- Information
- AI Chat
UNIT 2 Lesson 2 4
Rhythmic Activities (PE002)
University of Caloocan City
Related documents
- Activity 1 (PE) performance task
- Action Reseach in Teacher Education Example
- PE 111-Module 1-Unit 1-Introduction-to-Physical-Education-and Fitness-Definition of the Physical Education and Objectives of Physical Education
- Program Example 2022
- CBA-Module-12-Week-16-Contemporary-Dances
- CBA-Module-11-Week-15-PE-002-Contemporary-Dances
Preview text
UNIT 2-LESSON 2
Human flourishing can be defined in several ways:
a. Human flourishing is a profound truthfulness to other (Crouch, 2017). b. Human flourishing is the creation of value with your life and giving value to other people which he collectively refers as earned success; (Brooks, 2014) c. Human flourishing refers to an effort to achieve self-actualization and fulfillment within the context of a larger community of individuals, each with the right to pursue his or her own such efforts (The National League for Nursing, n.). d. For a famous philosopher, Aristotle, human flourishing pertains to the ultimate goal or ultimate end of all individuals.
For Aristotle, there is an end goal for all the things that we do, that we do what we desire to do in order to attain the so called Eudaimonia, happiness or flourishing. Eudaimonia comes from combined Greek words “good and spirit”, it is the highest happiness or flourishing that we can achieve. We can also define Eudaimonia as the pursuit of becoming a better person. Thus, flourishing is the success that we earned by improving our lives as a result of various human qualities such as: phronesis, friendship, wealth and power.
The question is, how can an individual achieve Eudaimonia or flourishing by acquiring the 4 qualities stated by Aristotle?
Here’s how, an individual can have friends by doing good and at the same time acquire wealth and power through hard work to accumulate things that can help him or her to have a better life. However, Aristotle includes phronesis – a person’s ability to habitually “do the right thing in the right place, at the right time in the right way” (Bhatta, n.). In other words, an individual can achieve flourishing when he or she acquires friends, wealth and power by constantly doing what is right with a clear understanding of why and how he or she can achieve it. Hence, doing the right thing is not enough, it must be accompanied by reason and concern with what is good or bad for him or her.
As we progress with the aid of science and technology, we are able to find means on how to explore different places, develop more products and most importantly improve our lives. But the way we do it is very much different with the concept of Aristotle because we are no longer focusing on what is good or bad for an individual alone - we already shifted from self-flourishing to human flourishing.
In human flourishing, competition for survival is already outdated. What we are pursuing now is collaboration and cooperation, making us the “man of the world”- where we are expected to work hand in hand with our organizations or institutions to reach a common goal.
Progress and development mean improving one’s life. The improvement mostly if not all the time requires getting more, acquiring more. The question is do we really need to acquire more to flourish? Does human flourishing always equated with progress and modern technology? At this point, can we say that we are flourishing?
If your answer to all of my questions is yes, then why are countries around the world classified as developed and developing? If we are pursuing human flourishing, why are there countries experiencing poverty? And why do rich countries become richer?
On September 23, 2015, an anthropologist from London School of Economics, Jason Hickel wrote an article where he criticized the efforts of the United Nations (UN) to eradicate poverty by using growth and development as their main strategy.
Find out why Hickel opposed the UN’s strategy in combating poverty by reading his full article below.
Forget 'developing' poor countries, it's time to 'de-develop' rich countries Jason Hickel
As the UN’s new sustainable development goals are launched in New York, there’s little to celebrate about the business-as-usual approach
This week, heads of state are gathering in New York to sign the UN’s new sustainable development goals (SDGs). The main objective is to eradicate poverty by 2030. BeyoncÈ, One Direction and Malala are on board. It’s set to be a monumental international celebration.
Given all the fanfare, one might think the SDGs are about to offer a fresh plan for how to save the world, but beneath all the hype, it’s business as usual. The main strategy for eradicating poverty is the same: growth.
Growth has been the main object of development for the past 70 years, despite the fact that it’s not working. Since 1980, the global economy has grown by 380%, but the number of people living in poverty on less than $5 (£3) a day has increased by more than 1 billion. That’s 17 times the population of Britain. So much for the trickle-down effect.
