Why I Always Want to be Right

“For all serious intellectual progress depends upon a certain kind of independence of outside opinion.” – Bertrand Russell 1940

On a few occasions, some people whom I’m having conversations with have suggested that I can’t stand being wrong (read as “incorrect”, thus not in a moral sense). But I quickly respond and mention that nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, I love being shown where I’ve failed, or where I’ve missed something. Why, you ask? Because I then have learned something whereby I am then in a position to be more correct. I enjoy being proved (shown) wrong, so that I can then be right. ☺

Then I got to thinking, that this seems kind of snobbish. It would beg the response: “You always have to be right, don’t you?!?!” But I ask what else would one desire in matters such as these? Who would want to be wrong, for the sake of being wrong? I’m not discussing matters such as romantic relationships or morality, which receive their “rightness” from somewhere else. I’m discussing intellectual correctness in public discourse, which leads to personal development.

This is what I’m concerned with: development and growth. It is about a “winning”, only there should not be a loser. Both parties should gain and grow. The leading quote by Russell references the “outside opinion” which is necessary for growth. And there is nothing snobbish about wanting, and being proud of, progression.

Democracy

A more general example of this is democracy. I’m no political science guru of any type but here are my two cents. Democracy is also about being right, for its constituents; it is about the growth, progress, and development of its citizens. Now what makes democracy unique is its methods in achieving such goals. Democracy believes voices should be heard. Not that we should find or reach a majority voice and then base our truth off of it; rather that through the work of rational discourse between a multitude (not solely the democrat/republican dichotomy we currently seem to have fallen into) of views, we then discover (discern) a more “correct” (right) view.

This is what Russell is talking about. If you want progress, you cannot have a majority voice, whether political or other, judge the value of the other opinions, and thus dominate and determine truth. Democracy is reliant upon debate and genuine debate requires an independence of opinions, a suspension of a determination of truth. Listening to the minority voice (or just the other side of a given topic), while never being prepared to change your own position, is not a genuine, or rational stance to take. Part of what it is to be rational is the willingness to change (progress), to no longer remain dogmatic, or what Russell would call “rigid”.

My discussion of truth may sound very relativistic, but that is not what I mean. A relativistic truth would say that no side is more right/correct than the other. What I am trying to express is that you need the openness first, as a foundation, to then, in rational discourse, be better prepared to see which view is more correct. Relativism, on the other hand, never gets off the ground. It never makes the decision; it always remains at the opposition (if you can call it that) and as such, can never have genuine discourse.

Democracy is also predicated on the fact that we can be wrong. That is why the majority view cannot be seen as truth. We cannot dogmatically hold on to the majority view, for the fallibility of people is a foundational part of democracy. The “independence of outside opinion” must always exist to keep us honest.

Conclusions

To tie this back into my original points, I want to get back to the individual being right or wrong. Those people have said that I can’t stand being wrong because I freely attempt to support my side, or the devil’s advocate side, with as much argumentation as possible. It is not that I discredit (dis-value) the other side, but that if we are to ever progress, we must be fair to both sides and must have them both be argued for as such. A big benefit to being able to argue coherently for your opponent is that you are forced to focus on the rational discourse (which requires multiple views), rather than merely your conviction for one side of a given topic. So actually, it isn't about me being right, but about all of the parties involved learning from the discourse.

Perhaps, it is less about individuals (and democratic discourse) being “right”, and more about the progressing.

“The world needs open hearts and open minds, and it is not through rigid systems, whether old or new, that these can be derived.” – Bertrand Russell 1957

Christian Ritual

[Disclaimer: this post makes a lot of broad claims, sometimes even historical ones! My goal is not to lay out universal claims for Christianity, but rather to explain my experience of a select, remote Christian context. Feel free to correct, explain, denounce, or question, anything said hence forth. I see no reason why my un-cited statements would be insufficient or misleading in some way.]

Ritual is a part of most, if not all, religions; Christianity is no exception. From major events such as marriages, baptisms, and funerals, to daily and weekly actions such as prayer, meditation, fasting, communion, singing, etc., 21st century Christianity appears to retain its ritual. In fact, after mentioning all of those, it seems as if it is primarily ritualistic. And yet, I find more and more that there is a constant doing-away with it.

