at the Ocean Expo Park/Aquarium. They, were, awesome! I don't think I've ever seen such an awesome display. We can't understand the Japanese announcements so after about the first 15 minutes or so the fireworks stopped and we thought they were over, but not very many people started leaving. We were tired and ready to go so we packed up our stuff and started to leave. It took us about 45 minutes or so walking up to our car and getting ready to go/situated and whatnot. That whole time they continued shooting off fireworks. Even just the first 15 minutes were better than pretty much any fireworks show I've ever seen. Great fireworks, great timing shooting the fireworks, great colored fireworks and a great sunset (just before the show). Hopefully we can go back next year; though we plan on timing it differently. Because we left home around 1pm we hit way too much traffic on the way there and it tured what is normally an hour-long drive into a two hour drive! Apparently the Japanese really know their fireworks!

Not where the fireworks were, but the view from the front steps of the aquarium

Work and formatting again...

It was brought to my attention that blogger wasn't working for comments...  I don't know if it was just a temporary problem or what, but it appears fixed now.  I tried to comment on my own post yesterday and it didn't work but this morning I tested it again and it worked and there's a new comment from someone else.  So, I don't think I'm going to change the format (again).  If for whatever reason, you can't comment and would like to, feel free to email me sam.r111481@gmail.com or look me up on Facebook as far as I know there are only two Sam Ronickers on Facebook and one is my dad.  I do also have a Twitter account but I hardly ever use it.

On to the topic of work...  I recently got the news that I have to trade in this beach for a much dustier, dryer and hotter "beach" somewhere in southwest Asia.  In all honesty I'm not terribly surprised, because of my situation.  I've had two deployments' experience in this other program (that I'm going back to).  Even so that program was supposed to be built up on its own and not need to "borrow" people from my job to do that job anymore.  But, since I'm experienced on that plane and still in training for this new (to me) plane, I am the most logical choice to send.  Sucks though, because the first time I deployed with the program (Project Liberty) I had a bad time.  I didn't like the deployment AT ALL!  I never wanted to go back.  Of course as soon as I got back from that first trip out I tried to get a different assignment or anything else that would keep me from having to go back.  Well, obviously that didn't work as I said I've done two deployments with the program.  Fortunately though the second time wasn't nearly as bad as the first and I didn't hate every minute of my time there.  Also, as far as deployments go this one shouldn't be too bad because the plan is for me to only do half the standard time.  I'm sure it will be easier to handle the shorter time, though my family situation will be tougher.  The last two times I deployed my wife took the kids back to Ohio to be with family for some of the time.  However, because we're now in Japan that's probably not going to be an option.  The only way that would work out is if they can get on a military flight back to the U.S., but those are difficult (read: impossible) to plan and not convenient or comfortable at all.

I don't know how much I'll get to blog while I'm gone, or it might be that I have way too much time on my hands and I'll be writing all the time.  I don't really know.  The last two times I went out I had different experiences both times.  The first time I was incredibly bored all the time but I didn't have internet service readily available.  The second time I kept myself busy with working out and calling/texting home every night because the internet was easily accessible.  We'll just have to wait and see.

I'm going to miss them!