PDA

View Full Version : Epic Alienz Great Library



LAWLzoR
05-07-2013, 05:14 PM
This is an archive of all of the lessons taught so far in the Epic Alienz School (http://www.erboh.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=12668&p=334762#p334762)

Math
[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

Science
[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

History
[spoiler:kpvi6bst]Zoroark~
Alright. History time. Today we will learn about Greece.

Where to begin when you're talking about Greece? Well, let's start from the very beginning. Today's lesson in Greece will discuss the founding of ancient Greece as we know it was today. The Minoan civilization in Crete is one of the earliest known civilizations started in the country. One of the most abundant natural resources found in the Minoan land was timber. When the Mycenaean Greeks came to Crete, they adopted many aspects of the Minoan culture. The Mycenaean Greeks arrived on the Greek peninsula around 2nd to 3rd millennium BC. Fast forward a LONG time, and we find ourselves in the early Iron Age. Around the beginning of the Iron Age came the Greek Dark Ages, which included the rise of city-states, the end of the Mycenaean civilization, and the poems and stories of the great Greek poet Homer. This is when the time period known as "Ancient Greece" comes into place. The beginning of ancient Greece supposedly began around the time of the first Olympic Games , but modern historians have changed this theory very much. The end occurred around the time that Alexander the Great died. Ancient Greece was the building block for founding the culture of Western Civilization. As Greece began to leave the Dark Ages, they were left with a sort of illiteracy. A large majority of the Greeks adopted the Phoenician alphabet as their language, so this wasn't a problem for too long.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece[/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

Art (Music, Poems, Drawings, Paintings, etc.)
[spoiler:kpvi6bst]Music LAWLzoR~

Music Lesson: Band Construction

So let's say that you're now the conductor of a band and you want to try to create the perfect band. Not player wise, but instrument wise. One of the best ways to make a band is have around 3-4 tubas, 4-6 trombones, 3-4 french horns, 4-6 trumpets, 4-6 flutes, and 5-6 clarinets. One crucial thing that people don't very much understand are the tubas. The tubas shouldn't be really loud (nor should any instrument puff their cheeks while they play). The tubas are meant to be felt and slightly heard. They keep the beat of the band. That being said, the trumpets should not completely drown out the tubas. The tubas are the foundation of the band. One way to look at this is through a pyramid. The top of the pyramid symbolizes that less are needed and the bottom of the pyramid symbolizes that more are needed, at least more than the top. The trumpets, flutes, and french horns are at the top of the pyramid. Next are the clarinets and the baritones. The bottom of the pyramid (the biggest part) are the trombones and tubas, the low brass. With this pyramid scheme, the band will be more balanced and sound all around better in my opinion. But in all honesty, the top of the pyramid should not drown out the bottom. The scheme should be in a pyramid, not in any oval, or upside-down pyramid, or whatever. It would throw the band off balance. The pyramid scheme allows for the band to be in full effect.

Source: Band class 6th grade - 8th grade.[/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

English (Old English, Modern English, etc.)
[spoiler:kpvi6bst]Old English[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]
Modern English[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

Foreign Languages
[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

Psychology/Philosophy
[spoiler:kpvi6bst]LAWLzoR~
Philosophy/Psychology Lesson: Social Norms.

What are social norms really? Social norms (my definition, an official definition can be found on Google) is simply what everyone believes to be normal for different types of people. For example, guys are supposed to like guns and games, girls are supposed to like gloss and glitter. It's innocent at first, but depending on how you think about it, it could be very cruel to the most innocent. For example, if a guy started to like gloss and glitter, other people would find him "weird" and "awkward" and possibly an "idiot". Why do people think this? Because they think that it is natural for guys to like guns and games. However nothing along those lines is really "natural". Guys can be seen as those who need to loosen up and need to stop acting so tough. Or they can be seen as those who need to be more strict, and need to keep acting tough. Philosopher John Stuart Mill said that we tend to accept whatever is usual as natural. That's why we find a lot of things as simply "natural" and not just "usual". It's been found that social norms are rather fluid, meaning that what's for guys could be what's for children, or what's for girls could be what's for guys or whatever mix-match you find. Why do people stifle the exchanging of social norms? Well, I think that it is because people want a sense of what's "right" and "wrong". In this case, people want a sense of what's "right" for guys, and what's "right" for girls. Having a sense of what's right and wrong gives people a sense of protection and a sense of being right themselves. People love being right. And if you say that you've been wrong and liked being wrong, then most likely that's not entirely true. But whatever.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Est3UNs-LIk (the entire video doesn't relate to the lesson. From 1:36 to about 2:07 is where most of this lesson comes from)

