Alaska survived a late-game rally by Ginebra to win 104-90, leading the series at 2-0 and now one win away from the title.read more
Check out which loveteams dropped and which ones came out on top this week!read more
The ADMU Lady Eagles overpowered UST in 4 sets, ousting the Golden Tigresses and advancing to the V-League finalsread more
Guess the theme! Have you seen Twilight, Sister Act and these other movies? Share your thoughts and reviews in here!read more
Visually breath-taking and action-packed, Star Trek: Into Darkness will please casual and hardcore fans alike.read more
The way that the construct has evolved is a consequence of its very nature (specifically, the nature of its components). You may not like it, but you need it to survive. If you don't like it, you're free to live without it. You can complain all you want, but unless everybody realizes the need for a change, there will not be any, collectively.
While the outcome is, for all intents and purposes, "artificial," it is only natural that it evolved this way, as a result of our sentience. And as sentience is intrinsically part of our "natural" humanity, the artificiality of things is only but "natural."
The above sentence means that I am not arguing that constructs are frivolous. Not necessary=unnecessary. So, I never said that constructs were unnecessary.
My two sentences are not contradictory, they are paradoxical.
Constructs are necessary but they still interfere with human nature. It would be like the drug Cumadin for heart patients. Cumadin is a blood thinner needed after bypass surgery. Although it is necessary Cumadin interferes with the body's natural blood clotting process. Sometimes, the body overcompensates which has serious effects on the body.
How does a construct affect human nature? I gave my prostitution example above but I will give another one. Whether people care to admit it or not, adult males gravitate towards females that are between the ages of 15-17. Why? Scientists say that this happens to be the healthiest, most fertile time for females and youthful entities have no marks of disease upon them. Society condemns this through statutory rape laws. This is an example of construct affecting an aspect of human nature.
^Right. Are not paradoxes intrinsically contradictory statements? But I won't that point.
In your example of that drug, you are faced with a choice - you either need to take it to make sure your bypass surgery is a success and you survive, or you choose not to take it to make your blood clot naturally. You can even take this one step further and choose not to have that surgery to begin with, so as to make your blood clot naturally. Obviously, a rational human being will take the one which will increase his chances of survival (self-preservation).
It may not be the most convenient choice, but it still is a means to your ultimate end. Given your cognitive capacity, you are also able to establish workarounds, or just endure the situation for its natural duration.
In the same way, if you are fed up with society's restrictiveness, you are free to go out and live your own life outside of it. Nobody is stopping you from doing that. But, see, I don't see you doing that. Because even if you feel that you are being restricted, you will still choose to live within society because its overarching purpose in your existence far outweighs the benefits of being "natural" and "free."
^Right, so you chose to focus on that point instead, which is tangential to the topic at hand.
It may be an ironic contradiction, but it is a contradiction, nonetheless, isn't it? A paradox is a group of statements that work against each other.
Can you explain how:
(1) constructs are not unnecessary (i.e. necessary)
(2) constructs interfere with our "true nature"
actually serve to not work against each other?
If they do work against each other, will you concede that they contradict each other, despite the fact that they are also ironic contradictions and form a paradox?
Homo sapiens sapiens have become anatomically around for 200,000 years, not 1 million. You probably mean homo erectus? They are intellectually inferior.
I'll get back to this later.
Mas gusto ko pang basahin ang STS readings ko eh