Through the commencement of the enlightenment era, where modern thought found a place outside of religion, religion faced decisions such as: should it take up the rationalism of the time, should it concern itself only with itself, its doctrine, faith, and its own construction and exemplification of morality, and many other questions similar to this. In some form or other, many of the Christian sects have incorporated modernal rationalism in some fashion or other.

Seeing that the “science and religion” game isn’t a very good one to play (explained below), Christianity has recently begun to attempt to refocus upon what it is good at: faith, community, the development of its own sort of morality through charity, and ritual. However, I do not think the recent heritage of rationalism and focus on cognition within the past few centuries has been shed so successfully.

I recently attended a church service of a northern Indiana missionary church and the “rituals” astounded me. Concerning almost every song, and in almost every prayer, there was a call to a thought of, reflection on, attention to, etc. (a constant reflection and consciousness concerning what the attendee was doing). No longer can one “do”; rather, one must always think, reason, explain, justify, his or her ritualistic actions: think about the words of the song; know and explain why you celebrate Christmas; understand what this prayer means; and countless others.

Christianity is becoming a mental, cognitive, and very conscious-oriented religion. Even in trying to do away with the rationalism of the last several centuries, the congregation is asked to “think” back to the roots of Christianity and the bible, and then reflect upon that.

Even in ritual, there is this reiteration of the reflection; a centrality of thought in a realm created in and for thoughtlessness, for doing. Further, thinking and reflection also have their place in religion; we should always be prepared to think about what things we chose to be a part of. But with contemporary Christianity, thought (cognition) has become central, and this centrality is displacing the efficacy of ritual.

The Results

First, there is the resultant guilt (and self-centeredness) of repeatedly focusing on failures. This constant visualization and contemplation of the lack, cannot but conclude with a failure to succeed. One cannot achieve a success; there is always a failure and always a thinking on that failure. In this self-ish repetition, the Divine almost never enters in to it and thus, there is no peace.

But more to the point, it leads to doubt. This is why I said the “science and religion” game is not a good one to play. It is always misleading. So while I do not feel that the tension is warranted, it is always present. Part of the sermon talked directly about this. When people are constantly shown scientific information which appears to “explain” things that the church cannot, it results in doubt. Again, this explanation should never displace religion, but nonetheless, there is a fight for who gets the position, the sole position, between science and religion (in my opinion, there are two realms, and neither should problematize the other). Thus, people doubt the rational side of religion, completely missing the equally relevant non-rational/cognitive sides, such as ritual.

Perhaps the more disconcerting effects are the following:
Prayer becomes a (self-centered) petition for forgiveness of sins and chance at improvement of the self, rather than an openness to the Divine. Song is no longer sung and participated in, but the lyrics are to be contemplated and thought out. In rituals such as marriage, communion, funerals, and baptism, there is a constant call to reflection on the reasoning for the event, rather than the experiencing of the event itself. The self must always be (self-)conscious and aware of what it is doing, rather than being a part of and taken up in the experience. It delimits the self and closes off the believer from his or her relations with the ritual, the community, and the Divine.

The experience of Christianity has become remarkably cognitive.

Poetry, Art and my Ramblings on Them

First, as a disclaimer, I've never taken a course on Aesthetics. Thus, this post is in no way grounded in any historical account of aesthetics; it is merely my own take on something I have never been much good at: art. Consequently, there is most likely a few thousand pages discrediting everything I'm about to say. Owell.

Poetry
I’m not a big fan of poetry, never have been. I’m all for using uncommon words and constructing your writing in unique and inventive ways, but I don’t feel that you need poetry to achieve those effects. I hate dry, monotonous diction and syntax just as much as the next reader, but poetry, while certainly avoiding monotony and constantly playing with sentence structure, remains unappealing nonetheless.

I don’t doubt that there is much meaning to be had in poetry. But for me, there is a good deal of difficulty in discerning good poetry and bad poetry. That doesn’t exactly give me much hope for poetry.

I do however, enjoy rhyming. I think it takes a lot of skill to rhyme. Chaucer used a decasyllabic meter with an A-A, B-B rhyming scheme for the entirety of Canterbury Tales (I could be slightly off on this). That my friends, is impressive. It takes discipline. But this discipline is predicated on structure. Rhyming forces the writer to subject his thoughts to structure, but not in such a way as to lose the value and individuality of the thought. Rather, whatever the writer is attempting to express, s/he must always form the expression within a pattern, or structure.

