The Reformation Quotes

“Is religion really the only way people can be morally right?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“A person could still have what are considered to be “good” intentions and do something that does not benefit others. For example, in this old Anime show called MY Hero Academia, there was this villain called Stain who had really good intentions for heroes: he thought that heroes should live up to their potential and do their hero work out of dedication, not just for fame and money, but to enforce those ideals, he would attempt to murder heroes whom he believed did not live up to those ideals.

His intentions would be morally right by current philosophical standards on morality, but he was destroying members of humanity, which is not beneficial to those members. His intentions didn’t actually follow the duality, because although he intended for humanity to be heroic instead of greedy, he still had spite in himself, so part of his intentions were for the benefit of humanity, but the other part was not. They were, in fact, for the detriment of heroes he disliked. He was not COMPLETELY following the benefit-intention duality.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“People in Africa actually sold each other before the triangular slave trade began, so although I think slavery glorifies dehumanization, I wanted to show that there was no racism in slavery. It's not very probable for one race to be racist against its own race of people, or for the Africans to enslave other Africans out of racism against other AFRICANS! Rather, the only racism behind slavery was the INTERPRETATION and the EXPLOITATION of it. Originally, slavery was about commercialism and power, not about race, since Africans sold other Africans, but whatever people did with racial supremacy and the suppression of Native Americans and Africans was what actually could have been the strongest cause of the racism that used slavery as a cushion of support. Slavery isn’t racist. Rather, it could be used to support racism.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“...but my favorite already-discovered aspect of critical thinking in cooking is the demand for thought experimentation when trying to innovate with food. For instance, today, I made you that crab salad (although the crab was actually just imitation crab), but anyways, I observed that there was this sweetness to the imitation crab, so I conducted a thought experiment with myself. I thought that the sweetness of the crab made the crab delicate, so I deduced that it would be best to use iceberg lettuce in the salad to enhance the delicacy of the crab, because iceberg lettuce is light and crisp, as opposed to cabbage, which is thicker and has a stronger and most likely overpowering flavor that may be incompatible with the delicacy of the crab. In that same thought experiment, I also thought that bell peppers would go well with the salad, because they also have a sweetness similar to the imitation crab, and they have a fresh flavor to them, so I thought it would compliment the crab. I also added that lite ranch dressing, because I knew that the lightness of the dressing would still be cohesively connected to the overall delicacy of the salad, and plus, a lot of the components in the salad were sweet, so the ranch balanced the ratio of sweetness to savoriness. Then, in the thought experiment, I reasoned that if I sprinkle sunflower seeds on it, the dish would be more elevated because of the nuttiness of the seeds. Overall, because of my experiment, the dish had most of the flavors that you and I wanted, but you did say that you wanted more vegetables to balance out the crab, so while we were eating, I conducted another thought experiment, where I thought, of course, about adding more vegetables, and I also thought about the possibilities of adding lemon juice or some citrus fruit like tangerines into my revised version of the salad.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Usually, a person would think of cooking as a domestic chore rather than an opportunity for critical thinking,” Dad observed during the conversation.

“That is true, but one cannot have an opportunity to critically think unless they make it an opportunity to critically think,” I replied. “Many people actually do see cooking as a mere domestic chore, and hence make it a mere domestic chore.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“What do you want?” I asked, trying to ignore him.

“Probably something that you want.”

I rolled my eyes at the emphasis of the word you.

“And what would I want?” I asked.

“To go back to Africa. If you want to live in America as if it's Africa, then you might as well go back to Africa.”

“Go BACK?” I asked, emphasizing my incredulity at the sound of the word back.

“Isn’t that where you came from?”

“I mean… I could see it in my ancestry… my parents were of African decency… but I was born in America, and I am legally an American citizen.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Yes, the brain creates consciousness to generate thought, but because consciousness develops one’s awareness and perception, that would mean that the mind dominates the brain, because, by manipulating a person’s awareness and perception, it does not simply generate thought like the brain does, but instead, it controls thought.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“According to the dictionary, behavior is defined as, “the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.”

