My Choice

I like this tattoo. :)

Crtique Me.

The face to my toy. :)

The Raven!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1486192/

Schoollsss almost overrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. :)

Critique Me.

The last page to my book.

Title page to my book.

life, death, living, dying.

I think this means that life wouldnt be living without death and dying.

Vans!

I really want a new pair of shoeess from here. :p

http://shop.vans.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/topcategory_10001_10101?cm_mmc=Google-_-Branded-_-Brand%20AM%20Daypart-_-vans%20AM%20Daypart

Critique Me.

This is my back cover.

Grue/Bleen

Nelson Goodman is best known for his "new riddle of induction", which he set up by first defining what appears to be a new color adjective, grue: Something is "grue" if and only if it is examined before some particular time T and is green, or else is examined after time T and is blue. He also throws in, as a bonus, "bleen", which applies to anything examined before time T and is blue, or which is examined after time T and is green. Now, he says, how do we know that the grass is green and not grue before that time T arrives, and that the sky is blue and not bleen? This is for him, and for numerous other analytic philosophers who jumped into the fray, a very worrisome problem indeed!
      But the first thing to ask is why Goodman and the others think that this silly little puzzle is so important in the first place! The answer is throughout the 20^th century there was a strong (though often only half-conscious) bias among many Anglo-American bourgeois philosophers that only deduction is a valid form of reasoning. Thus induction and all other methods of reasoning were suspect. The strange thing is, however, that deduction is really not all that important in people's every-day rational thinking, and even induction is only a bit more common in our overt thinking. (It is implicit in most of our actions, however. We usually implicitly assume the floor will hold us up today just as it has every day for the past 25 years!) But the use of analogies is far more important in our actual conscious reasoning than either deduction or induction. Thus the implicit attempt to force all other forms of reasoning into the "induction" straight-jacket, and then to further squeeze induction into some variety of deduction is screwed up from the very start. It says a lot about the state of analytic philosophy that this "grue" business is one of the "big issues".

Nelson Goodman seems quite keen
Induction yet to show anew
Is somewhat sick as will be seen
And may not be completely true.

Is this leaf a lovely green?
Or is it rather colored grue?
Is the sky above quite bleen?
Or am I right in seeing blue?

I really don't care to be mean
And have no wish to Goodman skew;
But childish puzzles can demean;
Has he nothing else to do??
—JSH, "On 'The New Riddle of Induction'"

      Goodman himself claimed to reject the "old problem" of induction, the worries about induction that analytic philosophers before him had been putting forward, and the attempt to reinterpret induction in terms of deduction. But by raising his "new problem" of induction he nevertheless perpetuated the tired old tradition of questioning non-deductive forms of reasoning.
      The "grue" problem itself is just a clever bit of intellectual sleight-of-hand, in which, perhaps, the magician fooled himself as well as his audience. Goodman was careful to define "grue" and "bleen" in such a way that nothing is required to change color at time T in order to be properly called "grue" or "bleen". Thus, a grass blade might actually be both green and "grue" (provided it was examined before time T and was green), despite the fact that blue things examined after time T are also "grue". In other words "grue" and "bleen" are not actually color adjectives, but only slightly complex truth conditionals composed of actual color adjectives and times of observation. Thus there actually is no choice to be made as to whether the grass is colored "either" green "or" grue.
      Goodman made it seem like we had to make such a choice (and also that there could not possibly be any basis for such a choice before time T) by giving the complex truth conditional he put forth a name that looks like a color name (and was even derived from other color names). If "grue" actually were a color, then presumably it would be a different color than either green or blue, and it would be reasonable to ask if something were colored green or grue. Furthermore, if "grue" were a color, it would presumably be just as weird for something colored "grue" to change to a different color at some arbitrary time T as it would be for something green to do so. In other words, it would be "just as weird" for something to remain green at arbitrary time T as it would be to suddenly turn blue!
      On the one hand Goodman can claim that he is not requiring that anything change its color at some arbitrary time, but on the other hand that is in fact the natural interpretation of the situation if "grue" is viewed as a color. (Then either a green thing changes to a blue thing at time T, or else the thing was not "colored grue" both before and after time T.) His hocus-pocus depends on having it both ways. There would be no plausibility at all to his argument if he did not frame it in terms of the pseudo color adjective "grue" instead of some complex abstact truth condition.
      To ask if something is "really" just green, or if it might actually be "grue", is thus in effect to ask how we know that something that is green now will continue to remain green (unless its color is affected by some internal or external development). Or, in other words, it is simply a restatement of the old "doubts" about induction that Goodman supposedly rejected.
The so-called "new riddle of induction" is nothing more than the old, absurd worry that we cannot prove via deduction that things will continue to have the properties they now have (unless there are internal or external forces that cause them to change). In other words, it is really just the same old (supposed) riddle, dressed up in fancy new clothes.

