Author Archives: Justin Yang

The end of the journey

Posted on by
Reply

With respect to Enlightenment and Romanticism, I think that I would agree with the Enlightenment perspective more than Romanticism, but find both sides to have valid and invalid points. This is because I find the rationalist approach more congruent to the topics that I study and the career path that I am pursuing than the Romantic perspective, but I also find that the personal, immediate experience is very important.

Learning about Enlightenment and Romanticism gave me a new framework to view the different issues that we face in the world, and have given me a greater appreciation of where we are today (in terms of social and technological progress). For example, the new coronavirus thing going on right now reminds me of how we haven’t really improved at all morally, but have gotten much further in medicine.

In my view, the most interesting takeaway of the class is the question of the natural state of mankind. I specifically enjoyed how most of the authors tried, in some way, to answer this question, and gave me a way to structure the viewpoints of the different thinkers presented in this class.

One way to cook food

Posted on by
Reply
Food can be an artform

Food is integral to our daily lives. Simply enjoying food itself is an extremely pleasurable experience, yet many would argue that it does not involve much mental stimulation. When we elevate food to the status of art, it merges both the sensual and the intellectual: we look, taste, and smell and it pleases us, yet when we observe high-level cooking, we see the intellectual process involved in its creation. When I get handed some food and I have to say, “It’s a work of art,” I am not only admiring the delicious flavor of the food, I also admire the craft of cooking: the thought that went into the creation of the flavor profile, the techniques used to create the most desirable texture, and the perfect plating that elevates food to an art form. Food is the pinnacle of Schiller’s philosophy. Congruently with Schiller’s philosophy, food also makes us morally better. It brings people together. When we eat together, we become friendly with one another and feel less ill will toward one another. When our friends are sick or stressed, we can cook for them and (hopefully) this will make them more inclined to do so to others as well.

A Perfect Union

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States constitution, it is stated that “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union […] establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” What type of union is more perfect than the union of partitions of disjoint events?

Here I will compare the definition of a partition with the Union of states as discussed in the Constitution. The definition of a partition is as follows: a partition of a set X is a set of non-empty subsets of X such that every element x in X is in exactly one of these subsets (i.e., X is a disjoint union of the subsets). We see this idea that the Union of States (the United States) is a partition, shown in the Constitution in Article IV, section 3 on the discussion of the formation of new states. There it says that new states can be admitted into congress, but it cannot be formed or erected in the jurisdiction of any other state unless through agreement, and in section 4 it states that every state in the Union is guaranteed a republican form of government. As shown here, we can conclude that the United States is indeed a partition of the states it makes up: since each state is disjoint, and that the intersection of the states are the null set (no states share jurisdiction), and the union of all the states makes up the United States, then each state is thus a partition. In relation to the picture below, Ω represents the United States, where each subset Ω B1, B2, …, BN represents each state (a partition of Ω).

It is true however that the states are subordinate to the national government though. Could you disprove the notion that states are partitions of the United States by disproving the statement that the states are disjoint?

Is a good will always good?

Posted on by
4

In Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant makes the claim that a good will is good if it has intrinsic goodness. Specifically, that it is good even when the will is not effective. In his words, “it would, like a jewel, still shine.”

He’s wrong. A good will with no positive outcome is just a lame excuse for saving face when you don’t care about something. Doing something good necessitates positive action on the world. Let’s say, for example, that your friend Bob gets cancer out of nowhere and has no way to pay for it. According to Kant, I could simply tell Bob that I’m “sending my thoughts and prayers” and walk away, still doing a good will. And then Bob will die because Bob lives in the U.S. and Bob is uninsured and broke. Wow, not even God was strong enough to save Bob from a shitty healthcare system. At least you get to watch your childhood friend Bob die knowing you had a good will! I’m sure Bob would like that.

Let’s propose a new definition of a good will: you have to try to bring about a positive change in your environment. In this scenario when Bob gets cancer you decide that thoughts and prayers aren’t going to do jack shit and so you start a GoFundMe to raise money for a plane ticket to Norway. Wow! After raising $1400 you send Bob to Norway where they decide to treat him because the hospitals there are more interested in saving another human’s life than taking the sick Bob’s money as he dies. The end.

