Are humans matter.. or psyche?

well, we must first define matter and psyche
matter is everything that occupies space and has mass and weight
the psyche is the influence of thought, personality and behaviour of humans
now, if we had to decide one or another (not both, nor neither), i would decide humans are matter, because we are mostly mass and weight and occupy space. If we were only psyche, were would that be? Because we are matter, we do have a brain. We can think, do and be. If we were only psyche, were would we be? that will bring us in an existentialism crysis, because if there was no matter, this would all be a dream, or matter is not physical just like psyche, so physical things don't exist. We don't exist. Were are we?
So, we are definetely matter. Psyche doesn't change us at all. We are who we are because of our DNA and because of our experiences in life. If psyche is the influence to think, do and be, then what is our brain? Our brain does have conscience and unconsciousness and we have our personality because of our DNA and we are who we are because of that and because of our experiences that later become knowledges and wisdom. Psyche doesn't exist, psyche is a religion, psyche is impossible to feel, bear, sense. Even passion, the ignition that make us do what we do with or without reason, is called adrenaline, in small or big quantities, and its all a chemical process in our brain. PSYCHE DOES NOT EXIST!!

How can things become someone's property?

Well, now-a-days, everything that is inside the boundaries of a country belongs to the country (except people, duh!). Even animals. But my question is, why? In the beggining of times you found something and it was yours, but when did it happen that something that doesn't have an owner or a explicit and verifiable thing that says that that something belongs to someone, belongs to the government? To rephrase that, when and who said that? Is it on the constitution? (I could answer that question, but it would take me a bit of time and my will is not in a good mood today), if so, then who owns the piece of paper that says that I own something?
today, if you want to own something, you have to meet the conditions the previous owner says (ussualy to pay money), but, who is the very first owner of that thing? in fact, who is the very first owner of everything? God? (oh dear lord in the otherworld illuminate us with your wisdom and help your children in Earth to understand your will, OH LOORD!)
no, seriously, who was the first owner of anything?
I hope I can go on with this post, but I missed the class our teacher sent us this homework, so all I said started from scratch, not like my other posts where I actually did think a lot to say what its there. Well, this is the E.N.D. (the extreme point of something, or Energy Never Dies? did Black Eyed Peas answer what they meant with the name of their last album?)

How was God addressed in the middle ages?

God was addressed by some ways: heritage, and by society.
I dont really understand the question but I'll talk about some other stuff
back in that time, there were some problems when it came to God, and there were 2 types: the philosophical ones and the theological ones.
God was (or is..?) an omnieverything; by that I mean omnipresent and omnipotent, and everybody that didn't agree with that should shut up or should be burned in the bonfire, and also because of the individualization (you are what you are because God said so, and if you don't agree with that, you will be what God lets you to be)
a very big problem problem back in that time, was that, What language does God speak? its still a mistery...

Idols of the Mind

the Idols of the Mind are (for me) the margins of error that appear when we think, and also are not really easy to change, and are named by Francis Bacon. There are 4:
-Tribe Idols: they are idols that appear when we are in a new or different situation than usual and that request a fast response, and what happens is that we do what others do.
-Cave Idols: they appear when someone does a terrible, horrible, grotesque thing, and asks for a response as same as terrible, horrible and grotesque.
-Marketplace Idols: its a language problem, which can arise from differences in the culture, in the characteristics of the message (speed, tone, complexity), etc.
-Theatre Idols: wrong apprenticeship or misunderstanding and the diffusal of it.

the only thing I can say about it is that I hate them with my whole being and I think they come from people that like to act like idiots or are ignorants..

an example of a cave idol is what happened today at school: our homeroom teacher told us that we must bring the memo's signed by our parents, but many parents get the memo's through e-mails and of their children mouths, but still he insisted that we must bring them signed because his boss says so.

Rene Descartes

René Descartes (pronounced "ʁəne de'kaʁt" in french) was a french philosopher, mathematician and physicist born in 1596 and dead in 1650. he was considered the father of modern philosophy because other philosophers will base their works in Descartes'. Descartes thought a lot about materia and substances, but he was afraid of what his thought would cause (back in that time, philosophers where chased to death, or to the bonfire).
Ignoring that he could die because of his thoughts, he made up a method bonding Epistemology, Phenomenology and Existentialism, which is called the Cartesian Method. With the use of this method, Descartes affirmed that everything can be explained.
Also, he got to the conclusion of I think therefore I am with that method, and this is how he got there:
I don't know what I am, and I don't know the answer of it, but I can make questions about it, and that assures me that I exist
He also got to other conclusions, like that the Soul is the combination of the machine part and the substance part of the human being.
As the class went by, I started to get my own conclusion if I am real or not, and my mind seemed to explode. I didn't have any reason to think about that, and if I don't know the answer it wont change anything (i guess), but I did broke my brain joint thinking about that, and after some relaxation and new ideas I got to the conclusion that Descartes' conclusion is the most reasonable one about my existence (until we study others existentialist, i guess)
well I skipped some part of that class here in the post because its really complicated to blog about it but i got it so i think there is no problem :D

Descartes' Grave :D

What makes people follow a 10 year old kid talking about god and creation?

Most of the people follow everything that has a relationship with faith or God. But, what makes them follow a 10 year old kid talking about god and creation? I think because they find the kid cute, screaming all over the place, talking about God. At start, they think its a joke, but later on, they pay attention to what the kid says, and start to believe on him (remembering how was the first time.. the first impression is never erased). Most of traditional christians think religion is a big deal, and they take everything personal, even this kid; so when they hear someone talking about this kid, there will be 2 reactions:
1. Oh yeah, that kid is so right. Everybody should be like him (Hipocresy in another words)
2. Hey! stop talking like that about the kid! He is right, and don't mess with his mother! (Complete ignorance of the big picture)
Also, maybe people believe this kid because of the trust and emotion it inspirates on others (he could be talking about how he peed in his bed last night, and people would still take it seriously), his phrasing (which I think he made up while remembering one of his traumas as a strange boy), and because of the fact of being a boy with a suit that doesn't fit him. A clear way to prove that is watching his actual videos, and see that he doesn't have that charm he had as a boy...
Maybe every kid should go on stages, talk about things you dont understand, wear a big tuxedo, give interviews, sing, etc. and make money from it, because why talk about something you don't even understand completely with people clapping and (blindly) loving you if you can't make a profit of it... Which bring us back to the same question: Why? make your own conclusions...

Aristotle

Aristotle (in greek Ἀριστοτέλης, born in 384 BC, died 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and a disciple of Plato. His thought differs from Plato's in a lot of things, like in metaphysics, political theory, and in psychology (the theory of the soul), speacially in the theory of the soul. Aristotle's base of psychology is this theory, and he bases his theory on natural science (I still don't know what he means with natural science), saying that the soul is the thing that owns the psychic functions (memory, breathing, nutrition, growing, emotions, perception, and thought), and the body is the thing in which these functions are embodied and receptors from other people. Also the soul is able to survive after the body is dead, keeping all its characteristics (but where does it go? no explanation there), totally independent of the body (so it can take over a body. Where? In the body factory before its delivery?) and immaterial.
In ethics, Aristotle talks about eudaimonia, moral virtues, virtues of intellect, the "mean", and how all this cant be achieved, only some of this or parts of all of them (maybe because that would be perfection itself... hmmm...)
I can specify all about Aristotle, but its late (22:00), I dont remember much of it because it was something we saw 2 weeks ago (short memory =P) and it must be done so Jose can check it and stablish my grades.