Up@dawn 2.0

Saturday, April 14, 2018

Quiz Apr 19

1. What was the main message of Wittgenstein's Tractatus?

2. What did the later Wittgenstein (of Philosophical Investigations) mean by "language games," what did he think was the way to solve philosophical problems, and what kind of language did he think we can't have?

3. Who was Adolf Eichmann, and what did Arendt learn about him at his trial?

4. What was Arendt's descriptive phrase for what she saw as Eichmann's ordinariness?

5. What did John Rawls call the thought experiment he believed would yield fair and just principles, and what was its primary device?

6. Under what circumstances would Rawls' theory permit huge inequalities of wealth between people?

7. What was the Imitation Game, and who devised a thought experiment to oppose it?

8. What, according to Searle, is involved in truly understanding something?

9. How do some philosophers think we might use computers to achieve immortality?

10. What does Peter Singer say we should sacrifice, to help strangers?

11. Why did Singer first become famous?

12. How does Singer represent the best tradition in philosophy?

FL
13. Right-wing skepticism of the press and of academic experts has effectively trained two generations of Americans to what?

14. What did candidate Trump understand "better than almost everybody"?

15. "Don't even think about it..." said who?

16. Philosopher Michael Lynch says repeated self-contradiction by politicians like Trump can dull our sensitivity to what?

17. With what good news does Fantasyland conclude?

5. When does science progress, according to Karl Popper, and when does it prove things?

6. What's the difference between induction and deduction?

7. An unfalsifiable statement is not ____.

8. What's a paradigm shift?

9. What is a thought experiment?

10. In Thomson's violinist thought experiment, the violinist is analogous to what?

DQ
  • Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?
  • Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?
  • Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
  • If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond
  • Is "the banality of evil" relevant to our time?
  • If you were in Rawls's "Original Position," what kind of economic system would you argue for? 
  • In what sense are we "better off" in a society that allows huge income discrepancies between the least and best well-off?
  • Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about? 
  • What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself?
  • Are you a speciesist? Why or why not?
  • Is meat-eating ethically defensible?
  • Do you think there's an important ethical difference between Foot's and Thomson's versions of the trolley problem? Why or why not? What would you do?
  • Does Thomson's violinist thought experiment persuade you that even if a fetus is a person, that doesn't necessarily make abortion wrong?
thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia)
"What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence" - Wittgenstein's *Tractatus*: ow.ly/ClvRr #phil


thinkPhilosophy (@tPhilosophia)
Wittgenstein on problems translating language, computer science, and artificial intelligence. slate.com/articles/life/…



Ray Monk (@Raymodraco)
The video of my Turing/Wittgenstein lecture has now been posted & can be found here: britishwittgensteinsociety.org/event/eighteen…

  • April 26 is the birthday of the man who said, “Philosophy is like trying to open a safe with a combination lock: each little adjustment of the dials seems to achieve nothing, only when everything is in place does the door open”: Ludwig Wittgenstein (books by this author), born in Vienna in 1889. He was described by his colleague Bertrand Russell as “the most perfect example I have known of genius as traditionally conceived: passionate, profound, intense, and dominating.” He was the youngest of nine children; three of his brothers committed suicide. 


Wittgenstein was born into one of the richest families in Austro-Hungary, but he later gave away his inheritance to his siblings, and also to an assortment of Austrian writers and artists, including Rainer Maria Rilke. He once said that the study of philosophy rescued him from nine years of loneliness and wanting to die, yet he tried to leave philosophy several times and pursue another line of work, including serving in the army during World War I, working as a porter at a London hospital, and teaching elementary school. He also considered careers in psychiatry and architecture — going so far as to design and build a house for his sister, which she never liked very much 
Wittgenstein was particularly interested in language. He wrote: “The limits of my language are the limits of my mind. All I know is what I have words for.” And, “Uttering a word is like striking a note on the keyboard of the imagination.” -Writer's Almanac



  • “The world is everything that is the case.”
  • “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.”
  • “I give no sources, because it is indifferent to me whether what I have thought has already been thought before me by another.”
  • “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
  • “A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said.”
  • “A logical picture of facts is a thought.”
  • “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.”



  • What do we see when we observe the above figure? What we see in the above figure, of course, is dependent upon that with which we are familiar. Those who are not acquainted with the shape and form of a rabbit but are with that of a duck will see only a duck--and vice versa... When we normally speak of seeing in our everyday language-game, we are not inclined to say, "I see the picture as a duck," but rather we simply say, "I see a duck."
  • “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.”
  • “If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty.”
  • “Death is not an event in life: we do not live to experience death. If we take eternity to mean not infinite temporal duration but timelessness, then eternal life belongs to those who live in the present. Our life has no end in the way in which our visual field has no limits.” 
  • “I give no sources, because it is indifferent to me whether what I have thought has already been thought before me by another.” 
  • “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
  • “A nothing will serve just as well as a something about which nothing could be said.”
==



  • “The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”
  • “The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.”
  • “The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.”
  • It was as though in those last minutes he was summing up the lesson that this long course in human wickedness had taught us-the lesson of the fearsome word-and-thought-defying banality of evil.” 

New Republic (@NewRepublic)
Hannah Arendt's writings warn us that danger comes when people no longer care if something is true or not. bit.ly/2pieugo pic.twitter.com/j8Io2VanwA




"Justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many."

“Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with a similar liberty for others.” 

"David Hume thinks that people more or less naturally agree in their moral judgments and count the same qualities of character as virtues and vices; it is rather the enthusiasms of religion and superstition that lead to differences, not to mention the corruptions of political power.” 




“I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted.” 

“I'm afraid that the following syllogism may be used by some in the future:
Turing believes machines think
Turing lies with men
Therefore machines do not think."










