Final

   Unlike English alphabets that gather and form a word with meaning, Chinese characters each represents a meaning or a concept. For example, whereas we need 4 letters -'g','o','l', and 'd' - to signify 'gold', we can just write '金' , only a letter, to mean the same thing.
   Most Koreans have names consisting of two Chinese characters(leaving out family names for they do not have significant meaning). Thanks to the Chinese characters' economical encompassing of meanings, their names signify broad concepts that wish the best luck and the greatest success for their owners.
  I am one of the Koreans with a two-Chinese-character-name. My name means "grow up with brightness" - 奎[gyu] represents 'bright' and 泰[tae] represents 'to grow up'. Hence, according to the wishes of my parents and to the theory of Nominative Determinism, I should become a person who always shares a creative and just idea so that everyone pays attention to what I say and to me - a person who is always bright and thus conspicuous among a group of people.
   One day, solely out of boredom, I searched for people who have the same name I have - 'Gyutae'. Many results came up so I decided to look more specifically for people who have the same characters that I have. Then, only one person came up (there might be more in Korea but they probably are not famous or popular enough to show themselves on the internet). Surprisingly, he was a CEO of a company who graduate high school, undergraduate college and graduate college with the 'academically-most-accomplished' honor which is given to a top-ranking student who is a paragon for integrity and "brightness". For him, the theory of Nominative Determinism seems persuasive.
   If the theory is somehow valid, my name will certainly affect my life. As my name signifies and as the precedent of this older Gyutae portrays, I will become a person with leadership. So far, I have been a bright person; I had been a studious and helping student in my middle school and I came here to KMLA. With this pace, if the theory is true, I would be able to achieve my dream of becoming a professor. I sincerely want to become a light that leads students in the darkness; I want to share my knowledge and help my students become bright people as well.
   The theory of nominative determinism may sound ridiculous if we scrutinize it with rationality. However, I want to believe it for the sake of my parents who blessed me to grow up with brightness and for the sake of myself for I wish to grow up with brightness.

Response To SolHee Bae's Post

Do we have to learn to be Good?

Debate about human nature- whether it is fundamentally good or bad- has been in controversy for a long time. If it means that no human being is evil in their natural heart, I agree to SungWoo’s idea. However, I do not think that we humans start our lives with a tiny built in morality core.

I believe that every human being is born to be good;To be more accurate, born to be naive. What I mean by ‘to be naive’ is to be good and kind because one does not have any concept or idea about the world around him/her. Not because of any kind of fundamental concepts about ethics and morality, but because of simple-heartedness and childlikeness we have at the very moment we’re born. To me, heart of a newborn baby is pure white. His/her soul reminds me of a piece of blank paper, a field covered by white snow that no one interrupted it’s pureness. So pure and fragile that even a small breeze can scratch the whiteness of it. No evil, no good,

The factors that determine real personality and feature of the person is numerous experiences and learnings that he/she undergoes throughout his/her lifetime.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SolHee contends that humans are born to be naive - to be good and kind. Yet, as elaborated on my previous writing, I do not think that humans are inherently good.

I agree that when we see a baby, we can feel the profound sentiment of purity that "seemingly" lie inside the heart of the new-born.

However, we cannot judge human nature just from the outlook of a baby. Babies are cute - and how does the fact relate to the kind human nature? Even though I might be going too far, I think looking at the baby - looking at how incompetent and incapable they are - and feeling happy might be the evidence of human cruelty.

I sincerely agree to SolHee's point that babies seem like a blank paper, a clean, pure existence. However, that doesnot necessarily mean that babies have clean, pure nature.

It's been a long time that philosophers have shared their ideas about the human nature. Although there maybe no answer - maybe some are kind by nature and some are not!! - I think human nature cannot be so kind from the beginning because of the "ki" - seven desires that people are influenced by from their birth. For more information, please refer to my former writing, SolHee.

Thank you for your interesting writing!! :)

Response to Miso's writing about 4/7 debate

http://smileagain94.wordpress.com/

     Hi, Miso!! Thank you for sharing your idea about the human nature, for that was indeed interesting. I have been thinking about whether a person is good or bad from their birth and I have reached a different conclusion. Although it is very hard to believe that human qualities are determined even from the very moment of their birth, I think humans are evil in nature.
     One of the reasons is that humans are selfish. Because we can feel senses and because we feel some fundamental desires such as the desire for food, humans seek a better condition to satisfy the senses and desires. That is the reason why people try to eat more and eat more delicious things even by harming others; because humans inherently want to fulfill their greed and desire. One of the other examples comes when people are drowning. When you see a person drowning in a river, you should never give your hand to the person because the person will pull you so hard and try to use you to survive - your safety is not something that is even considered. To satisfy the fundamental desire to breathe, people are very ready to harm others. Our tendency to seek for ways to satisfy our will and desire is not something that can be explained by your inclination theory, I think.
     I really enjoyed your writing though we had different opinions. Have a good day~

