Good Point

Yesterday in class we discussed an ethical dilemma. If a plane is flying towards a building, the pilot intending to crash into it, should one kill the pilot to save the lives of the people in the building? I answered that question a bit bad (okay, a large bit bad). But while I was answering, I kept thinking that there's got to be a way to say this...because if I say "kill the pilot", that's not really valuing life, is it? and being pro-life, you value all life...but how do you say... . It was extremely perplexing...of course, then we talked about it after class, and Mr. A made a very good point (one which I totally agree with). That you're shooting the plane down, and the saving of the people's lives is just a bi-product of that action, and the pilot in the plane just happens to be there (pleeease say something if I'm not saying this correctly...); it could have been a remote plane for all anybody knows. Intentions, intentions, intentions. I shall never forget it...no consequential arguing (because afterwards I completely realized the mistake of what I said...). It was a very good discussion.

au revoir.

Thinking

I just watched the ending of National Treasure, starting from the part where they discover the treasure underneath the church. Everytime the gal leans down and sees the scrolls from the Library of Alexandria I get chills up and down my back; what if scrolls had been taken to be protected and then finally found somewhere? That would be awesome beyond words. But while I was thinking about how exciting and wonderful that would be, how is it significant in an eternal light? I mean, they're important, I know (jeepers, do I know) but I was thinking: is it really that important? Maybe I'm off a bit or something, but I just had to put that question out there.

I found...

...an interesting quote from Plato's Republic the other day, and I thought I'd share it with all you lovely people who read my blog :}.
Drat. My book's in a car that isn't at home this moment, so I suppose I'll post it later.

While I'm here, I should post about yesterday's discussion. I haven't done this in a long while...*sighs*...I need to drop politics (for I'm never going to become a politician, so what's the point in complaining about them) and pick this up again. All right. Here goes:

We decided (I'm assuming this since I don't have my notes---they are also traveling in that car) that Bombadil is...wait...it's coming...right. He is Master of the hills, water, and forests (page 123 I believe), and has some sort of power over nature. One thing I did miss our not discussing was "what is Bombadil's purpose in the story?". This is a very perplexing question, which I can only answer with "maybe he was there to pass something along (wisdom or something) to the hobbits"...

I shall continue this later, for I found this discussion of Bombadil very fascinating...but the dirty dishes in the sink beckon to me so until then,
Au Revoir :}