Jaron Lanier on the future of virtual reality etc. - and he says AI is not a thing... On Point  11.29.17... Dawn of the New Everything
==
“To protest about bullfighting in Spain, the eating of dogs in South Korea, or the slaughter of baby seals in Canada while continuing to eat eggs from hens who have spent their lives crammed into cages, or veal from calves who have been deprived of their mothers, their proper diet, and the freedom to lie down with their legs extended, is like denouncing apartheid in South Africa while asking your neighbors not to sell their houses to blacks.” 

“If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his or her own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?” 

“The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.” 

“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” 

“To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race.” 

Just as we have progressed beyond the blatantly racist ethic of the era of slavery and colonialism, so we must now progress beyond the speciesist ethic of the era of factory farming, of the use of animals as mere research tools, of whaling, seal hunting, kangaroo slaughter, and the destruction of wilderness. We must take the final step in expanding the circle of ethics. -” 

“Philosophy ought to question the basic assumptions of the age. Thinking through, critically and carefully, what most of us take for granted is, I believe, the chief task of philosophy, and the task that makes philosophy a worthwhile activity.”




  1. Out for , Animal Charity Evaluators has a new list of recommended organizations working for animals: 


Peter Singer (@PeterSinger)
"Philosophy Changing Lives" - an interview with me on Why? Radio:
goo.gl/ztR4m9




45 comments:

  1. 8 AQQ 4-20
    1.When was Ludwig Wittgenstein born?
    2.When did he die?
    3.Where did he hold his seminars?
    4.When did he hold his seminars?
    5.Did most people think he was an idiot or a genius?
    6.How did Bertrand Russel describe him?
    7.Was he small or large?
    8.What nationality was he?
    9.What color eyes did he have?
    10.Did he lecture from prepared notes?
    11.He told his students not to waste time doing what?
    12.When did he write his first book?
    13.What was it entitled?
    14.What was the main message of the book?
    15.What was a central theme in his later works?
    16.What did he believe language led philosophers into?
    17.What did he believe was one cause of philisophical confusion?
    18.What did he mean by family resemblance?
    19.The Nazi Adolf Eichmann was a hard-working what?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #10 AQA 11/29
      1.) 1889
      2.) 1951
      3.) Cambridge
      4.) 1940
      5.) genius
      6.) "passionate, profound, intense and dominating"
      7.) small
      8.) Viennese
      9.) blue
      10.) No
      11.) reading philosophy books
      12.) 1922
      13.) "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"
      14.) the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding and that if we can't talk meaningfully about them, we should stay silent
      15.) "bewitchment by language"
      16.) all sorts of confusion
      17.) the assumption that all language works in the same way
      18.) recognizing family members from physical resemblances between them
      19.) administrator

      Delete
    2. #10 AQA
      1. 1889
      2. 1951
      3. Cambridge
      4. 1940
      5. Genius
      6. "passionate, profound, intense and dominating"
      7. Small

      Delete
    3. #8

      1. 1889
      2. 1951
      3. Cambridge
      4. 1940
      5. a genius
      6. he said he was passionate, profound, intense, and dominating
      7. Small
      8. he was Viennese
      9. Blue
      10. He did not
      11. reading Philosophy books
      12. 1922
      13. Tactatus Logico-Philosophicus

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Clayton Thomas (10)9:42 PM CDT

    4/20 - DQ's
    1. Being silent about things we can't prove leaves us with nothing, because nothing is true until it is proven to be so. I would say philosophy shouldn't concern itself with anything else because without language there is no communication and without logic there is no truth.

    2. I try my best to use language for spreading joy, spreading life experiences, and promoting the idea to life for yourself. Living for others with always leave you wanting/needing more.

    3. Anyone and everyone is capable of great evil, including me. That doesn't mean we will ever commit great evil but we are capable. You can never be sure, if you get enough people behind a message and a strong leader it could potentially happen again. Maybe not in the same way, but nonetheless would be a replica of the Holocaust. Yes, I will teach my children so that I can only hope that they don't become the next Hitler, because after all, we are all a kid from somewhere.

    4. What could I do? If I take on the US Army by myself or even with a couple hundred others, we don't stand a chance and if I don't fight back then millions would be deported, but I don't see much option to be honest. I definitely wouldn't join the fight.

    5. The "banality of evil" is relevant to our time with these cops on a power surge thinking that they have no laws when they have a badge on because who would knowingly arrest a cop, right?

    6. I think that there is a huge ethical difference because in Foot's someone is going to die you are just choosing the lesser of two evils, it takes the form of inclusive or, in Thomson's version either 5 die or 1 dies, but not both, which is of the form exclusive or, and in Thomson's you are actually pushing the person in harms way whereas in Foot's there already there. I would kill the one person because 5 lives are worth more than 1.

    7. No Thomson's violinist thought doesn't persuade me at all because an unborn fetus doesn't even have a chance at life without using the mother's body. Another fully developed human trying to use your body is a completely different scenario because you are physically taking from another person against there will. Now if a mother was forcefully inseminated against her will then its pretty much the same scenario, but the majority of mothers chose to have their children.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. #6

      1 - True, that's what I was thinking as well. There has to be some discussion of the unknown, otherwise we could never advance.

      2 - Though, there are a lot of people who get more enjoyment from others' lives than their own, even fictional characters'.

      3 - That's the sad part, really. We can't really keep anything from happening. I mean, if we could, the first holocaust wouldn't have happened.

      4 - I woldn't want to get involved with that either. It really just comes down to numbers. The opposition probably doesn't stand a chance in terms of physical force.

      5 - Well, that kind of implies that most cops are bad, but the vast, vast majority are good.

      6 - I agree. I never really saw why it was a moral dilemma. You saved 4 lives.