Okay, then, what does it mean to “act?”

The word “act” means “behave in the way specified.” That is seriously annoying.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“I mean, time may seem boundless and infinite, but the boundlessness and infinity only reinforces the limitations of time, because it shows our limited ability to reach the unlimitedness of time. Because of our mortality and the need for punctuality, we have no other choice but to be limited by time. I am limited by time. I don’t have infinite amounts of time to write this essay, let alone write every essay I want to write in the future, which ultimately can simplify to: “I don’t have infinite amounts of time to live.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Will the quotient of any number divided by zero ever be defined?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Suppose you could die without feeling any physical pain. What would it feel like?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Suppose some organism, let’s just say a chicken, hatched from an abandoned nest; there were no other eggs in that nest, so it couldn’t see its fellow chicken siblings, and since the nest was abandoned, the chicken couldn’t see its mother. There were no other chickens surrounding it. There were also no reflective surfaces in the area, so the chicken couldn’t see what it looked like and a few moments later, it became blind, so it could not look down at its feet or see its own feathers. Because of these factors, the chicken didn’t know that it was a chicken. Is it possible for the chicken to realize that it is a chicken? If so, what circumstances could lead the chicken to realize that it is a chicken, or is akin to any groups of chickens it may encounter?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“All religions say that they are the one and only religion. How can a person know that the religion they believe in is correct?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Is suicide a crime?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Why is humanity made to make all the discoveries? Why wasn’t it some kind of animal that ruled over everything and made history books?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Why can’t the romance genre be more like what Jane Austen writes? Jane Austen actually wrote relevant commentary about social class, wealth, and marriage, while this modernalike society’s romance is about people, both men and women , falling in love at first sight (because of physical appearance, in other words), and sometimes for money. There are also many stereotypes and cliches that do not show how real-life society functions. If Jane Austen were alive, she would hate what romance has become.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Suppose there is a group of friends who create a club where the rule is to “not follow any rules.” However, “do not follow any rules” is a rule. If the friends followed the rule, then they are breaking the rule at the same time, but if they try to break the rule, they would be following rules, which is forbidden. What a paradox! What should the friends do, without changing the rule?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Are there books and journals in Heaven?”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Good question. You have studied your history, and you know that slaves were property, not human beings, so they were objects instead of subjects to the government. To view another human being as property—objects instead of human beings—would not be biblical, because a slavemaster would kind of be acting like God–ruling over others and trying to use them for their own desires. That is not right, because the Bible says that no one is like God, and they shouldn’t act like a God over other people, because there is only one God, as one of the Ten Commandments mentioned.

“Also, even if human beings were allowed to act like God, the way those types of people rule over their slaves is unbiblical, because they do not follow the commandments about love. The New Testament says that we should love, forgive, and help others the same way Jesus did, but if people are going to objectify each other and view each other as property, slave masters' intentions to love, forgive, and help others would be reduced, if not unfulfilled.

“You also mentioned the New Testament’s commandments. You are correct, there are verses about slaves. Titus 2:9-10 says, ‘Slaves must always obey their masters and do their best to please them. They must not talk back or steal, but must show themselves to be entirely trustworthy and good. Then they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive in every way.’ By law, a slave would have to obedient to his or her master, so Paul was sent to show that God acknowledges the existence of this law, but even though this law was used, notice how slaves are required to not argue and steal, and they are required to be trustworthy. Those are values that were taught to freed believers! Titus 3:9 talks about preventing quarrels, Exodus 20:15 literally says, “Do not steal,” and Proverbs 11:13 condemns slanderers and praises trustworthy people, so even though slaves were still expected to follow the law, they, like other believers, had the opportunity to uphold biblical values and become strong Christians. Colossians 4:1 also says, ‘Masters, be just and fair to your slaves. Remember that you also have a Master—in heaven.’ This verse actually ensures the welfares of slaves. The laws that the government enforced at that time probably did spread the notion that slaves are property, and so, by law, slaves were still property, but by Christ, they were quite equal to the status of a freed believer. Their was care for slaves’ welfares, which, under Christ, raised them to a greater status than just property. They were property by law, but children of Christ through God.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Because my life would amount to nothing! It’s just gonna be pleasure without purpose! Okay, so you said that one of the things that would be in my version of a utopian world would be the termination of the gender and racial gap in STEM. You are right. That would be a part of a utopia! However, entering the simulation would not change the gap in real life, so I would merely be living in a whimsical illusion, not a pragmatic and realistic view of how things actually are. Plus, going into the simulation would sort of imply that I surrender to the racial and gender stereotypes. By entering the simulation and not choosing to face my fears of being stereotyped based on race and gender, I am merely showing that I am too scared to live in the world as it truly is and too scared to make a change in the real world.