Four/Seven Debate and its connection with the previous writing about Robotics

     Four/Seven Debate is an ancient philosophical debate evolved around the concepts that explores innate human feelings; "Four" signifies the four moral sentiments that people have since they are born (Humanity, Righteousness, Propriety, and Wisdom), and "Seven", the seven natural feelings people get from their encounters with the world (Desire, Hate, Love, Fear, Grief, Anger, and Joy). The main point of contention that the prominent neo-Confucianists debated on was whether the feelings are affected by "yi" - the basic laws and principles of the universe - or by "ki"- materials that form the universe and the people.
     The debate played a significant role in the development of Korean neo-Confucianism. Because ancient Asians did not make clear distinction from the physicality and metaphysicality and because the distinction between "yi" and "ki" was not very clear, the debate went on without conclusion, adding diversity to the Korean philosophy.
     In my perspective, I think what shapes the basic human nature is the "ki", the seven feelings. True, many people believe in the "innateness" of human nature - whether it is kind or mean. They think humans have certain sentiments from the moment of their birth and that the emotions shape the basic nature of humankind. Yet, I think people get to learn and have emotions as they live with other people. It is only when people are educated that people feel such feelings as humanity, propriety, righteousness, and wisdom. No one, without any encounters with the society, has certain feelings; the reason why babies cry is not because they are sad, as many ancient philosophers claimed, but because crying helps them cope with their lives and thus survive.
     The concepts are very very complex and thus my opinions may lie only on the superficial level of this debate. Yet, for a person who has been influenced by Western culture where physicality and metaphysicality are sharply divided, the concept of "yi" which claims the inherent morality of people seems quite weird.
     Robotics cannot exist if we accept the concept of "yi" in presence. Robots are "given" nature. If there are basic human sentiments, robots would not be able to be assimilated in human society because there is a fundamental gap. In the status quo, however, we see that that is not true.

Response To SungWoo's Writing

     SungWoo claims that "Philosophy needs to be with robotics so that we can truly find what virtue is and apply it to future robotics." In supporting his contention, SungWoo assumes that robots should be treated as similar beings to humankind. I generally agree with the idea that future robotics must develop with vision; however, I cannot agree that robots and humans are alike.
     First of all, even though robots have artificial intelligence, their intellect cannot overcome the artificiality. True, robots may be programmed to memorize all contentions and theories set out by philosophers - from ancient to contemporary. Yet, they CANNOT develop another whole new theory that is applicable to the status quo; they are not "experienced" and thus "know" what is and has been happening in the world. Humans are the ones who initiate a hypothesis and struggle to prove it. Creation and advancement are the jobs existing for humans. Robots with artificial and programmed intelligence cannot surpass humans' capacity.
     Second, robots lack vision. In the contemporary society, humans lead their lives with passion and goals. They struggle to achieve the better. Having no emotions at all, robots never feel wistfulness or misery and hence, never try to advance. The fundamental lack of motivation makes robots impossible to become any existence close to human beings.
     SungWoo showed sharp insight in his writing. Robots, if badly controlled, can be a great harm to our society. Their malfunction can cause huge problems. They might be used to kill people and that would be massive. Thus, robotics should be developed with certain philosophy and regulation. However, the philosophy and the extent of regulation should be set by HUMANS. It's not the robots who should do such works, because ROBOTS CAN NEVER BE HUMANS.
     

     

Response To Hoobae's Comment on My Writing

Special thanks for Seung-Hyeong for leaving a wonderful comment on my birthday!! :)

I agree on his point that entertainment agencies should let their singers and dancers have enough rest, so that they can demonstrate their full potential and spend some time on pursuing their "own" music - music they like, music they dream of, and music they have the best potential in.

Yet, I disagree on his view that Park Ji-Min can become "the" music diva as Adele did. The title "diva" gets its special honor from the singleness. True, she has great talent in music. However, everyone has different inherent ability. Though I feel very sorry for Park Ji-Min, Adele mastered singing and composition at a very early age - and she TRUELY had talent in them. For me, Ji-Min's ability cannot be matched with that of Adele.

Also, thank you Seung Hyeong for introducing me a nice piece of music, but I could not access the webpage... I think your URL link has some problem....

My comment on Seohyun's essay

Her blog address is http://cantdecideonurl.blogspot.com/2012/03/work-that-inspired-me.html?showComment=1332983516823#c644447348984761315