Now you could say that this is stifling creative thinking and writing. And while I do not disagree, you then open the writing up and no longer is it able to be subjected to criterion. Dissolving the structure of the writing, at the same time, absolves the writing from judgment. No longer can the reader say, this piece of poetry is good, or that piece of poetry lacks quality. In fact, the designation (of the “this” or “that” as poetry) itself becomes less certain.

Prose is more than capable of giving us the creativity and ingenuity to stimulate and fill our imagination. (Read you some Picture of Dorian Grey by Oscar Wilde)

Art in General
Within structure, the skill and thus, quality can be determined. I suppose this despising of poetry stems from an issue I have with art as meaning-making in general. With no structure as a guide, no end-point by which to base the work on, the creator no longer requires skill. Hence why the distinction between good poetry and bad poetry becomes muddled.

Great artists rarely are considered great by one piece of art. It takes a collection; a repeated creation and production of art by which, we can then judge the artist. A single piece can be magnificent, but that does not make the creator magnificent.

We don’t praise haphazardry (if it wasn’t a word before, it is now) because it doesn’t involve skill. There is no specificity, and thus, it is open for all to achieve (if you wish to call it an achievement).

Pablo Picasso: “There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality.”

I love that quote. There is always “something” there first, and then the artist abstracts away. This “away” is taken directly from the Latin prefix ‘ab’, and entails a “something” first there, from which we move. But this abstraction, this removal (or movement away), is not done simply. It is technically done, it involves skill. And through this movement away, a trajectory or structure of the piece is then discovered. And through the structure, we then are able to judge the quality, the skill, of the artist.

People Who Use "Extravagant" Language

Before I begin, I know this is lengthy but I encourage everyone to read it through, think about it, and then comment to me (on here or in person). This is a topic that hits close to home for me. Notice I put this at the beginning so people wouldn't get half way and decide they didn't want to read the rest and then not see how important this topic and their comments are to me :)

A quote: "Hegel wrote in his essay "Who Thinks Abstractly?" that it is not the philosopher who thinks abstractly but the person on the street, who uses concepts as fixed, unchangeable givens, without any context. It is the philosopher who thinks concretely, because he goes beyond the limits of everyday concepts to understand their broader context. This makes philosophical thought and language seem mysterious or obscure to the person on the street."

I take this to mean 2 things.

1. When people use various words without thinking about their meaning/context, they don't realize the ramifications of what they're saying, as well as what they're not saying. As a result, they have a set of static words which people take to mean something, but that that "something" is no longer necessarily the same referent (intended word). When we take language as something static, we do not realize how language works. This creates the possibility for unintended statements, miscommunication, and most often confusion on both parties.

2. And so if we are to then begin thinking (being aware and open), we must now step outside and away from typical verbage. Thus, someone who thinks about (analyzes) these concepts, and describes/explains things in "not-normal" ways, is seen as weird because they have to use words outside of the normal lexicon. But when the typical lexicon is steeped with ambiguous, if not vague, meanings and connotations, it is no longer fruitful to use such words when participating in discourse.

I tend to agree with this (go figure right?), but I do feel like I have some support for this (go figure again...).

I've begun reading some Heideggar and can't help but notice that whenever he begins to think about and discuss a particular topic, he often gives about 5 different and possible definitions for that word. Once the reader works through all the options and sees how he then begins to use the word, his writing becomes much more poignant and lucid. The reader realizes that when he uses a given word, this is in no way a nilly-willy invocation; rather, it is a deliberate, methodical representation of a specific concept (I emphasize the specificity), which all the more allows the reader to become more readily available to the thought of his work. And that is how thinking begins.

A perfect example is the beginning of this blog. I took twice as many words to interpret one simple paragraph. It says something about a person's writing when they can write very little and evoke a great deal of thought. (For me, its a sign of great writing.)

Those are my thoughts, but I am seriously interested to hear what my friends and family (or perhaps all ten of you who read this) have to say on this topic. This is something that directly relates to who I am and the people who have friendships and familial ties with me, and so I would like hear what other opinions are on the subject.

Sarcasm is a serious thing… no, really!

First, I apologize for never writing part 2 to my previous post (from August?!?!?!). That topic is now uninteresting to me.

Second, I realize this post is long. I thought about breaking it into two parts, but then figured, if its that big of deal, the reader can just read half of it, then come back two days later and read the other half. I’ll even denote a half-way point for those who desire to take this course of action.