      7 - That's the way I see it. That argument never has persuaded me over.

      Delete
  4. Clayton Thomas (10)9:48 PM CDT

    4/20 - Alt. Quiz Quest.
    1. Scientists use real experiments, while philosophers tend to do what?

    2. According to Karl Popper, what is a key component of a scientific hypothesis?

    ReplyDelete
  5. 10-D.Q.

    1.) I don't think we should be silent about things we cannot prove because if we do not attempt to prove or theorize what we cannot then we obtain nothing.

    2.) Language is used as a tool to express emotion toward on another and to be able to present various ideas as well.

    3.) Ordinary people can be capable to great evil as all of us can be subjected to it. If there was a possibility of another holocaust, jobs would be needed to carry out various deadly acts from transporting, overseeing, and executing for the cause, thus becoming a well source of income for those who support it. Even though ordinary people carry our deadly and evil acts, to them it is a source of income and could boil down to "just another day on the job".

    4.) In would respond horrifically due to people, regardless or race, being rounded up for slaughter. The possibility to act against these acts are unlikely though.

    5.) Yes, banality of evil is and will continue to be relevant to our time until the end of time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. section 10 dq

    1. People should try to understand what it means for something to be proved, the requirements for it, and the weight it carries.

    2. I use language to help get me through life for a variety of purposes.

    3. Anyone is capable of doing hateful things. We can't be sure sure that a holocaust can't happen again, especially with the hateful stigmas that certain races or people of a certain culture have against them.

    4. I would try to help the people I can.

    5. Yes the "banality of evil" it is still relevant to our time people there are still people that choose to do evil things.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Section 10 Discussion Questions
    1. I don't think we should be quiet. There would never be any new discoveries if we never asked questions or tried to find out new information.

    2. Yes, I think language is used as a tool for managing social relationships and a medium. We also use it to express our feelings. You can convey different thoughts and emotions based on how you say things.

    3. I think ordinary people can be capable of great evil. Certain situations bring those thoughts and feelings out of you. You would just have to hope and pray that people would not go along with another Holocaust and realize that it is in no way okay to do something like that. But, as awful as it is to think about that doesn't mean that it couldn't happen. I will definitely teach my children about it, it's a part of history and they need to know about it and know that it would be wrong to participate in something like that.

    4. I would be disgusted, everyone deserves a shot at happiness and prosperity.

    5. Yes, I think it is relevant to the people of our time. It always has been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1 - Exactly, it's really the cornerstone of all modern knowledge. The only field that absolutely relies on no assumptions but still makes progress is mathematics.

      2 - I never have been able to really come up with an example of language that doesn't express emotions or some observation about the world.

      3 - That's what I see a lot of people saying. Sadly, there really is just no real way to be sure that something like that doesn't happen again.

      4 - I agree for anyone who's actually a legal citizen. But if we allow people to bypass immigration constraints without penalty, we don't have control of our borders, and are therefore by definition not a sovereign state.

      5 - If anything I just wouldn't call evil "banal" in nature. If it's actually evil, how could it possibly be boring?

      Delete
  8. 1. Most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding and that if we can't talk meaningfully about them, we should stay silent.

    2. He was drawing attention to the fact that there are many different things that we use language for, and that philosophers have become confused because they mostly think that all language is doing the same thing.

    3. Adolf Eichmann might have overseen their deportation to the death camps. His involvement in the Holocaust and his later trial for crimes against humanity were the focus of Hannah Arendt's reflections on the nature of the evil.

    4. He was something far more common but equally dangerous: an unthinking man.
    Additional Questions

    1. Ludwig W was born when? Passed when?

    2. The name of his first book?

    3. The idea of a private language of sensations doesn't make sense at all according to whom?

    4. The Nazi's had been introducing laws that took away Jewish rights since when?

    5. Adolf Eichmann was in charge of transporting Jews of Europe in what year?

    6. How were most of the Jews killed?

    7. What country did most of the camps take place at?

    8. Where did Eichmann secretly run away to? What country?

    9. What University did Hannah attend?

    10. Who was her teacher?

    11. Why couldn't Eichmann become a doctor?

    12. What words were used from Arendt to describe how she saw Eichmann

    13. What was Hitlers plan called?

    14. Who came up with the theory of gravity from seeing an apple fall from a tree?

    15. When was Karl Popper born?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Trevor Hutchens
    #10
    AQQ’s
    1. What is a paradigm and how did its ideology influence the message of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus?
    2. When did Adolf Eichmann die?
    3. How does inductive and deductive reasoning affect our lives?
    4. Can the progression of science sometimes be bad?
    DQ’s
    1. I don’t think so. Just because we can’t prove it doesn’t mean we should voice our opinions, but we shouldn’t say that the theory is undeniably true.
    2. I try to use language as a pictorial medium because I like to describe myself in the best way possible.
    3. Of course. We are all born human, and we can all turn bad at any given moment. It all depends on your state of mind.
    4. This is a very politically charged topic, and it all falls back on whether they are legal U.S. citizens or not.
    5. I don’t think so. We have moved on from that.
    6. The trolley problem is in my opinion one of the biggest ethical dilemmas of our time. Honestly, I don’t really know what I would do, other than “bury my head” so to speak and pretend nothings happening.
    7. Everyone has different opinions on abortion, but I believe that anytime after 5 or 6 weeks you cannot abort the child.

    ReplyDelete
  10. #10 Post for 11/29/2017

    DQ1: Philosophy should engage in whatever thinking it would like! The key to remember is that "should" is a subjective determination and depends entirely upon your desired outcome. Philosophy would be more respectable if it only addressed questions it had some hope of solving, but the reduction of the intellectual quality of philosophy that results from much of the mindless drivel it parades is hardly bothersome to me.

