Studytime

I've been studying pretty hard for this midterm, but I'm wondering if anyone has any specific techniques that are helpful for this course. I started by trying to commit all of the rules to memory, but proofs are still so much easier if I have the list with definitions in front of me. Aside from that it's really just been practice, practice. I'm finally starting to have fun with proofs, but this mode of thinking is still lacks a lot of intuition for me. Any suggestions for specific exercises to improve general familiarity and ease with proofs and related sensemaking? I've considered the concept of reverse engineering proofs into hypothetical sentences, but I haven't really put too much time into it yet.

Essay topic

As I've already done some research on this topic in the past, I want to expand on my thesis that musciality (the ability to appreciate or create music) is of an evolutionary origin. I think by looking into this further, some of the harder questions regarding the philosophy of music can be answered. Musical response certainly has a function beyond the general aesthetic. Music based therapies demonstrate a very practical application of these benefits, yet mainstream acceptance is still budding. Any questions or comments would be greatly appreciated.

Right to death

I've been thinking a lot lately about whether one has the right to end their life whenever they see fit. I figure that if one has serious obligations, such as children, then this right is probably void. Suicide or euthanasia should only be seriously considered by those who are suffering considerably. The individual has a right to their death if said death would alleviate more suffering than it causes. Thus, if an individual has a chance to communicate with loved ones about this issue, perhaps an agreement could be reached. Living only for others is no way to live.

Subjectivity and logic

A friend of mine challenged the system of formal logic claiming that since logic has a subjective nature, trying to formalize it with hard and fast rules will ultimately be problematic. There certainly is some truth to the premise, since logicians will still disagree with one another, which I suppose is evidence of logic's non-mathematical nature. The question I wish to pose asks what element in logical thinking will allow two intelligent and informed individuals to come to two different conclusions?
While some aspects of logic work with mathematical precision, I will contend that the translation of normal sentences into a more purely logical forms add a degree of interpretation. In addition, I think that one's individual values can play a role in determining what constitutes an okay premise or not.

Howdy

Hello. My name is Tyler, and I'm a psych major on my last semester here at MCLA. I'm a multi-instrumentalist and I host poetry open mics at the Parlor (next one thursday 12th). During my time here, I have begun the study of the neuroelectric correlates of meditation, a line of research I also intend to pursue further this semester (in the new awesome building!) . I'm very receptive to meeting new people, so please drop me a line. I've dealt with enough people in my life who are logically challenged, often with disastrous results. Perhaps by honing these skills, I can also improve my ability to help these wretched people learn to reason as well.