Pool Fun
Woody got philosophical, but then he was photo bombed by Hannah, of the School of Annoyingism.
Hannah then worked on a natural crown.
And Eden and Holden performed a song from Annoyingism.
Hannah then worked on a natural crown.
And Eden and Holden performed a song from Annoyingism.
Mandalas: Is it Art or Something Else
We ended the week by making mandalas, which Philosopher Nick explained were representations of the universe. According to proper mandala making, and destroying, we then destroying our mandalas, completing the cycle of creation and destruction that is also the point of the activity. We considered the difference between making art at the beginning of the week, which ends in a finished product, and the ritual of making and destroying a mandala. It seemed to us that art was not the end now, but the means of a philosophical understanding of our world.
June was the first to complete her mandala ritual by ritually pouring the sand back into the earth.
The image of the mandala as it slid away was as beautiful as the mandala itself.
Eden was next. When she decomposed her mandala it seemed to catch fire!
We documented Hannah's entire process:
Holden's mandala was fittingly destroyed by the wind!
June was the first to complete her mandala ritual by ritually pouring the sand back into the earth.
Eden was next. When she decomposed her mandala it seemed to catch fire!
We documented Hannah's entire process:
Academic, Stoic, and Hedonistic
The Philosophers went to Memorial Park to learn about the Academy of Plato and the Stoa of Zeno.
To learn about the Academy we spent some time eating a snack under a tree, then hanging out at the waterlily pond. It was in the Sacred Wood of Athena that Plato held his classes. The philosophers said they loved the peacefulness of the pond area, and thought about nature, how one fits into the cosmos, or just cleared their minds.
Then the philosophers walked over to Maplewood village and walked up and down the street, enjoying the shops and the people, which was like the Greek Stoa, where the Stoics did philosophy. They thought about commerce, and ethics, and social issues. We discussed how environment affects what we think about.
Then we ate lunch at Roman Gourmet pizza, but ate too much. We had slipped into Hedonism! When we got home we just collapsed. Philosophy can be hard work!
A Natural Break
We had snacks on the banks of the Passaic River. It was a good place to contemplate.
What Is Nature? What Is Natural?
We traveled to the West Essex Environmental Center to examine nature and consider what is natural
We visited a recreation of a Lenape house.
Then we reflected on whether it was natural or not, particularly when compared to our houses. We noticed that all the materials in the Lenape house were natural, while we have plastics in our houses. We decided that we could consider what decomposes as natural, and since plastic is not able to decompose, our houses are not natural, while the Lenape houses are.
We visited a recreation of a Lenape house.
Then we reflected on whether it was natural or not, particularly when compared to our houses. We noticed that all the materials in the Lenape house were natural, while we have plastics in our houses. We decided that we could consider what decomposes as natural, and since plastic is not able to decompose, our houses are not natural, while the Lenape houses are.
We also decided that Nick is a natural butterfly.
The Trolley Problem
The philosophers built model train tracks to help them think through the following problems:
If you are driving a trolley and you see 5 people on the track ahead and your breaks don't work--the only thing you could do is let the train go straight of transfer it to a side track where there is one person, would you plow ahead or divert the train onto a track with 1 person on it?
We would all divert the train.
If the same situation is happening, but you are a bystander standing next to the transfer switch, would you pull the switch to divert the train.
We all would pull the switch.
If the same situation is happening and you are a bystander but do not know what would happen if you pulled the switch,
We all would do nothing.
If you are driving the trolley and you see five teens on the track smoking something, and the only way they could get onto the tracks would be to jump a fence and break the law, and on the other track you see a colleague, would you run over the five or the one.
Most of us would not divert the train and kill the 5 teens, and one would not decide, thereby killing the 5 teens.
If you are driving the trolley in the same situation and see five people you like on the track ahead and one you don't like on the other, would you divert the track?
We all would divert the track.
If you are in the same situation, but the five people have repeatedly picked on you and the one person you like, would you divert the train,
Most would reluctantly divert the trolley, but one of us wouldn't.
If you are on a bridge over the trolley and see the the conductor faint and the trolley will roll into the five people killing them, and next to you is a large man leaning over the railing looking at the event unfold, would you push him over the bridge onto the tracks and save the 5 people or do nothing?
Most of us would push the man over the edge.
The results differ based on the following elements: fewer people dying is better, even when we are not directly responsible for the events unfolding before us and even though we might not like those people; but one should not act if one doesn't know what will happen; breaking the law can lead to sever consequences while friendship is more important than strangers; finally most of us would indirectly kill a person who has nothing to do with the situation to save more people. In the last scenario, of pushing a person off a bridge, we consider whether a person not involved in the situation could be drawn into the situation or not.
If you are driving a trolley and you see 5 people on the track ahead and your breaks don't work--the only thing you could do is let the train go straight of transfer it to a side track where there is one person, would you plow ahead or divert the train onto a track with 1 person on it?
We would all divert the train.
If the same situation is happening, but you are a bystander standing next to the transfer switch, would you pull the switch to divert the train.
We all would pull the switch.
If the same situation is happening and you are a bystander but do not know what would happen if you pulled the switch,
We all would do nothing.
If you are driving the trolley and you see five teens on the track smoking something, and the only way they could get onto the tracks would be to jump a fence and break the law, and on the other track you see a colleague, would you run over the five or the one.
Most of us would not divert the train and kill the 5 teens, and one would not decide, thereby killing the 5 teens.
If you are driving the trolley in the same situation and see five people you like on the track ahead and one you don't like on the other, would you divert the track?
We all would divert the track.
If you are in the same situation, but the five people have repeatedly picked on you and the one person you like, would you divert the train,
Most would reluctantly divert the trolley, but one of us wouldn't.
If you are on a bridge over the trolley and see the the conductor faint and the trolley will roll into the five people killing them, and next to you is a large man leaning over the railing looking at the event unfold, would you push him over the bridge onto the tracks and save the 5 people or do nothing?
Most of us would push the man over the edge.
The results differ based on the following elements: fewer people dying is better, even when we are not directly responsible for the events unfolding before us and even though we might not like those people; but one should not act if one doesn't know what will happen; breaking the law can lead to sever consequences while friendship is more important than strangers; finally most of us would indirectly kill a person who has nothing to do with the situation to save more people. In the last scenario, of pushing a person off a bridge, we consider whether a person not involved in the situation could be drawn into the situation or not.
Geek Logic: What Is the Algorithm for Deciding if One Should Annoy a Sibling?
Philosopher Nick lead us through a funny "rational" exercise of determining if we should annoy a sibling or not. The point was to identify as many of the variables one should be aware of, to do good philosophy, and then to relate those variables to each other.
We needed to know the order of operations: pemdas: parenthesis, exponents, multiplication, division, addition, subtraction.
Here's our formula:
Si
SA - (DR)
P
S = sibling annoyance level, from 1 (low) to 9 (high)
A = age of sibling
D = desire for annoying sibling
R = revenge ability and likelihood of sibling
Si = Situation's likelihood of escalating the revenge
P = parental awareness and annoyance
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)