    DQ2: Language is many things, and everyone who uses language uses it in many different ways.

    DQ3: Evil is the natural consequence of separation from God, and it is fueled by a "rational self-interest." Thus, all are capable of evil - to be good is to choose to be good, day in and day out.

    DQ4: You didn't provide adequate information for anyone to intelligently answer this question. Are these illegal aliens? If so, then I'd happily support however I could, thereby ensuring both improvements to our national well-being and an acceptable quality of life for those who had violated our laws during their transition back to their home countries.

    DQ5: It is, although today we see something even worse developing: delusions of righteousness. Antifa is an excellent example of the progression of the banality of evil into the self-righteousness of evil. Only when we reject evil, all its goals, and all its _works_, will we be free of the national socialists similarly evil ideologies.

    DQ7: In the sense that you are free to possess what you earn. It may be distasteful, especially to those of us, like myself, who have chosen to answer the call of service rather than self-interest, but there is nothing more noble than a world in which each person can live according to his or her own beliefs.

    DQ8: Artificial intelligence is capable of performing tasks at a speed far in excess of humans, but thus far it isn't capable of doing anything humans can't, nor of doing everything that humans already do. My guess is that artificial intelligence will never be much of a threat, but time will tell.

    DQ10: If you are asking if I believe humans are more important than animals, then yes, I do. Humans are not merely intelligent and capable of feeling pain, and not only made in the image of God, but are also the only species that we can relate to as people. If another species shows up flying aircraft, then I'd probably assume that entity was a person, also, but until something actually HAPPENS to challenge the question of personhood, society has solved the problem with the consensus that "human rights" are, as their name implies, only for humans.

    ReplyDelete
  11. DQ1: How can we prove something if we can't talk about it? Philosophy should concern itself with everything it can concern itself with

    DQ3: If anyone wore the shoes of an evil man they would pity him. Everyone, including myself, is capable of evil. The holocaust happens over and over again. It happened during the colonization of America and the presidency of Andrew Jackson, and it happened again in nazi germany, and again in communist Asia, and recently it happened in Syria and on the borders of the world's most authoritative countries. It will continue to happen until we truly realize that other groups of people are not all pure evil.
    It will take more than saying aloud "I'm not racist" or "I'm not classist."

    DQ4: I don't know what I would do. Fortunately the American political system is too bureaucratic to even repeal one liberal health care reform law. I doubt even the new republican coalitions would allow people to be dragged out of their residencies. I would hope that someone with a loud voice speaks against the tyranny and I would follow them.

    DQ7: Although the gap between the wealthy and the working men is larger, even if the system was purged of the political machines that make it unfair (legalized bribery, free trade deals, tax evasion, etc.) there would still be a gap. A society where everyone is free do live as they please without working would not produce the technological and scientific innovation and progress that ours has.

    DQ8: It already has. Two AIs that were created began talking to each other in their own language and were shut down. They were relatively harmless but it's something I would be worried about when future AI's are created by governments, corporations, and other entities.

    DQ9: Personally, I would happily give every cent I earn over $50,000 a year after taxes to charity.

    DQ10: I am not. Although I eat meat, I do not condone the abuse of animals in any circumstance. They have minds, feelings, and souls too. If animals are too be eaten, I would prefer that they die naturally, peacefully, or painlessly.

    DQ11: Speciesism is different then racism. We don't eat other humans. To meet the human body's need for protein, we must consume more than nuts and eggs. Meat is the main source of this nutritional necessity. Other animals eat each other without thinking about it because they were made to consume meat. If snakes all became vegetarians, the mice would overeat the vegetation untill they lived in a dessert and had to move somewhere else, which would either destroy a habitat or leave the mice, snakes, and vegetation extinct.

    ReplyDelete
  12. #6

    1. Outside of mathematics, we can't really prove anything, so no, we should be able to discuss anything regardless of its provability. Yes; we should understand the deeper meaning behind the language we use, rather than just its logic and grammar, as that's not why we use it.

    2. I think we use it to express our thoughts and feelings. I don't think there's anything else we use it for that can't be explained in terms of these things.

    3. Anyone's capable of anything. We can never be sure a Holocaust will never happen again because we can never know what people are thinking. I'd just teach my children that they're responsible for their own actions. If they want to make a difference, they have to do something.

    4. If they were deported for legitimate reasons (e.g. illegal immigration), then I wouldn't care. Otherwise I wouldn't like it, but I'm not the activist type.

    5. Even if true evil were around, it would seem wrong to call it banal. Unoriginal, perhaps, but certainly not boring. A story is only as good as its villain.

    6. Capitalistic. It's really just the best way to run a healthy economy, and it's most in accord with human nature.

    7. The people with lots of money can invest that money to do some pretty remarkable things.

    8. Theoretically, artificial intelligence could surpass us in the sense that it alone would posses the entirety of human knowledge, but without running its own experimentation, it could never know anything we can't. The fact that captcha is still effective is proof that artificial intelligence still isn't there yet. We don't need to worry about it because it will never be able to do anything we don't allow it to.

    9. Apparently not much, since I don't give anything to charity.

    10. Yes; you'd have to be insane not to be. Who in their right mind would think a duck and a human should have to same rights?

    11. If it's not, there are many, many lions that have some explaining to do.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Section 9 DQ’s
    Katie Bauer

    1- No, if we strongly believe in something we should be able to voice our opinion and maybe have others agree with us as well, even if you can’t prove it.

    2- Yes using language allows for getting out of trouble in certain situations. Language also allows for human beings to express themselves and show the world what each individual is capable of. You can tell whether someone is super intelligent or not based on the way they communicate and talk to others.