Orthodox economists insist that all we need is yet more growth. More progressive types tell us that we need to shift some of the yields of growth from the richer segments of the population to the poorer ones, evening things out a bit. Neither approach is adequate. Why? Because even at current levels of average global consumption, we’re overshooting our planet’s bio-capacity by more than 50% each year.
In other words, growth isn’t an option any more – we’ve already grown too much. Scientists are now telling us that we’re blowing past planetary boundaries at breakneck speed. And the hard truth is that this global crisis is due almost entirely to overconsumption in rich countries.
Instead of pushing poor countries to 'catch up' with rich ones, we should be getting rich countries to 'catch down'
Right now, our planet only has enough resources for each of us to consume 1 “global hectares” annually
- a standardized unit that measures resource use and waste. This figure is roughly what the average person in Ghana or Guatemala consumes. By contrast, people in the US and Canada consume about 8 hectares per person, while Europeans consume 4 hectares – many times their fair share.
What does this mean for our theory of development? Economist Peter Edward argues that instead of pushing poorer countries to “catch up” with rich ones, we should be thinking of ways to get rich countries to “catch down” to more appropriate levels of development. We should look at societies where people
one. If we do not act soon, all our hard-won gains against poverty will evaporate, as food systems collapse and mass famine re-emerges to an extent not seen since the 19th century.
This is not about giving anything up. And it’s certainly not about living a life of voluntary misery or imposing harsh limits on human potential. On the contrary, it’s about reaching a higher level of understanding and consciousness about what we’re doing here and why.
Source: Hickel, J. (2015). Forget ‘developing’ poor countries, it’s time to ‘de-develop’ rich countries. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www. theguardian/global-development- professionalsnetwork/ 2015/sep/23/developing-poor-countries-de-develop-rich- countries-sdgs
Hickel’s (2015) concept of ‘de-develop’ made us realize and reflect on the way how we pursue human flourishing, both for individual and for the society. He made us critically think of our purpose on this Earth and why are pursuing it.
UNIT 2-LESSON 3
Leucippus and Democritus
Leucippus and Democritus (around 460-370 B.) are proponents of materialism philosophy which believed that comfort, pleasure and wealth are the only highest goals in life.
Epicurus
Epicurus is a Greek philosopher who introduced the Hedonism philosophy. He is also the first one who stated that pleasure is the experience that makes our life worth living.
Hedonists claimed that since life is limited, we should satisfy ourselves with the things that give us pleasures. That we must aim to maximize our total pleasure and if we already attain it, we will be constantly happy.
Hedonists motto is – “Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”.
Marcus Aurelius
Marcus Aurelius is one of the principal leaders of Stoicism – school of thought created for those living their lives in the real world which was founded by Zeno of Citium in Athens (early 3rd century B.).
Stoicism argued that virtue like wisdom is a kind of happiness and judgment that must be based on behavior instead on words. Thus, as an individual, we don’t have the power to control external factors and must not be dependent on it. For this reason, we should only rely on ourselves.
Hence, according to Stoicism’s philosophy relying on oneself will help us control destructive emotions and only acts on what can be acted upon (Prieto, Vega, Felipe & Meneses, 2019).
Humanism
Humanism is a school of thought who asserts that as human beings, we have the right, power and responsibility to give meaning and shaped our own lives.
Humanists believed that humans are not just stewards of God’s creation; they are also the one who has the ability to control themselves as well as the world they live in. This is the same belief that most of the scientists have. The main reason why they view the world as a place that they can control (enframing), a place where they can study and discover things that lead them to invent and create technologies that can help them and the society achieve good life.
Theism
Theism is not a school of thought; it is a belief in the existence of one Supreme Being (God) or deities (gods). They also believe that God or gods are all-knowing, powerful and pervasive.
Theists claimed that the ultimate basis for happiness is the intimate communication and relationship with God. Thus, they believed that having this kind of relationship to God as the creator of their lives gives meaning to their existence.
Theism is of two kinds – it can be Monotheism as the name implied, it is a belief in one God. The other one is Polytheism, a belief in many gods.
Aristotle
Aristotle is a Greek philosopher known for his work “Nicomachean Ethics” where he identified that the highest good for human beings is Eudaimonia – happiness (this was discussed in our previous meeting). Aristotle’s idea of a good life is living well and happy life. Thus, he argues that living well and having a happy life doesn’t mean just acquiring things or living in pleasure.