http://massline.org/PhilosDog/G/Goodman.htm

My 2nd cover

Gaming

I think more art now a days is graphic designing and more in video games or movies. I also think it's leaning more towards sexual desires and violence.

It's a game on the computer, it's not bad, I like it :)

Critique Me.

My comic. :p

What if there was no art?

I think the world would be a terrible place to be. There wouldn't really be that many jobs if you think about it, the smallest things need art as do the bigger jobs. I don't know how everyone would get by in the world.

Hoodie Allen!

http://www.last.fm/music/Hoodie+Allen

Critique me.

comic so farrrrrr.

Art in Music

This is my character. :]

Critique Me.

This is my cousin lol. :)

Traditional Art vs. Media Art?

I think both traditional and media art or really good together. You can take a photo and edit it using media. I dont think anything should be replaced.

Beauty.

I think beauty is something that is natural. I don't think wearing a ton of make-up, being super skinny, and changing your body/looks is beauty. I think self-confidence and knowing who you are and liking yourself is beauty.

Critique Me.

This is the beginning of my project.

:D

Naughty Bear!

http://www.gamestop.com/ps3/games/naughty-bear/76899

This game is hilarious and fun to play! :D

Critique Me.

It's an elephant. :]

Theme: Violence

HAHAHA. :)

Critique Me.

This is my seal.

I think this looks really cool. :)

:D!

Netflix, is amazing. :)
https://signup.netflix.com/home?mqso=80015652&mkwid=sTKO1SwZG&pcrid=7033233444&gclid=CJHKytrayK4CFQ0DQAodQUzb-g&country=1&rdirfdc=true

Critique Me.

This is something I drew, yeeupp.

T.I.

There's a song by T.I. featuring Justin Timberlake called Dead and Gone, I love it a llotttt, I love the meaning, the beat, and the rhythm. :)
http://www.elyricsworld.com/dead_and_gone_lyrics_t.i..html

I did this last year I think, I like it aaaa lloootttttt. :)

I saw this movie a couple days ago, it's awweessoommeeee and hilarious! :D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290332/

Critique Me.

This is my front cover and back cover for the green and white night thing, I like 'em a lot. :)

 

Lloyd!

Lloyd is a hip/hop and r&b/soul musical artist, I love pretty much all his songs, he's aweesooommeee. :)
http://www.lloydmusic.com/

Critique Me.

I made this last year but I like it a llloootttt. :)

Art in the news: Joyce Tenneson

I like her a lot because the photos are of real objects but look surreal. :)
http://www.photographersgallery.com/by_artist.asp?id=177

Workaholics!

This show is hilarious! :D
http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/workaholics/index.jhtml

Critique Me.

Yeah. :)

Art in the news: Arthur Tress

I like him a lot, his photos are very surreal, it's really cool. :)
http://www.photographersgallery.com/by_artist.asp?id=187

Miguel!

This is a musical Artist and I think some of his songs are awweessoommmmeeeeee! There bea-uuuutiful. :)
http://www.officialmiguel.com/

Critique Me.

This was from my last project, it's iightt. :p

Art in the News: John Arsenault

I like this guy because his photos have no meaning and there just really cool random photos. :)
http://www.photographersgallery.com/by_subject.asp?id=227

Critique Me.

This is one of the photos I did for this project, I like it a lot. :)

Art in the News: John Arsenault

I really like this guys style its purty and awesome. :)

The Waterboy!

Classic! I love this movie, I could watch over and over again. If you haven't seen it you should defff watch it soon. :D
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120484/

Critique Me.

This is one of the tutorials I made, I actually like it. :)

Takers!

I loved this movie when I saw it, the actors are ammmmaazing and the whole plot is awesome. :D http://www.sonypictures.com/homevideo/takers/

Critique Me.

This is my planet or my moon, whateva. :)