    3- I believe that anyone could become evil. To become evil though, something must happen in your life to make you that way. No one really just wants to grow up and become an evil person for no reason at all. I will teach my children to be kind and treat others with respect but never let your guard down and completely trust everyone because there are some evil people in the world.

    4- If the government tried to do that, I guess I wouldn’t really have a say-so in their actions. I don’t believe that just me alone could stop them all from doing what they wanted to do.

    8- Artificial intelligence is not capable of doing anything that humans already can do, therefore, I do not believe it will be much of a problem in the future.

    9- I would be willing to give up most anything to someone in need if they truly needed it.

    10- No, I am not. Although I do believe animal abuse is one of the worst crimes, I do still believe that certain animals were put on this earth to feed us and provide us with protein so that we can become healthy, hard working human beings.

    11- To stay healthy, protein is a necessity to a human beings body. The best way to consume protein is through meat. Animals are put on this earth for a reason. Whether people choose to eat animal meat or not is their choice. That’s just the way the world works, the meat is there for a reason, why not make use of it and become stronger, more hard working individuals. As humans, we have to stay fit and be able to perform our daily tasks on this earth in order to be successful and by doing this, you first must take care of yourself by allowing your body to consume protein-packed, nutritious meals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1 - That's really the only way we ever make any progress.

      2 - Yeah, that's the kind of thing most people are putting. Language is irrevocably tied to reality and the self.

      3 - That's really the best advice you could give to someone. Trust is a good thing, but misplaced trust is one of the most dangerous things on earth.

      4 - That's what I see a lot of people putting. I think the question isn't if you'd oppose it forcefully, but rather just if you'd advocate for something peaceably.

      8 - True. There's really not any danger in artificial intelligence. It can't do anything we can't, and it would be easy to shut down at the press of a button if we actually needed to.

      9 - A lot of people like to say they give/would give stuff to the needy, but they almost never actually do it. That's the problem.

      10 - True. I don't see us as being anywhere close to the same plane as other animals. And if you don't agree, ask yourself when the last time a walrus tested a thermonuclear weapon was. I'll wait.

      11 - That's sort of the way I see it. Animals are just there, and we can eat them, so why not? If an omnivorous animal ate meat, would vegans also call it inhumane and/or needless murder? I don't think so.

      Delete
  14. Anonymous12:31 PM CST

    1. We shouldn't necessarily be silent about things we cannot "prove" but I think everything- in a sense, is provable.
    2. Philosophy should concern itself with just about everything, people have their own philosophies, even if that has anything to do with understanding language.
    3. Anyone has the ability to be "evil." Personally, I could never find myself to become close to evil because I allow too many chances for people to get their act together.
    4. I would hope that the Holocaust would never happen again and we should educate the youth on one of the worst, most terrifying genocides in history. Society needs to know that history can repeat itself and we don't need that.
    5. I think there is a really big difference between extremists and ordinary people, but the Gov't will make decisions based on their own bias views.
    6. If I had something to give to someone in need, I would do it in a heart beat.
    7. You do not have to eat meat to get necessarily protein and iron, I am not saying that you shouldn't eat it, but there are consequences of eating meat.

    ReplyDelete
  15. #10 Alternate Quiz Questions

    1. Wittgenstein's family was considered _____ under _____ laws.
    2. What did Wittgenstein mean by 'family resemblance'?

    ReplyDelete
  16. #10

    DQ 1- I don't think we should necessarily be silent about things we can't prove because even though we can't prove it doesn't mean we don't have something meaningful to say on the topic.

    DQ 3- I think any person is capable of evil. I also don't think that we could ever be 100% certain a Holocaust would never happen again because how would you prevent it? You can educate people about it and take preventive measures, but that isn't enough to make us 100% certain it will never happen again. I think I would let my children learn about it in school and if they want to talk about it or have questions I would try my best to help them understand, but I don't know how I would bring it up, especially while they are young, because I think they should definitely know about it and be educated about it.

    DQ 8- I think artificial intelligence couldn't surpass human intelligence because in the sense of computers and things like that, its humans that make the softwares and programs. In factories where machines can perform jobs, I think in that sense they could surpass humans because if it goes too far then humans won't have to learn how to do a job because a machine will do it and then the human isn't as intelligent.

    DQ 9- I'd like to think I could give up a luxury to help someone in need, it would definitely be an adjustment but knowing that it is helping someone would make it easier.

    DQ 10- I am definitely not a speciesist and its probably because I'm not really an animal person.

    ReplyDelete
  17. #10

    DQ1- We should not be silent about what we cannot prove, however, we should not say that what we are saying is true for all.

    DQ2-Yes I use language as a means to express my thoughts and feelings. It is vital in order maintain social relationships.

    DQ3- Yes we as ordinary people are capable of evil. The holocaust is an important example as well as current events. In order to make sure that history does not repeat itself we must learn from it. Something we obviously are not doing.

    DQ4- I would be horrified and recognize what was happening. I don't think a majority of the country would respond the same way. Look at the Japanese Internment camps that coincided with the Holocaust. We didn't see that what we were doing was wrong. We made excuses for it. The risk of something like this happening is all too real.

    DQ5- The banality of evil in modern day is seen with racism and white nationalism. These people are normal and are with many others. The majority of them are not doing anything outright evil, but they are supporting something that is evil and are doing no good.

    DQ6-I don't think that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence in intelligence itself, but I do think it could pass humans in actual ability.

    DQ7- Meat eating is natural for humans for as long as we have been around. We need meat for survival. The problem comes with the conditions in which the animals are treated.

