Daily 5

You accidentally discover an invention that can immediately help millions of people; but only if you act immediately. On the other hand, if you just wait three months, you can secure a patent and get rich. Which do you choose and why?

If I accidentally discovered an invention that can immediately help millions of people, I would have a difficult time deciding what to do. I would want to help all the people, but who wouldn’t think about the patent and the money? There would be many outside forces that would affect my decision. I would ask someone I was close to about what to do, someone like my parents or a close friend. I would feel a lot of guilt if I did not help those millions of people. I would consider the fact that if I helped those people, would I earn the money after anyway?  In the end, I would probably decide to help the millions of people, but because I took so long to decide, I would not have acted fast enough. I would have chosen to help the millions of people because of the guilt I would feel if I didn’t, the amazing feeling I would get if I did, and the accomplishment of saving millions of people. I would have definitely thought about waiting three months to become rich, but I could not live with myself knowing I could have helped save others. Millions of people are a lot of lives to be changed, I am just one person. Knowing that I could make that big a difference would probably be the final decision maker. I would choose to help the millions of people, but I would second guess myself and take some time to make a decision. 

My Hegelian and Vortex History about Tom and Cathy Weekly

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8295038

     My theory of history, as shown in this video, demonstrates Hegelian Dialectic and Vortex history. I think this best describes history because there are two events that then cause another event. The pattern continues with each new event. The events start as a major event that cause smaller events to happen. The smaller events happen leading to the ending major event, just like the Vortex history. I agree with the each type of history, but I think that Hegelian Dialectic and Vortex History best describe the theory of history.

Daily 4

Is modern life "always" better than it was in the past?

     Modern life is not “always” better than it was in the past, but when you live in the modern world, you feel as if the world is so much better. Because the human population has recently adapted to computers, cell phones, and other forms of technology, we seem to be “better off”. People say that they could not live without their computer. In part, this may be true, but logically humans could survive without technology. A modern job in the United States usually involves emails, conference calls, and the use of the internet. A modern person’s free time usually involves a social networking site, the television, or a cell phone. To some extent modern life is better than it was in the past. Another example is how the world is constantly learning new information and discovering new information. This makes modern life generally better than it was in the past because we are learning and using new facts and information. When you look at the problems our society faces right now, such as obesity, then you could have a different answer to the question. So many people sit in front of a television or computer for several hours a day, eating modern day fast food or junk food. This was never a problem in the past. There are many different arguments you could make for either side, but in the end, modern life is not “always” better than it was in the past. There are times when the modern life seems better, such as are growing knowledge of technology, but modern life is not always better.  

Daily 3

Will a "hypertext" world make us more accepting of cyclic history?

- Ira Socol, Michigan State University

      A hypertext world would make us, the majority of the human population, more accepting of cyclic history. Hypertext means text that is displayed on an electronic device, especially a computer. When a person uses the mouse to click from one website to another or to search something on Google, there is no specific beginning or end. In a book, there is a clear beginning that has a clear end. It never goes in a cycle. On the internet, there are so many people around the world involved on social networks and other websites. If one person viewed a video on YouTube and then wrote a comment about it and then sent it to a friend that has never seen it, then the friend would watch the video, write another comment, and send it to his or her friend. This is an example of the cyclic history that is always occurring and repeating itself. Another example is that when you view something you can go back and then go forward. When you download a program or music, the computer downloads, the person listens or watches, and then you download again in the same process. People could accept the idea of cyclic history in the form of the Internet. The hypertext world is more of a cyclic type of history, rather than a linear, vortex, or Hegelian type of history. Cyclic history is sometimes hard to find, but the example of the internet, downloading music, and the process of using a computer explains cyclic history. If people put the concept of cyclic history to the concept of the Internet and how it works, then we could be much more accepting of history in the form of a cycle.   

Daily 2

3. Don't our traditional forms of information communication, notably "the book" and especially "the textbook" contribute to our belief in linear history? 

Our traditional forms of information communication, notably “the book” and especially “the textbook” contribute to our belief in linear history. Books, but mostly textbooks, are written in order of events. A math textbook, for example, the student would learn about variables first. Then the student would be able to solve algebraic equations, than he or she could solve systems of equations. If the student did not know what variables were, he or she could not solve systems of equations. The same is true with history text books. If the text book is about American civilization, the student would learn about Christopher Columbus before he or she learns about George Washington. Information from a textbook or a book makes more sense when it is in a chronological order. In books, the main character is introduced. The reader learns about the main character. Then, events cause other events to happen. The book is about the events and what caused them. If the reader were to write what happened in a book, he or she could easily make a timeline describing the events that happened. Books have been around longer than our knowledge or belief in linear history. People learned about information from books or other people. When a person tells another person a story from a book, he or she tells it in order of events in a linear way. This is how people understand what happened. Books and textbooks give people new knowledge that they later convey to others to teach them what happened. Linear history is an easier way to teach people. It helps them understand, because it is one event after another. “The book” and “the textbook”, definitely contribute to our belief in linear history. 

Daily 1

Does history progress? Is an elephant really "better" than a mammoth? Is modern life "always" better than it was in the past? Haven't there been massive genocides in every century?

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that progress, as a verb, means a forward movement or a gradual betterment. History does progress as a forward movement but necessarily as a gradual betterment. History as chronological events moves forward. For example, from year 1 C.E. to year 2011 C.E., history has moved forward. History does not always improve as time goes on. Events such as the United States relationship with the Middle East show that history does not progress. An elephant is different than a mammoth. “Better” does not describe the relationship. The elephant has only evolved from the mammoth. In some cases it has progressed because the elephant has evolved to meet the requirements of its environment. In an extreme condition, such as severe cold, a mammoth would be better because it could survive. Modern life is not “always” better than in the past, but the majority of the time it seems to be, because as a population, we have learned to survive with what we have. With technology, like a computer or a cell phone, the majority of the human population would not be able to function without the technology. There are problems though, with conditions like obesity. If people were not glued to the television every day, there may not be as many conditions of diabetes. Modern life is not always better it other situations because of the massive genocides in every century. There have been genocides in every century. From the persecution of the Christians by the Romans to the Nazi’s to the former Yugoslavia, genocides have been a problem for many countries for many centuries. History does progress as events but it does not always progress as an improvement on society and culture.