“You also said that fame for intellectual discoveries was part of my version of a utopia, and that is also true, but if I made all of my discoveries in the fantasy world, then my goal to be well-known in the world for intellectual discoveries would technically not be accomplished, because no one in real life would know my name. Some programmed beings would, but I would just be another human being in the real world. I wouldn’t be contributing to anything in real life!”

Dad nodded in interest. “You’d rather be helpful than happy.”

“Absolutely!”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“I regret my philosophobia.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“For example, in the example with Terry and Chester, a person who was just beginning to meet the two could come up with the conclusion based on those two axioms, which a friend revealed to him/her. The person might try to come up with a solution to Terry’s hatred of Chester’s voice, and decide to teach the two characters American Sign Language, so Chester wouldn’t have to speak, but the person might later on discover that Terry seems to be functioning normally when Chester talks during casual, everyday conversations. It’s not that the person’s logic was incorrect; the conclusion was logically valid and logically followed the two axioms. It’s just that the axioms were accepted and assumed to be true. In reality, when the friend of Terry and Chester was referring to Chester’s “voice,” the friend was talking about Chester’s singing voice, not Chester’s actual voice, and the phrase “Terry hates everything Chester likes” could have been used hyperbolically, meaning that Terry does not literally hate everything Chester likes. The person came up with a logical conclusion, but the axioms were just immediately accepted as true; the person was not evaluating or verifying the information, nor was the person analyzing the multiple meanings behind the axioms.

With critical thinking, however, there are a few stages that are required before making a conclusion: there is remember and understand, so to understand information, a person would need to see if the information makes sense or is plausible. For example, if a person was learning about the properties of matter, he/she should be able to understand that it makes sense for liquid to have faster moving molecules than solid matter, because it does not have a definite shape unless it is put into some container, or he/she might try to scroll through multiple sources of information to fill any gaps in understanding and confirm information. Unlike logic, which immediately accepts axioms as true to create a conclusion, a person must look at information with a critical eye in order to truly understand it in critical thinking.

In addition, I think there is more skill and effectiveness behind deeply thinking about information (critical thinking) than trying to discover information (logic.) When it comes to thinking about the information (critical thinking), a person would have to understand the information’s real-world application (apply), the components of the information (analyze), the significance of the information (evaluate), and what can be made out with that information (synthesize.) Logic is an objective approach to trying to discover valid information, and it is highly important, but there is that lack of deep thinking when it comes to logic alone. A person would need critical thinking to verify the axioms and see the significance of the conclusion. Logic itself cannot view the significance of the conclusion Terry hates Chester’s voice, because it is meant to discover information based on axioms, not evaluate and make something out of information.