Sarcasm is typically seen as the invocation of mockery or irony as a result of contempt for something. In either case, the intended meaning does not lie in the truth of the stated proposition. The intent of the statement is actually meant to be contrary to the utterance. So if you combine the mockery with possible confusion when hearing sarcasm, you are left with a dangerous rhetorical device.

There are two big dangers: 1) the speaker is taken as serious or 2) the speaker’s intent was correctly diagnosed by the listener as being sarcastic, but then loses authority or reliability in future dialogue.

Sarcasm, like most language, is based on assumption. The speaker assumes the listener knows s/he is being sarcastic and that s/he will not be taken to be serious. Now this assumption is usually not rash. We have intonation, and facial expressions which help assure that the sarcasm is relayed effectively. But with text, the assumption becomes much more precarious. However, outlandish remarks also safely do the job. If the listener (or reader in this case) understands that what is being said is ludicrous, then the irony or contempt is received more fully. Difficulty arises when sarcasm is not ridiculous. The more coherent and/or possible the statement, the less recognizable the intent, when sarcastic.

The second danger is that the speaker loses authority over time. As the listener begins to understand that, less and less, this particular speaker means what s/he is saying, but rather means something else, sincerity heads to the backburner. The more sarcasm is used, the more the speaker is taken in jest. It’s a “boy-who-cries-wolf” story where the boy slowly loses his ability to convince. As a result, when a typically sarcastic person wants to say what they mean, they will go unheard and their speech becomes frustrated.

Half-way! If you’re tired of reading what I have to say right now*, then just leave this page and come back in a day or two! * [and by “now”, I mean “now” as when you read the word “now”, not “now” as in when I typed the word “now”; although it is certainly possible that those days will be the same, if you read it today. And I mean “today” as in the day I typed “today”, not necessarily the day in which you read it.]

So why do we use sarcasm? Why do we *say* what we don’t mean? Why is it beneficial or even useful? Well I’ve already mentioned the primary reason, viz. to show contempt or to mock. At some point, repeating what the other said, maybe in a sneering tone, was signifying that if you take what was just said, and hold it up to the fire, it will wither away like the supposed waste you take it to be. In a sense, it’s a reductio. One is saying, “look, if you take what you said, this is the ridiculousness that results.” And so we use grandiose words to inflate their statement, and then pop it with our sharp tone.

Sarcasm is also funny. I haven’t thought much about this, but it seems to be one of the bigger oddities we have in language. Of course the bigger question is why is anything funny, but in particular, why do American’s find so much comedy in sarcasm?

One final use lies in the possibility for ambiguity. Again, this is a direct function of any rhetorical device or word. Unclear terms leave open possibility, and utility stems directly from possibilities. It is left up to the interlocutor to figure out exactly what is being meant by the word or phrase. The speaker has said it, and knows what they meant; but it now remains to be seen whether or not this meaning will ever be fully grasped by the listener. This can be quite useful and if correctly employed in this fashion, sarcasm is deadly.

Thus, I can say something sarcastically while knowing that most everyone else will think I am being serious, and plant a little seed (of sarcasm) which will wait to explode sometime in the near future. As people begin to understand more and more about who I am, what I’ve been saying, and my intentions, suddenly, the things I’ve said now take a different meaning: they become the meaning I intended, the meaning that now becomes a bit sharper, and this makes those words a bit more real.

Pattern

This post will deal with pattern. My next post will translate pattern into our daily life, with time and “fate” being considered.

Pattern first hit me in the face while reading On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins. His entire thesis says that memory and prediction are the same thing and all revolve around pattern. Our brain collects input and remembers the pattern in which all the various data are sequenced. When we go through a situation similar to one we’ve experienced before, we remember it, and can better prepare for what is most likely coming next. Intelligence then, is our ability to recognize patterns in the world and then react appropriately.

The better you understand an event, the more likely you’re able to be in control throughout it. The intelligent being sees a piano falling from the sky and realizes it will continue to fall, and will crush them if they do not move. The unintelligent being doesn’t have a grasp on the pattern of events that are going to occur, they cannot predict the outcome, and thus don’t move, and are hit by the piano.

