Differential Equations

[gugooju]

You know spending an average of 8 hours in the corner room of the quad in the math building everyday for the last week, sometimes by yourself with nothing but the white walls and the chalkboard and your math book... is a bad idea when around 2:30am in the morning you find that you've been talking to the chalkboard for quite sometime... and it wasn'

Comments

[angelhedhipster]

you, my darling, are magnificent! at least it wasn't the floor tiles, that's when u know u have issues...

failing: it's all in the wrist really

[my_lode]

i almost dropped this quarter because i'm doing so astoundingly awfully. it's really not worth the tuition to see my sorry ass fail every class. anyway, just wanted to comiserate, i hope your week talking to the chalk board helped. love you buddy.

[stumbleine9]

i wish i had a chalkboard to talk to. my printer likes to ignore me.

Philosophy Discussion Board

[countchoculax]

It is said that one ought not punish wrongdoers as in the end God will see that they get their due payment. If we can not prove the existence of God, is it then right to return wrong for wrong?

Re: Philosophy Discussion Board

[fireworksordie]

Well, just because there's no God, or we haven't found proof of his existence yet, it doesn't necessarily imply that we, as mere humans, can step in to fill his shoes. And furthermore, without a God to provide some objective morality, everything is just subjective, so how can we, in good conscience, impose subjective morality in the form of punishment to those whose morals may not match ours. There is no judge, and no final arbiter, so we can't just decide one faction has it right. Who decided?

Without God, everything is just a matter of opinion.
-Douglas Adams

Re: Philosophy Discussion Board

[countchoculax]

Do you simply wish to leave matters of judgement up to an abstract being whos entire existence depends on blind faith? I believe you bring up an excellent point on objective morality, that it is indeed a fallacy. The morals that are imposed on us are subject to review from each individual and there is no single value that will hold true to all. It is just as Wittgenstein defines concrete objects: there is no universal definition for one but rather a series of qualities that it has and does not have that is the true definition. Who is to say that the murderer was wrong to murder? Certainly not I.

ive got the answer

[overfloaterr]

transfer.