---
LAWLzoR~
Here's a philosophy lesson for you: Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was a 19th century German philosopher best known for his works on ethics. Mainly his Categorical Imperative which we can break down into 3 maxims. The 1st maxim is that every action you do must have universality which means that if you do it, then it is okay for everyone else in the entire universe to do it all the time. As an example, if you were to lie to your best friend about his weight, then it's okay for everyone else to lie to their best friends about their weight, including your best friend lying to you about your weight. His 2nd maxim is that you cannot manipulate people no matter what. You must treat people as an end rather than a means to an end. Which means that you cannot lie. Ever. Not even once. This is stark contrast to Consequentialist ideas (by the way, Kant was a Deontologist. Deontology basically means that the end doesn't justify the means ever, and each action is its own separate thing) that you can manipulate anyone if it's for the "great good". Kant thought the "greater good" was irrelevant and that every person is their own rational agent and that no one person can manipulate them to achieve a goal that is not their own. His 3rd maxim is that you must act like you're THE moral authority. Unlike that's any different as some people already think. Nevertheless, you might've already seen some problems with his 2nd maxim. For example, if an axe murderer went up to you in the middle of the night, and asked kindly where your family is sleeping so that he can chop them up into little bits, would you have to tell him the truth? Kant replied yes. You would. But he didn't see anything wrong with it because as he said each person is their own rational agent. You don't have to be worried about their actions, you only have to worry about your own.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw (video does contain some curse words)

--
LAWLzoR~
Another Philosophy lesson: David Hume.

David Hume was an 18th Scottish philosopher during the time when Scotland was one of the greatest academic places in the world. His expertise is in Skepticism, which is basically the philosophy saying that true knowledge is completely unobtainable, and for all intents and purposes the real world (if there is one) is unknowable. Empiricism is the philosophy that says that all knowledge is derived from our senses. He was a basically a big fan of it. He was an atheist (which at the time was a criminal idea, that had the punishment of death if someone came out and said they were one) mainly through empiricism. He believed that all knowledge is obtained through our senses and his logic was that there's no way of coming to a conclusion of god even through our senses. But enough of that. This philosophy was his reason to make up the "Bundle Theory" which is the theory that there is no actual stuff, just a bundle of properties. This sounds crazy at first, but imagine this please. Imagine a pear. You're probably thinking something along the lines of oval-like, green-ish yellow, hard, and disgusting. The Bundle Theory basically says that there is no real pear, only those properties in which is portrayed to us. He defended this by daring you to imagine an object with absolutely no properties. Let's take a look at the pear again. Strip away the pear of all its properties and you end up with absolute non-existence pear. Even more frightening is including this idea with you. If the Bundle Theory is is true then that means that you, or anyone or anything else doesn't exist either. This made quite the argument against Rene Descartes' argument, because Rene thought that at the very least that he existed. David thought that he was completely wrong. Another thing he was into was the Scientific Method"that was started by Galileo, Kevin Bacon... wait... no, Francis Bacon, and Isaac Newton. However one problem was/is that science is based off of a logical fallacy (probably one David agreed with) which is the Induction Fallacy. The Induction Fallacy states that it doesn't matter what something happened in the past, we can't assume it's going to happen again no matter how many times it happens. Lets say that all of the pears in your life have been disgusting. You still couldn't make the argument that all pears are disgusting because one day someone might hand you a not-too-bad pear and you're gonna feel like an idiot (which is true, but nevertheless). Science basically says that if we can have something in the same conditions and under the same circumstances, then we have knowledge about that something or about that event. David Hume even had to say that (paraphrasing, not an actual quote) even though it makes no sense, it seems to work out.

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3QZ2Ko-FOg[/spoiler:kpvi6bst]

Misc.
[spoiler:kpvi6bst][/spoiler:kpvi6bst]