doctrine class

“A doctrine and religion of ‘love’ can be of the highest value within classes of people, even from the point of view of the rulers, for it suppresses feelings of rivalry, ressentiment, and envy in the underprivileged. It even deifies a life of slavery, subjection, poverty, sickness, and inferiority under the ideal of humility and obedience. This explains why the ruling classes, races, or individuals have at all times upheld the cult of selflessness and the gospel of the lowly.”

—F. Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §373 (edited excerpt).

Those who recognize only the class struggle are not yet Marxists; they may be situated still within the framework of bourgeois thinking and bourgeois politics. To limit Marxism to the doctrine of the class struggle means to chop up Marxism, distort and reduce it to something acceptable to the bourgeoisie. Only those persons are Marxists who extend the recognition of class struggle as far as the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is what constitutes the most profound difference between the Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as grand) bourgeois.
—  V.I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution.” 1918.

“The gospel is the news that a gateway to happiness stands open for the poor and lowly; that all one has to do is free oneself from the institutions, traditions, and guardianship of the upper class. To this extent the rise of Christianity is nothing more than the typical socialist doctrine.”

—F. Nietzsche, The Will to Power, §209 (edited excerpt).

mermaidelephant  asked:

I would really like to hear more of your religious Star Wars meta. I never realized just how much my interpretation of God was influenced by the OT until my Catholic Doctrine class in high school and I tried to explain the parallels I saw in the movies to my classmates. They didn't really get it. :( Apparently CS Lewis and Tolkien are the only fictional works appropriate *rolls eyes

You are in luck, friend, because I’ve decided to make a masterpost! Here you go: all of my currently existing theological Star Wars meta.

I’m sure there will be more but for now there you go. :)

anonymous asked:

Can you please explain how electron orbitals work? Like what are they why are they all weird shaped and what the heck are nodes? Also- bonus question: clarify how electrons act like waves and particles

I’m not a quantum chemist in any way shape or form, and I failed pretty hard at doing basic tasks like making buffer today so I may not be the best source of information here, but I’ll do my best to answer your question.

Atomic orbitals are probability density functions, which means that they represent the area where an electron is most likely to be found, (if you want to think of an electron as a discrete particle with a definite location, which isn’t actually accurate but is a nice approximation that makes everybody’s head hurt a little less, so let’s go with that.) The nodes then, are the places that the electron is definitely not, like never ever. A handy way to remember this is nodes = No damn electrons. 

The shapes happen because orbitals behave like waves, so they add and subtract from each other based on their signs (positive and negative, not pisces and gemini, the reason that they have said signs is as mysterious to me as why people care about the zodiac, but has more math involved).

This bit is pretty opaque to me because I spend my days thinking about things like gene transcription and worm genetics and not quantum mechanics, but basically each orbital is described by a set of quantum numbers denoting energy (n), angular momentum (l), axial (?) orientation (ml) and spin (ms), which taken together describe their shape and size based on the Schroedinger equation, but the one that is most important for the shape is angular momentum (l). Why they are shaped the way they are is due to the way that the Schroedinger equation is solved for those numbers and has to do with oscillations and shit, iirc, but basically if you do the math it makes sense. If not, you accept that they look the way they do and don’t judge the d and f orbitals for their weird shapes. 

(mj-the-scientist could probably explain all of this better because this is sort of her field, so yeah, please correct my many mistakes, I am a humble biologist)

As for why electrons (and all particles really) act as both waves and particles? The best allegory I’ve got is this:

It’s like how science-jesus is both fully human scientist and fully divine scientist while also only one single scientist. The way that that adds up has been the subject of much ecclesiastical debate, has lead to schisms in the science church, and makes your head hurt if you think too much about it, but is ultimately because a bunch of old guys said so a long time ago. In our case, the old guys are math.