World from chaos: This would mean that everything already existed prior to the creation of the world. If chaos existed and yet the void is also used later in addressing the state of the universe prior to the creation then void and chaos are the same. Void would be a metaphor then for the lack of order in the chaos.

World from void: This is the more typical notion of how there was nothing prior to the creation. If this was true, then chaos, in this case, would be seen as the metaphorical part of this duality. Chaos for there is nothing. No words, no thoughts, no framework to guide observation and perception.

Perhaps it is a combination of both, that the world was created out of the chaos of void. That is to say that chaos and void are the same. A mere redundancy that allows void and chaos to be interchanged at will. Scientifically the world could have not been created out of nothing, but if stuff was already floating around that raises an entirely new set of questions about that ‘stuff’.

Second, learning what seems most appealing. No one wants to learn of things which might hurt them, or question their believes. There is a considerable amount of writing which talks about this and in the end there is no clear conclusion of whether anyone should ever engage in this type of learning. (Read Kitcher)

And lastly, laziness. If the reward of learning something new seems to be little, people tend to just use some preconceived notation in order to answer their search for knowledge. This can be seen with religion and miracles. It is much easier to say that a strange occurrence is the product of a miracle than to say simply “I don’t know, but I look forward to searching for an answer”. (Just go to church once and you’ll see)

What does this add up to? Discrimination and social misconceptions. People who are not exposed to other cultures for instance could careless about them. This is understandable but will hurt them if they ever meet another culture. Learning about other cultures also brings self-awareness, and one can easily start to evaluate what he/she thinks of him/herself. For this reason people rather be ignorant and assume things instead of actually investing any time in learning.

Do I fit into this category? Yep, I can confidently say that I’m ignorant of other people. Yet for me, US culture is fascinating and I try to learn everything I can. How people live their pre-school years, what college is seen to be, and what married life is supposed to be. If I was not in the US right now I can honestly say that I would have rather just continued making jokes about the culture and really cared less about it, but since that’s not the case things are different. There is a need for me to know since I have to live with it.

The only partial solution to this question is that of guilt. One for instance can kill and not be punished by law and yet suffer religiously. Yet this can be argued. For suppose a police officer kills a murderer: he killed a man but he is pardoned for he was doing his job. Perhaps God gives out excuses as well (actually he does in the Bible, not sure what story it is though).

A contradiction that makes sense.

• Mathematical version:

Two true statements that through logical operations reach a false conclusion.

Cartesian kiss
a particularly well-planned and coordinated movement: “I think, therefore, I aim.” In general, a kiss does not count as Cartesian unless it is applied with enough force to remove all doubt that one has been kissed. (cf. Polar kiss, a more well-rounded movement involving greater nose-to-nose contact, but colder overall.)

Epimenidian kiss
a kiss given by someone who does not kiss.

I personally see it as the glass simply beeing twice as big as it needs to be. Fullness is irrelevant.

People when they think about depression they usually make a connection of people who always see the negative side of things in life. While non depressed ones always see things as they are. Psychologists have always tried to cure depression by teaching patients to see the reality and not the negative things in life. Well that’s all very wrong. Princeton, UPENN, and Northwestern concluded that people with depression are actually the most unbiased people, they don’t see things in a negative light, they just see reality, too much of it too. All 3 schools concluded that non depressed people are in reality ignorant of the truth and always alter reality in order to make them happy.

So. I am right. Ignorance is bliss.

(P(Andre) and Q(Andre)) -> R(Andre)