Good life for Aristotle is realizing our potential to cultivate and exercise it to fullest- this in turn lead us to the greatest fulfillment of our true nature. In addition, Aristotle claimed that to live well one must be morally virtuous, healthy, live comfortably, have good friends, is respectable and knows how to exercise his/her unique abilities and capabilities.
Emrys Westacott
Emrys Westacott is a philosophy professor at Alfred University and an author of several philosophy books. In 2018, he wrote an article entitled “What is the Good Life?” where he identified the different meanings of good life or living well.
According to Westacott, good life or living well can be understand in several ways – by knowing the essence of moral life; the life of pleasure; the fulfilled life; the meaningful life; and the finished life.
The Moral Life - an individual with good life is said to have a moral life. For Westacott, good life or living well can be attained by living morally – adhering with the norms and standards of the society. A person is said to be good and moral if he or she possesses and practices most of the important virtues such as: kindness, generosity, truthfulness, loyalty, and courage. Most importantly, he or she doesn’t only pursuing his/her own pleasure but also spent time in pursuing things that could benefit the society.
UNIT 2-LESSON 4
What separates humans from other organisms is our capacity for reason. We have the right to make choices that enable us and the society to flourish; and in order to flourish or have good life we must properly and consistently exercise our rights by accepting or rejecting; minimizing or maximizing; evaluating; and deciding the range and functions of science and technology. Hence, our rights as humans are the critical factors to be considered in our pursuit of good life in the face of scientific and technological developments.
Protecting a human’s well-being and upholding the dignity of a person by strengthening human rights are the major concern of The United Nations General Assembly in proclaiming the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) on December 10, 1948. UDHR identified the fundamental human rights that are vital and necessary in achieving good life. Its first seven articles are said to be the most significant rights of humans which are as follows:
Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”.
Article 2: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedom set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdiction or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty”.
Article 3: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person”.
Article 4: “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms”.
Article 5: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.
Article 6: “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”.
Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination”.
These rights are equated to freedom that all of us are entitled and guaranteed by virtue of being human. Consequently, our rights as human are rights to sustainability (Mukherjee, 2012) and can function as a means of protecting the poor and the weak from the deficiencies and excesses of science and technology. Moreover, humans can flourish with science and technology by injecting the moral and ethical duty of protecting and upholding human rights to develop sustainable approach in bridging the gap between develop and developing countries.
Status of Technological Use in the Philippines
We can’t avoid the fact that technology is already part of our society. Whether we like it or not, we are affected directly and indirectly by technology. Thus, most of us if not all are highly dependable on
the different technologies made readily available in our environment. Because technologies offer convenience, pleasure, happiness and easier communication.
Furthermore, there are number of technological devices that can be easily found inside our homes making it more accessible to everyone. Hence, we can infer that these technological devices are some of the most commonly used types of devices across all age groups. Almost all households, if not all, own these types of devices. To be more specific, these devices include: television sets, mobile phones and computers. People all over the world use these technologies everyday to accomplish their different tasks.
According to Kantar Media, one of the most trusted television audience measurement providers in the Philippines 92 percent of the urban homes and 70 percent of rural homes own at least one television set.
In 2012, Noda reported that 15,135 million households have television set, which mean that this device have greatly influenced Filipinos way of living. In addition, the survey conducted by Kantar Media proved that almost all Filipino households use this particular device.
In the late 1800’s Paul Julius Gottlieb Nipknow, a German engineer and invertor, successfully send images through wires with the aid of a rotating metal disk also known as “Nipknow disk”. The said disk had 18 lines of resolution and was called as “electric telescope”. Nipknow laid the foundation of television, since his invention was used as a fundamental component in the first televisions. Thus, Nipknow was known to be the one who proposed the world's first electromechanical television system. Following the success of Nipknow- Allan Archibald, Campbell-Swinton and Boris Rosing created a new system of revision through the use of cathode ray tube in addition to the mechanical scanner system. Thus, with the success of the two inventions pave way for the two types of television systems – the mechanical and the electronic television systems.