This is only a theory. But I find it extremely appealing and most certainly applicable. (You can see from this brief, unlikely example that there is a type of fitness level built into it; i.e. the intelligent being can understand events and thus keep itself alive). Hawkins believes that pattern recognition is an integral function of our brain. I would agree. Not only do we seek pattern per se, but also meaning (perhaps the two are closely related with meaning being the more abstract cousin of the cold, “factual” data that pattern connotates). As mentioned before, to understand something is to be in control. Also, to discover a pattern, is to provide meaning for a sequence of events. Having done that, we have taken control of the event, and no longer need to worry about the chaos an unpatterned, meaningless event would entail. Once we’ve given something meaning, it has value in our life, and fits into our idea of the world.

The next post will take a few of these ideas and raise a point or two, as well as a few questions.

P.S. My blog-friend Sam Nunnally has a blog series on an age-old topic of the compatabilty of religion and science. But he’s taken an extremely refreshing approach already (he’s only 2 posts in) and has definitely put an insightful spin to it. I think ya’ll will enjoy it.

The Sacred and the Profane

This post primarily consists of two direct block quotes from Mircea Eliade's book titled The Sacred and the Profane .  For anyone who's interested in religion, the history of religion or comparative religion as a subject-matter, I strongly recommend this book(oh, and disregard the non-gender-neutral language he employs. He wrote in a different time). 

The book is by no means an easy, nor straight-forward, read, but it will simply rock your world. There were points where I'd read a sentence or paragraph and simply stop and smile and/or shake my head in awe at the power and resonance Eliade's writing contains. So without further ado:

From page 23:

Revelation of a sacred space makes it possible to obtain a fixed point and hence to acquire orientation in the chaos of homogeneity, to "found the world" and to live in a real sense. The profane experience, on the contrary, maintains the homogeneity and hence the relativity of space. No true orientation is now possible, for the fixed point no longer enjoys a unique ontological status; it appears and disappears in accordance with the needs of the day. Properly speaking, There is no longer any world, there are only fragments of a shattered universe, an amorphous mass consisting of an infinite number of more or less neutral places in which man moves, governed and driven by the obligations of an existence incorporated into an industrial society.

From page 203:

We only observe that, in the last analysis, modern nonreligious man assumes a tragic existence and that his existential choice is not without its greatness. But this nonreligious descends from homo relgiosus and, whether he likes it or not, he is also the work of religious man; his formation begins with the situations assumed by his ancestors. In short, he is the result of a process of desacralization. Just as nature is the product of a progressive sacralization of the cosmos as the work of God, profane man is the result of a desacrilization of human existence. But this means that nonreligious man has been formed by opposing his predecessor, by attempting to "empty" himself of all religion and all transhuman meaning. He recognizes himself in proportion as he "frees" and "purifies" himself from the "superstitions" of his ancestors. In other words, profane man cannot help preserving some vestiges of the behavior of religious man, though they are emptied of their religious  meaning. Do what he will, he is an inheritor. He cannot utterly abolish his past, since he himself is a product of his past. He forms himself by a series of denials and refusals, but he continues to be haunted by the realities that he has refused and denied. To acquire a world of his own, he has desacrilized the world in which his ancestors lived; but to do so he has been obliged to adopt the opposite of an earlier type of behavior, and that behavior is still emotionally present to him, in one form or another, ready to be re-actualized in his deepest being.

.... Crazy-good.

Stupid Questions

First an update and then on to the true topic, the title of the blog.

I'm 2 days away from completing my summer course. Notice the singular noun "course" and not the plural which would have been the case had I not dropped my first ever university course. After the first test, and a few homeworks (one which was a zero because he had switched book editions while keeping his course supplement the same), my grade was hovering in the low C range. I figured I'd be able to pull that back up on the next test. When the next test proved to rock me worse than the first, I dropped it. I have no desire to have a C calculated into my GPA (not to mention that, given the trend, my grade would have been a letter lower than that).

Having said that, the class average, across the first two tests which I was there for, was a 62%. That was the main reason for me dropping it. When a teacher's class has a D- as a class average on his or her tests, something is amiss, and it doesn't lie with the students.

On a more joyful note, I've been spending some quality time with my girlfriend on the weekends, which has included: going to Indy to meet Shawn and Monica, going to her hometown fair to see her MC a "lil miss and mr." contest as well as model for a fashion show, and then this weekend, go to the Elkhart Co fair this weekend. Great times.

