Beauty

The English poet John Keats wrote, "What is truth is beauty and what is beauty is truth." I want you to think of three "things:"

1) Something that you consider beautiful and is art

2) Something that you consider beautiful that is not art.

3) Something that you don't consider beautiful but is art.

For a blog post, give an example of each type of "thing above." Be sure to embed the image/link/video/sound in the blog entry itself.

For each, explain what your reasoning is (ex. Why do you think that the work is both artistic and beautiful). Probably about 4-5 sentences for each thing.

1)Something that you consider beautiful and is art
I would say that Claude Monet's Impression, Sunrise is something I would consider both beautiful and art.



Personally, I think it is very aesthetically pleasing. I am really into impressionist and post impressionist art works and there are whole museums dedicated to this type of art work. What's really unique about these types of paintings is that from far away it just looks like a simple scene with lots of color. But when you get up close you see all the intricate details and brush strokes an color layers. A person's perspectives change based on the distance. This one in particular from far away seems like a blob but up close is a sailboat out by a harbor near large ships during a sunset.

2) Something that you consider beautiful that is not art.
I think Johnny Depp is beautiful but not art. Now that mind sound a little weird but I am referring to his overall personality. His phenomenal acting can definitely be considered an art but there is more to him than that.  He is also very quirky and good natured. After his daughter got sick and recovered at a children's hospital he not only donated money but he dressed up as one of the characters to read to all the sick children there for hours. He has never allowed the fame of his career change him or his morals. His good soul is what I consider beautiful but obviously that is not art.

Something that you don't consider beautiful but is art.

Generally most films are considered art because of the impact that it has on people whether it makes them laugh or touches their emotions ect. However, the movie Austen Powers in my opinion is disgusting. I don't appreciate the grotesque slapstick humor and the plot is really stupid. However, it still is considered art by some people. Some people think this is one of the funniest movies ever made. Yes, the movie is intentionally a comdey and spoof  off old spy movies but I just don't like it.

The Trial of Galileo

Please read the excerpt from the Trial of Galileo pg 42-44. For some background: Galileo/Sun-Centered Solar System. What would you say to convince the Philosopher and Mathematician to abandon their paradigm and accept Galileo. Please blog your response. 1-2 paragraphs.

So in this trial, Galileo attempts to convince educated men, a philosopher and a mathematician, about his theories about the movement of stars. His evidence disproves the accepted theories of Aristotle during that time period. If I was in in Galileo's shoes I would also try to convince both men to actually look through the telescope to see the actual proof. If that didn't work, I would show them  the telescope to try to disprove the idea that we "painted the Medicaean Stars on it." If they still refused to believe me, then I would explain to them that what we believe to be fact now started off as new controversial ideas back then. I would explain to them, that new advancements and technologies would allow us to see things that they were unable to see and discover back then. That the paradigms of the past are very different then those of the future. I would also point out that since Aristotle could not possible go into space he would be unable to prove with one hundred percent certainty that anything was made of Chrystal and that is all just assumptions based on his observations.  I would then go into facts that disprove Aristotle's theory in terms that both the mathematician and philosopher would understand. I would show examples of when Aristotle was wrong in the past, then go into examples of when acclaimed mathematicians were wrong, and then when other philosophers were incorrect with their theories. This would allow the men to realize that everyone is human and can make mistakes and may not be correct. Hopefully, these men would be able to put asid their old paradigms and accept Galileo's.

Incognito Review

• Summarize what you think Eagleman's central idea was
• What points you found interesting or agreed with
• What points you disagreed with or didn't like
• Would you recommend it/like the book over all (Be honest this is a review.)

 I thought Incognito was a very interesting book. I first was a little afraid it might be very dry with just a bunch of facts and statistics thrown at the reader. However, it was much more than that. I think the author's central idea was that there are so many aspects of the brain that we don't know about yet and that we don't have a definite answer to why people do certain things and what causes things to happen. He shows the readers that there are varying opinions and theories as to why something happens. He also shows the reader that the brain is extremely complex and even with all our human advancements we haven't really gone really far below the surface as to how it really functions and impacts us.

I really thought the parts about how small and seemingly insignificant aspects of people could attract them to each other were really interesting. This would include dilated pupils or having names that start with the same letter, or even the certain day of a woman's menstrual cycle. It's kinda weird to know that these things have an affect on how people respond to each other. We don't even have control over it.
 I found it disturbing how tumors on your brain and other pressures or effects could basically alter your personality. A normal happy married man became attracted to children after getting a tumor. A person's sexual preference as well as all of their preferences and opinions on any topic help define the person as a individual. It's interesting to see how we really aren't responsible in some cases for who we are. It's like we don't control our brains, they control us.
I've already recommended it a few different people. My brother read it before too and even though he wasn't a fan of some of the ideas Eagleman proposes he does bring up really good points. I agree with my brother. This is a good book for people who are interested about theories on the workings of the human mind.