the source of morality

            i believe that morality comes from the social and political traditions that vary from person to person. i believe that depending on the upbringing, the social environment, the political orientation of said environment. this follows the logic of my own morales being much more different from that of most ticos. even though within the Costarican society morales change, mine are even more different from them.  i was brought up in a very liberal environment, with a women's rights activist and a socialist journalist as parents, my morales obviously very different from the often macho, religious and capitalistic morales.
            nevertheless i also believe that those traditional morales that each society imprints have been created by other, less honourable means, and that they often are useful particularly to one group or another. that is why morale should be then developed through reasoning and observation. this way we get to chose which of the traditional values we want to keep, which ones we dont and what else is out there. 

eating meat is moral because people naturally eat meat for food.
i agree with this statement, simply because its the most logical one. humans are omnivores, which means that we eat basically anything. we eat plants, meat and anything in between, so not eating meat would be against our nature. naturally there is a certain meat diet and it should be carefully selected meat, not just any hamburger, or hotdog. in general im against eating meat simply because 80% of the meat we eat is a shitty product.

i'm still on fire!

To what extent is knowledge gained in Mathematics similar and/or different to knowledge gained in History?

knowledge gained in Math should in theory be pure, objective and universal. in history there are so many other human factors that manipulate history and the way we get things from it. history is much more influenced by emotion, sense perception, even language, than mathematics. Math should only depend on reasoning and logic, and most of the time it does. Reasoning and logic are much more universal and uniform than emotion or language.

i'm on fire!

Is Mathematics discovered or invented?

R:// i think that this is a trick question, because math isnt actually a thing, its more like a tool, an instrument to describe another thing. this means that the thing it describes has obviously always been there, however the ways to describe that thing havent. it is not like we invented the right angle, we just gave it a name and a number. which means that the use of math has been discovered, but the math itself has been invented, so that we could discover how to describe an isosceles triangle, or whatever.

What do you understandd by George Orwell's observation, 'Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'? To what extent do you think it is true?

What do you understandd by George Orwell's observation, 'Who controls the past controls the future, who controls the present controls the past'?  To what extent do you think it is true?

R://
George Orwell is basically saying what everybody knows: whoever is in charge of public information, is in charge of history, and whoever controls history controls what is to come.
this means that whoever controls information about the past, history books, school texts, movies, television, any record of the past, can use it to shape history into whatever they need it to be. As an example, China has only very few public records of the past, and they are government controlled so that the Chinese people shall never question any of it. this allows the government to act as they please, and still be able to justify their actions with new historical information, made by them. if they can control the way the Chinese see their past, they can control what the Chinese see in their future, which gives them control over them, entirely. i don't agree with Orwell completely, i believe that it gives them a very powerful tool, however if anybody would truly wish to rebel and not be controlled by their past, nor their future, it could be done. this means that if the desire to live without these restrictions mentioned by Orwell was strong enough, it could be done, and people could live without a defined and standardised historical past.

History KI's

1. To what extent does logic shape the perception of history more than emotion?
2. What role does language play in shaping the perception of history?

3. To what extent does history depend on a combinations of all of the ways of knowing?