B̷̛̪̘̌͐̂̑͒̓̆̍̈́̚͝͠u̸͍͔͔͕͇̤̇̆̎̋͜t̸̢̙͉͓͙͇̬̣̜̭̰͙͓̥̐͛̀͆̿̚͜͝ ̴͕̖͎̦̘̣͇̫̻̳̐͂͊̈͐̐͌̆͌̚͜͝d̸̢̡̳̫̦̗̲̻̥̠̄̓̈́̇̑́̕͠ḯ̴̛̗̲̥͍͍̤͕̙̳͔̝͖̥̄̌̈́̅̔̌̀̌̾͝d̵̖̻̈́̍̅͊̋͐̎̏͌̅̄͘̕͜͝ ̷͉̱͇̖̖̩̫̺͓͕͋̆͆̍̔̌̉̇̾͌͘ỵ̶̯̣̟͖̬̤̈ǫ̷̼̤̩̤̭̪̟͛̽̈̀̌̔́̀̊̐͊͘͜͜͠͝u̵̬̥̳̪͓̹͖̠̼̜̜̰͓̮͐́͌̓̔̊͑̒̔͌́͘͝͝ͅ ̸͍̼̪̺͇͛͛͗̈́͂͌͆͂͒͒͊̄͜k̵̡̋̈́̀̈́͝n̵̢̺̱̗̳̹̞̱̯̙̪̼̗̫͖͋̀́͛́͗̈́o̵͊̀͆̈̈͗̇̿̾̾͐̽̀̐͜͠ŵ̵̢̪̺̜̙̠͔͆͋͜ ̶̣̳̞̙̱̮͔͇͎̄̏̓̎͛̐͘͜ͅy̵̨̟͈̱̳͕̗̟̝̞̗̩̾̋͆ͅơ̸̛͕̫͕̖̙̦̺̺̒͂͑̉́̆͂̇̿̾̆̃͝ͅu̸̧͇̫̹̦̙̙̣͈̤̦͚̓ ̷̩̰̗͍̖̪͖̳̩͓̊̔͝ͅc̴̛̺̟̗̫̯̜͍̲̍̔͛̋̍́͐̕͜ơ̸̧̡͖͔͓̜͚̖̜̈́̀͛̂̔́̃̒͛̑̉̄̆̽ṳ̶̤̫͍̗͎̯͈̦̉̄̇̎̊̚ͅl̸̘͕̠̬͚̔̃͋͐͘͝d̶͓͉̝̮̦͉̺̲̩̤̖͇̑̏͐̈̂͜͠ ̴̡̗̮̒̂́̾̃̊̏̊̀͜ͅḑ̵̢̧̠̫̘̱̮͉̰̘͚̱̙̐̇̋́̊̎̿̂͆͒͂̾̏͠͝o̸̡̝͉̲͚͓͖̟͓̔ ̸̩̦̱͓̙̻̻̬̔̈́̊̕͜͝ṯ̷̢̛̣̺͉̐͗̑̊́͋̽̐͗͂̆͝͠ḩ̴̨̣͈͎̻͔̩͍͔͇͙͔̤͉̓̂̚̕͝i̷̭̭̞͊͌̏̊͐̍̏̀́̄́͠͝s̶̨͎̝̖͎̱̃̑̆̈́͗͊̇̀̊͘͠ ̵͖̞̰̥̣̙͉͙̔̄ͅt̶̬͔̩͖̺̞͛͝ͅo̴̢͉͖͖͚̙͖͎͕͕͌̒̇o̷̙̘͛͗̅͘

Posted on by
Reply

Hi everyone, I’m Justin! I am a second year majoring in Cognitive Science (ML) and Pure Math. I was born in Cleveland, Ohio but mainly raised in San Diego. My favorite book in the HUM sequence is Aristophanes’ Clouds because it was kind of a meme.

Here’s what the coronavirus looks like on the cellular level:

Fig. 1. Coronavirus on a cellular level