    ReplyDelete
  18. DQ. #10
    1. Is vegetable eating just as unsustainable as meat eating?
    2. Why might meat eating be considered immoral?
    3. Why is it necessary to surrender luxury?
    4. How does giving up luxuries in its own sake benefit the less fortunate?
    5. Is it possible for artificial intelligence to surpass human intelligence?
    6. How can something you have designed and calculated the limitations thereof become superior to you with an intellect which you limited to be beneath your own?
    7. Is some inequality natural?
    8. How do you weed out banal evil?
    9. In what sense are we worse off for having income inequality?
    10. What would you do in a society that seeks to round up and kill you and your ilk?
    11. Are you a vegitarian?
    12. Why worry about artificial intelligence?
    13. Are there instances where being silent when you dont know something is good?
    14. Why does humanity deserve deference over other species?
    15. What makes humanity different?
    16. Are some people just better than others?
    17. Where does intelligence come from in your opinion?
    18. Why bother making AI, if we are afraid if it becoming self sustaining?
    19. Do you think that being banal and evil is ok?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Discussion Answers #6
    1. I don't think being silent is necessarily the answer. A lot of highly talked about issues are things we can't prove. I think just because we can't prove them doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed, but they should definitely not be as a one-size-fits-all for everyone.
    2. All of the above? Language is just our main form of communication and it satisfies all of our communication needs.
    3. Ordinary people are definitely capable of great evil. Some of the most evil people were 'ordinary' people. Can we be sure than another Holocaust would never happen? I think that in today's society it would be much harder- I would hope in just about any developed country the citizens would try to overthrow the government if something like that were attempted. However, some people are just blind to things like that, don't care enough to do anything, etc. If I had children I would teach them to love everyone and, while educating them about things like the Holocaust and slavery that happened in history, I would teach them that we don't hate anyone and would never want that to happen again.
    4. I would be incredibly hurt and disgusted with our country and government ( I mean I am now, thanks Trump!). I would call my Senators, Congressmen, etc. I would probably go to rallies and protests and stuff.
    5. It is and probably always will be.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dqs 11/30/2017
    1. I don't think we should be silent, nothing would ever change.Yes we should do more to understand
    2.Language I believe is a tool.
    3.I think anyone can be capable of great evil. How or what someone defines as evil is something else to talk about. Evil thought and intentions are in the eyes of the beholder.
    4.I would respond with fear. I would probably lean on close friends to help aid me.
    5.Depends on who you ask
    7.I am not sure how to answer that question. I'd think if someone works and makes their money the right and honest way that their money is theirs. No discrepancies to me sounds like a world egalitarians.
    8.I think it will but I also think we are far from that. That is if everyone is using the proper definition of AI
    9. I don't think I posses many luxuries. My phone maybe... I wouldn't give up what I have earned on my own such as my house or cars. I earned my phone as well.. So I don't know how to answer that question.
    10.I think so.
    9.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Fonshae Knight9:28 PM CST

    Section #6: DQ#6
    I think it is ethical for humans to eat meat. Simply because animals eating animals is a fact of life and always has been (it’s the food chain at work) and humans eating other animals is no less ethical than a lion or a shark or a venus fly trap doing so. When Benjamin Franklin opened up a fish and saw a smaller fish inside of it, he reasoned, “If you eat one another, I don’t see why we mayn’t eat you.” And I definitely agree with him on that because its life. We need meat for our nutrition, so without that I feel like we will be losing a big part of what we need.

    ReplyDelete
  22. #6 DQ
    • Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?
    yes I think words are very important tools in painting pictures of feelings and thoughts.
    • Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
    No I think it takes some devilish influence to be capable of great evil. I am not. We can never be sure if there is still a devil. I will teach them that we are all equal and you shouldn’t treat or think of anyone less than equal.
    • Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about?
    I think it took human intelligence to create artificial intelligence, so they are on the same level. I don think robots will be taking over the world without someone creating them to do so.
    • What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself?
    dishwasher and cable
    • Are you a speciesist? Why or why not?
    Yes. 9 times out of 10 I’ll choose a human over any animal. But I’m pretty sure animals are speciesist also.
    • Is meat-eating ethically defensible?
    We are part of a food web, subtracting ourselves can be detrimental to other species in the web

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hayley Gray9:30 AM CST

    #6 DQ
    1. No, we should voice our opinion as to why we believe what we do. I do not think philosophy should.
    2. Yes, language is a great way to be able to express emotions and feelings.
    3. Yes, I think everybody can tick under the right amount of pressure. You cannot be sure. I would teach them to be kind to others and never try to harm or discriminate.
    4. I would voice my opinion as to why they should not do it and try to get others to see the way I see it. Myself alone has little to no power to stop it from happening alone.
    5. The banality of evil is and will probably always be relevant to our time.
    8. I think Artificial Intelligence already has surpassed human intelligence. We should worry about creating something we are unable to control.
    9. My excessive shopping habits.
    11. I for one am a vegetarian because it has always grossed me out and I feel bad about eating it. But, if God really put animals on this earth to be consumed then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. DQ #6
    1- I don't think we should be silent about things we can't prove, but at the same time we should admit that we don't know everything and we can't expain everything.
    2- Yes,language is one of the most important tools that everyone needs to have to express the feelings, thoughts and ideas and share them with everyine else.
    3- I think that ordinary people are also capable of great evil, but most improtant is that the people who are in power and have access to resources that can afford buying weapons and as we can see now ISIS and what they do because of having countries that support them. I don't think I am capable of great evil because I am knowledgable of the concequences of doing evil and fully knowledgable that it's wrong, and also i don't have any issues with anyone that permits me to harm them. we can't be sure that the Holocaust will not happen again simply because of the advanced weapons that most of the countries have now.
    4- I would disagree of course because this can't be a solution to end the volient and as we can see now all the terror attacks are done by americans most of the times.
    5- No, the banality of evil isn't relevant to our time because it is happening and it's having a great affect on people so it could do change the world.
    8- I think artificial intellegance has already surpassed human intelligance as we can see today computers and phones and how it's essential for our lives.
    9- I would give up the things that are extra such as the multiple phones or computers and I will keep what is necessary for me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. #6
    Essay Links for Potential Installment Topics:

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/68748/
    I Believe in the Car Radio

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/144194/
    Touching the Divine

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/46931/
    The Beatles Live On

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/54048/
    The Key to a Long Life

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/149627/
    The Search Is On

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/106935/
    Your Dream Must Be Bigger Than Your Fear

    https://thisibelieve.org/essay/95370/
    The Last Arpeggio B-Flat Chord

    ReplyDelete
  26. Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?
    Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?
    Language is definitely used as a tool for both interacting for necessity and also expression.

    Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
    I think ordinary people can turn evil. whether its a child that suffered neglect and abuse and became an evil adult, or an adult affected by conditioning and group think.
    If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond
    I wouldn't think that was right, and I could definitely see myself protesting.

    Is "the banality of evil" relevant to our time?
    If you were in Rawls's "Original Position," what kind of economic system would you argue for?
    In what sense are we "better off" in a society that allows huge income discrepancies between the least and best well-off?
    A society where everyone is morale and charitable (AKA no society).
    Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about?
    I think it definitely will if it hasn't already. There is already a robot citizen who said she wants to have a child, and that is incredibly worrisome.
    What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself?
    I don't really need much, or so i think now, so i wouldn't mind moving to somewhere to do mission work without cell service and nice housing.
    Are you a speciesist? Why or why not?
    Is meat-eating ethically defensive?
    From a survival standpoint yes, but in a world with so much access to farmed goods, no.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Should we be silent about things we can’t prove
    No we should never be silent about our opinions. You can still persuade without actual proof.
    2.language is the best way for communication
    3. Ordinary people are capable of great evil. I am capable of it as anybody but it just depends on whether you decide to do it or not.
    4. I would not have a right to say anything about it nor would I... they should just get their citizenship.
    5.no it is not relevant to our time.
    9.my phone and eating habits
    3. Dq 10 it is important to give up surrender luxury bc we don’t need luxury as humans in my opinion. Whatever you need to survive is all that is necessary

    ReplyDelete
  28. #8
    1. Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language? I think we should still promote discussion and hypothesis of things yet to be proven.
    2. Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what? I use it for all of those examples
    3. Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?
    If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond? Well there's not quite such a thing as ordinary people. Everyone is different and capable of much more than they can probably comprehend. I don't think we would have the same thing as the holocaust happen twice without greater put upon us, we have developed as a people a lot since then in many aspects. I think it would take a grand effort to deport such a vast amount of people, but if they did it would be traumatic especially for the area I reside in.

    4. Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about? Certainly guidelines are put in place for such a thing not to happen. Machines can never obtain the enigma that lies within our minds.
    5. What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself? I don't really need all the technology provided today.

    6. Is meat-eating ethically defensible? Yes, other animals have hunted and ate eachother since the dawn of time. It's natural. Only thing against us is we don't actually hunt them ourselves we go to outlets that provide them on a mass scale.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 1) No
    2) No
    3) I use it as a tool
    4) Yes they are. sure am
    5) We can not be sure it won't happen again, therefore we must continue on. I'll my kids what I know
    6) I must follow why duty
    7) Everything is revalent
    8) Communism, that will do good in practice
    9) Even our least well off is better off then the least off the past
    10) No, because it is fed with our intelligence
    11) I don't think we should worry about it. I've seen the Terminator
    12) I've already signed a blank check, to get where I'm at. I'm prepared for anything
    13) Yeah, humans have proven to be the dominate species
    14) Yep probably can
    To answer Villarosa
    1.) 1889
    2.) 1951
    3.) Cambridge
    4.) 1940
    5.) genius
    6.) "passionate, profound, intense and dominating"

    ReplyDelete
  30. Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?

    No, you should attempt at your best to prove them. No, because logical language fluctuates depending on the tongue.

    Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?

    Totally, ultimately thats what language was developed for, fluent communication socially and self expression.

    Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?

    Yes, absolutely, which is terrifying, look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. We can’t people will obey orders, we crave uniformity. I will teach them to keep their whits about them.

    If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond

    If they weren’t ILLEGAL immigrants, which are the ones that our President wants out, the ones that take advantage of the capitalist system illegally, than I’d say the move is racist.

    Is "the banality of evil" relevant to our time?

    No

    If you were in Rawls's "Original Position," what kind of economic system would you argue for? 

    Still Capitalist.

    In what sense are we "better off" in a society that allows huge income discrepancies between the least and best well-off?

    Because uniformity breeds mediocrity, and disdain.

    Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about? 

    No absolutely not, We created A.I. it is limited by human creation. They have many limitations. They cannot feel. A.I. is a good movie though, I recommend.

    What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself?

    A lot of luxuries are subjective. If I were to give up everything I would be living like Thoreau

    Are you a speciesist? Why or why not?

    Nah, I mean we use animals but exploit them, idk. Need to know more.

    Is meat-eating ethically defensible?
    Oh yeah, animals are for us. They taste good.

    9 Questions:

    Where did President Trump Strike in Syria?
    Why did he Strike Syria?
    Has he attempted a missile strike before?
    What is Russia’s response to the missile strike?
    Do you believe he should have acted with more force? Or less?
    Why did Mueller order a raid on Trumps Lawyer?
    Do you think they had probable cause?
    Have you ever lied? Blatantly?
    Should the FBI be investigating so hard on Trump? Or is there time better spent elsewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  31. #8
    Alternate Quiz questions
    LH
    1. Who wrote "Tractatus Logico-Philosopicus?"
    2. What was Wittgenstein's general idea about language?
    3. What was Wittenstein's method to 'solve' a philosophical problem?
    4. Which philosopher was connected to Adolf Eichmann?
    5. How did Arendt describe what she saw in Eichmann?
    6. How was Arendt's philosphy different from the armchair philosophy?
    7. Why did Arendt think Eichmann was terrifying?
    8. What book by John Rawls changed the way people thought about things?
    9. What was the name of Rawls' thought experiment?
    10. What was Rawls' "Liberty Principle?"
    11. What was Rawls' "Difference Principle?"
    12. What American political philosopher challenged Rawls' idea?
    13. What did Alan Turing help invent?
    14. What is Turing's test for artificial intelligence?
    15. How does a computer pass the Turing Test?