With this, I do find that critical thinking is more important and has a higher range of skill than logic.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“...I think that critical thinking is the most important thing that men, women, and children alike should have.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“However, if it is not viewed as an academic discipline, it might be different. In philosophy, things such as reality, knowledge, the significance of things, and morality are questioned, and since these things pretty much ask about life, every living being would probably have asked at least one philosophical question, because if a person is living, why would they not question their own lives? This could especially be the case with young children, who can ask questions such as “How come adults can stay up late while I can’t?” or “How do you know that God exists?” (And adults somehow think that us kids have less complex thoughts!) In these cases, a person questioning his/her life is trying to satisfy his/her OWN need to learn something, which is pretty much what Aurelius was trying to say. For the first question, “How come adults can stay up late while I can’t?,” the hypothetical child is questioning the purposes of children and adults, and how they contrast, which makes it a philosophical question, but the child pursued it not because he/she was assigned to do it, but because the question applied to his/her OWN life. The child might have noticed that the parents were able to stay up watching two hours of TV at 8:00 pm while being asked to go back to bed, and knew that the question should be asked during this point in his/her own life.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“It’s not just illogical.” He began to breathe heavily. “IT’S UNETHICAL! I may have embraced it before, but now, I hate this intolerance, racism—everything that you have encouraged since I was young! There really should have been a ‘Tolerance for Dummies’ book by now!”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“So, you’re a Capacianist now?” Ken Lar asked. “Finally!”

“No, I’m a Just-ificationist. Just-hyphen-icationist. I don’t want to pick sides anymore. I mean, if I could choose between Democrat and Republican, I would choose Centrist. Likewise, I wish Reformists and Capacianists could stop fighting and let each other mend the philosophical and academic flaws they have and acknowledge one another’s strengths, so that way, we could reform society by fusing both Capacianism and Reformation together. That’s why it’s called Just-ification. So we could use JUSTNESS as JUSTIFICATION for our movement, as Michael put it.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“I mean, if I could choose between Democrat and Republican, I would choose Centrist.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“I am a shepherd, not your sheep
I know that, by convention
I should draw my attention
To the beauty of this
Scenery
But my thoughts are my own
You may start to groan
Whenever I don’t show
Conformity to your expectations
Darn, you may see beauty in that river at night
I see vomit and vomit drippings
That’s not my fault
I have my own thoughts”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Anyways, I am not very sure if anything like hypnosis or thought control would make a philosophical zombie. Trying to “program” an already-conscious person does not seem conducive to making a being like a philosophical zombie, because of the freewill in thinking that I discussed while talking about reality and anti-realities. Because a person is free to think, he or she would have to choose whether or not they should be convinced by someone, or submit to hypnosis/programming, in this case. By making this decision, a person would have to sense what they could submit to, and think about it in order to make a decision as to whether or not they should let themselves act based on some kind of programming. These actions require conscious thought, even just a few seconds of it. As of right now, I believe that creating a philosophical zombie, although possibly conceivable depending on what lexicographers and linguists do, may not be possible in real life.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation

“Well, I think that this is just a question for linguists and lexicographers. Although, as previously mentioned, a person needs to sense another person and needs to think about the person to behave in a certain way, which requires conscious thought, is it possible for a programmed reaction, or a programmed way of behaving, to be defined as behavior? Let me elaborate: if a normal human being is slapped in the face, the person would sense the slap and reflexively think of things such as how painful, unexpected, or annoying it was. Then, the person would say “ow” or maybe try to slap the person back. However, a p-zombie would react by saying “ow,” or by slapping the person back, but it is not doing any of this out of its own will, because without conscious thought, it doesn’t have a will. Something in the p-zombie could cause it to react without having to think, like with a robot; if I were to say “hi” to a robot, it could be programmed to say “hi” back, but it would only do it because it was programmed to do it, not because it senses that a person is saying “hi” and thinks of it as a friendly greeting. If it is possible for a being to be programmed like that, it could do such things, but determining whether or not actions like this are forms of behavior still depends on how society defines behavior. When a person behaves a certain way, he/she provides a reaction for a person. When a robot says “hi” to a person who just said “hi”, it is reacting to that person, so this could be viewed as a behavior, but the dictionary definition is a bit ambiguous, because it doesn’t specify whether the way one acts has to be conscious (like with a normal human being) or unconscious (like with a robot), so linguists and lexicographers need to establish that parameter to define behavior. If linguists and lexicographers were to say that behavior, by definition, does not have to be conscious, then a p-zombie could be conceivable.”
― Lucy Carter, The Reformation