Filipinos’ fascination on mobile phones was very evident on the survey conducted in 2010 by Synovate – a global research agency. The survey revealed that 67 percent product ownership in the Philippines and more than half of the Filipino population own at least one mobile phone. In addition, in the report made by ABS-CBN in 2010, mobile phones are considered as the must-have device among young Filipinos. To prove this claim, the IPos Media Atlas Philippines Nationwide Urban conducted a survey in 2011-2012 and the result showed that 1 out of 3 Filipinos cannot live without mobile phone.
On April 3, 1973, a senior engineer at Motorola, Martin Cooper made the world’s first mobile phone call to properly inform their rival telecommunications company that he was making a call using a mobile phone. Cooper’s mobile phone weighed 1 kilograms and measured 228.6x127x44 mm and has a capacity of 30-minute talk time. The challenge on the first mobile phone was its charging time that took 10 hours. The first commercial mobile phone was introduced during 1983 by Motorola and was named Motorola DynaTac 8000X (Goodwin, 2016).
Unlike television sets and mobile phones, computers and laptops are not the typical device or technology that we can find inside the Filipino households. Although there are families that can afford to buy computers and laptops, most of the profits gained by computer and laptop manufacturers come from offices, businesses, commercial establishments or schools where such devices have become part of their necessities.
A personal robot or a service robot for personal use is a service robot used for noncommercial task, usually by laypersons. Examples are domestic servant robot, automated wheelchair, personal mobility assist robot or pet exercising robot.
Professional service robot is used for commercial task, usually operated by properly trained operator. Examples are: surgery robot, rehabilitation robot and delivery robot.
Roles Played by Robots
Robots are seen to be of great help to us, they can:
- ease our workloads - in office and or at home;
- make our lives more efficient and less stressful;
- can perform repetitive, precise, complicated and dangerous tasks; and
- They can give us pleasure (as a toy, a masterpiece in a museum or gallery, and or a movie character).
In order to protect and uphold the well-being of humans and because of ethical consequences, Isaac Asimov’s formulated the three laws of robotics in the 1940s. The laws are the following:
- A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
- A robot must obey the orders given by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
- A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict the first and second law.
Ethical Dilemma/s Faced by Robotics
Since robots are machines and don’t have life, there are ethical dilemmas these machines faced, such as:
Safety – this is the primary concern of all individual. Ethical dilemma comes in if human’s safety is compromised, who will be held accountable? Who should be blamed, the robot, the person using the robot or the creator/inventor of the robot?
Emotional component and ability to think – is it really acceptable to produce or create a robot with emotional component? What will happen to humans? How about our right for protection and security as human beings?
Deviation from the law – what will happen and who is to be blamed if the problems arise when the robot deviates from the laws specified? Again is it the robot, the person using the robot or the creator/inventor of the robot?
Why the Future Does Not Need Us
“Why the future doesn’t need us” is a wired magazine essay written by Bill Joy in 2000, where he expressed his deep concerns on the progress of modern technologies. He stated that humans may face extinction due to the technological advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI) creating intelligent robots that may replace us. Moreover, Joy claimed that genetics, nanotechnology and robotics (GNR) are the most powerful technology that we have in 21st century because they can significantly extend the average human lifespan, hence they may pose great danger especially when placed in an abusive hand.
Furthermore, Joy sees danger in the ability of robots, engineered organisms and nanobots to undergo self-replication. Thus, if these technologies go out of control it could lead to significant damage to the world, we live in. The worst-case scenario is that, GNR are smaller than the traditional or conventional “weapons of mass destruction”, thus making them readily available to individuals or small groups that can easily utilize them.
What’s the most frightening possibility is that the future does not need us if the GNR known to be the 21st century’s most powerful technologies can do everything better, precise, cheaper and faster that humans.
UNIT 2 Lesson 2 4
Course: Rhythmic Activities (PE002)
University: University of Caloocan City
- Discover more from:
Recommended for you
Students also viewed
Related documents
- Activity 1 (PE) performance task
- Action Reseach in Teacher Education Example
- PE 111-Module 1-Unit 1-Introduction-to-Physical-Education-and Fitness-Definition of the Physical Education and Objectives of Physical Education
- Program Example 2022
- CBA-Module-12-Week-16-Contemporary-Dances
- CBA-Module-11-Week-15-PE-002-Contemporary-Dances