    ReplyDelete
  32. #8
    1. No we should not necessarily be quiet, but we should be aware that we can not prove it.
    2. Yes
    3. Yes they are, myself included. Everyone is capable of doing bad things of any magnitude.
    4. I would say if they are here illegally then that is nobody's fault but their own. If it was simply based off of their race then I would have a problem with it.
    5. No
    6. Probably still capitalism

    ReplyDelete
  33. Jasper Von Buseck12:51 PM CDT

    #8

    April 19 DQ's

    Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?

    I don't think we should be silent about things we can't prove, rather we should be vocal about the possibilities of said topic to stimulate enough social interest in the hopes of generating enough research to prove whether it's possible, or correct.

    Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?

    I use language in several ways. For one, I obviously use it pragmatically to communicate with people about whatever situation I may be in, as well as to understand the situations of others. I also use language to make comedy out of daily situations. I use language to allow others to decompress after experiencing stressful days and/or events. I use language to express my ideas and feelings, and to understands the thoughts and feelings of others as well.

    Are ordinary people capable of great evil? Are you? How can we be sure that a Holocaust will never happen again? What will you teach your children about that?

    It would be useful to define "great evil" to begin with. I'd assume from the context of this question great evil would describe participating in a corrupt government aiming to accomplish mass genocide. It's hard to defend someone who would commit such actions, but the fact that it happened in history shows that it is indeed possible, if people are desperate enough. Something people often forget is that the German people were living in poverty during the 1940's. There's wasn't enough food or money to go around. People were literally starving; unable to feed their families and loved ones. That's the situation that rationality is replaced with survival. When someone is facing inevitable extinction, is when someone would do anything to live. In this situation, it is indeed possible that me, or any other normal person, would become capable of Great Evil. The only way we can prevent the Holocaust from happening again is to pay attention to history, make sure people don't forget the events of the past, and let people acknowledge the differences and similarities between modern and historical events. The parts of the Holocaust I would teach my children would be composed of everything that was historicaly accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  34. #8
    -Should we be silent about things we can't prove? Should philosophy concern itself with more than understanding the logic of language?

    I think people should still be passionate about things no one else believes. Philosophers should understand that it's more than just understanding the logic.

    -Do you use language as a pictorial medium, a tool for managing social relationships and expressing our thoughts and feelings, or what?

    Language is used to express thoughts and feelings and help communicate what's going on inside your head to others, however, it doesn't necessarily need to be verbal.

    ReplyDelete
  35. #8
    April 19th
    DQ's
    1. People should still talk about things that can't be proved. They shouldn't just let them fade away.
    2. I use language as a connection to fellow humans.

    ReplyDelete
  36. #8
    -If the government attempted to round up, detain, and deport millions of Latinos and Muslims, how would you respond?

    This would absolutely be ridiculous. I understand that there have been attacks committed by Muslims, but this does not mean to characterize all of them as terrorists or mark them as dangerous. I get that there also have been Latinos that have come to the US illegally, but they’ve already came, and if they’re causing no harm, let them be.

    -Will Artificial Intelligence surpass human intelligence, or has it already? Is this something we should worry about?

    I feel as though with the rate that it’s already advancing at, artificial intelligence is bound to surpass us. We already depend on electronics for so much. It’s truly scary and I feel as though we should be worried.

    -What "luxuries" are you prepared to give up, to help people less fortunate than yourself?

    I feel as though in order to survive, a human doesn’t actually need much. There are so many things we could give up that we don’t necessarily need. We have way more clothes than we need, way more food, spacious homes, plenty of shoes. Everyone is obviously in different situations when it comes to the number of belongings they have, but in reality, we don’t need much at all.

    ReplyDelete
  37. #8
    -Are you a speciesist? Why or why not?

    I wouldn’t describe myself as a speciesist because that’s not what I am, but I do feel as though we humans are on top of other species. That doesn’t mean we abuse or disregard any suffering we cause to animals.

    -Is meat-eating ethically defensible?

    If we take a look at other species around the world, many of them eat other animals in order to survive, so why can’t humans do the same? I understand that we can survive by just eating plants, and this may sound like a dumb question, but why is it okay to eat plants but not animals? Plants are also living beings that go through photosynthesis as well as cellular respiration which is what animals go through. Plants actually provide oxygen and we eat them, so doesn’t it seem like we actually really need plants? I want an ethical explanation of why we can eat plants.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1.) 1889
    2.) 1951
    3.) Cambridge
    4.) 1940
    5.) genius
    6.) "passionate, profound, intense and dominating"
    7.) small
    8.) Viennese
    9.) blue
    10.) No
    11.) reading philosophy books
    12.) 1922
    13.) "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus"
    14.) the most important questions about ethics and religion lie beyond the limits of our understanding and that if we can't talk meaningfully about them, we should stay silent
    15.) "bewitchment by language"
    16.) all sorts of confusion
    17.) the assumption that all language works in the same way
    18.) recognizing family members from physical resemblances between them
    19.) administrator

    ReplyDelete
  39. GK Quiz on Weights and measures for people who are looking online general Knowledge posts.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.