|
Sunday, 23 January 2011 20:23 |
 Fazia tempo que não olhava para a bandeira que representa a cidade onde nasci. Por isso foi uma "surpresa" ve-la de novo e somente agora perceber o simbolismo grosseiro que existe nela.
Fui pesquisar mais...
Do site da prefeitura
"A bandeira paulistana é branca, traz a Cruz da Ordem de Cristo em vermelho e ostenta o brasão do município no centro. O branco simboliza a paz, a pureza, a temperança, a verdade, a franqueza, a integridade, a amizade e a síntese das raças. O vermelho simboliza a audácia, a coragem, o valor, a galhardia, a generosidade e a honra. A cruz evoca a fundação da cidade. O círculo é o emblema da eternidade afirmando a posição de São Paulo como capital e líder de seu estado. Foi instituída pelo prefeito Jânio Quadros em 6 de março de 1987. Antes dela, a bandeira era toda branca com o brasão da cidade"
|
|
Click to watch video...
|
|
|
Thursday, 06 January 2011 00:01 |
|
 I was listening to an interview with Pharyngula's PZ Myers and in minute 14 the host inquires PZ about Sam Harris book proposition that science can determine human values.
PZ responds he's not finished reading the book and will withhold judgment until he's had time to digest the ideas, but goes on to say that Harris is "a little" wrong that science determines values and goes on to affirm that those values are personal and subjective.
I remembered quite clearly this passage in the moral landscape, and thought about it for a while.
What Harris writes about assumptions:
"To say that morality is arbitrary (or culturally constructed, or merely personal) because we must first assume that the well-being of conscious creatures is good, is like saying that science is arbitrary (or culturally constructed, or merely personal) because we must first assume that a rational understanding of the universe is good. Yes, both endeavors rest on assumptions (and, as I have said, I think the former will prove to be more firmly grounded), but this is not a problem. No framework of knowledge can withstand utter skepticism, for none is perfectly self-justifying. Without being able to stand entirely outside of a framework, one is always open to the charge that the framework rests on nothing, that its axioms are wrong, or that there are foundational questions it cannot answer. Occasionally some of our basic assumptions do turn out to be wrong or limited in scope—e.g., the parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry does not apply to geometry as a whole—but these errors can be detected only by the light of other assumptions that stand firm."
|
|
Click to watch video...
|
|
|
|
|
|