Speaking of fairs, since there is a 3-week dead spot between summer sessions and fall semester, I will be working at the Indiana State Fair for that period of time. That was nice to have worked out so I stay busy and make some money going into the school-year.

I will be going to Warped tour again this year. It has become a staple of my summers and something I wish would come around more often. Forty bucks for almost ten hours of 5 stages of music. I currently have 12 bands I plan on watching. So far, I've been able to see all the ones I've wanted to see in the past without them playing simultaneously. Hopefully that continues this year.

And oh ya, by the way... I turn 21 in less than 10 days.

Now on to the title of the blog:

There is a phrase I've heard quite often. Some might call it words of wisdom or something along those lines. I call it wrong. The phrase is "there is no such thing as a stupid question".

Let me explain some examples of where this certainly does not hold:

An instance where someone asks a question and either discovers the answer before the other person can generate a response or, along the same lines, was simply too lazy to "look" and "see" the answer right in front of them. I do this all the time, especially when I'm at work. I'll ask someone where a tool or something is and they pretty much point right in front of me to where the object was. I hate it and its a perfect example of when someone asks a stupid question. Its the same thing when someone asks a question and then discovers the answer on their own before anyone can respond. Did you really have to ask the question if it took less than 2 seconds to find the answer and you found it on your own? Probably not.

In both cases, stopping to think, for only a brief moment, will save time and the annoyance of the person I'm/your asking the question to. These types of questions are stupid because they're unnecessary. Not to mention that very little insight is actually gained by the actual asking of the question. Typically, the goal of a question is to find some sort of information in respect to that question which, before asking the question, the interrogator had no access to. When a stupid question is asked, this entire process becomes meaningless because, the goal (information) was already available to the questioner without the need for the question, making the question-asking needless and irrelevant.

One might say that we only discover stupid questions in retrospect, after we find that we discovered the information on our own, before any interlocutor could respond. But I would be willing to bet, that if we took a moment to think, and to consider just what it is we're asking before we ask our question, we would all save ourselves the time and annoyance of asking stupid questions.

Update and Cool Internet Pictures

Update:

- I am one week (20%) done with 2 summer courses at Ball State this summer.

- I am officially living in my first ever house (thus, I am paying all sorts of bills, including my first ever trip to buy groceries for myself).

- I picked a great week to stop working and  commence sitting in a classroom during the day (it seems to have been at 90 degrees or above since Friday, my last day of work. Last night it was still 90 at 7:30 P.M.!

- Now that I don't work, I can get back to running. Less stress on my body from landscaping and more endorphins released from the running has already made me feel much better and more energetic throughout the day.

- I have a girlfriend!!!!! Her name is Megan Burkett. Feel free to facebook stalk her, but she's more interesting in person.

- Her and I will be hanging out with my bro and sister-in-law next weekend in Indy. I'm very much looking forward to it!

- While in Indy, I'll also be going to a concert next Saturday with my friend Kolton. Notice: We'll throw down with anyone!... if there's only one of them... and s/he is smaller than us.

Pictures:

I have linked this site several times, but for those of you who don't know how to subscribe, here are some amazing pictures. My last post talked a lot about how small the earth is, and necessarily how small we are. But these pictures, with their blend of natural and human constructed geography, do give me a sense of awe when (on this scale, which is much larger than we're used to) we see how human beings capably interact with the natural world around them. It also helps show how there are some instances where we manipulate the world around us, and how we also must be adaptive and utilize what natural forces and events exist, outside of our control.

You are Here

Part of my summer reading has included Carl Sagan's Pale Blue Dot. The book mainly is a justification/call for scientific research in/on space. Sagan is defending NASA funding (and other endeavors like it). I recommend the book if only for the pictures, which range from capturing the grandeur of galaxies, to portraits that merely encompass our little earth. Most of the book is explaining what all was gained and advanced by the Voyager expeditions, as well as the Apollo missions and others. One quick example is that the way we discovered that CFC's react with ozone molecules the way that they do, stemmed from scientists working on different chemical reactions which would be taking place in the atmosphere of Venus, which contains large amounts of cholrine and flourine. I'm not promoting NASA funding, mainly because I don't know enough about it, but the book does give you some good examples that can combat the ignorant, unthought ramblings of people who say space research is useless in light of the current issues here on earth. There certainly has been and can be much gained from such studies.

After that digression, I'll get to the quote this post was intended for, which has little if anything to do with the previous paragraph. It comes from chapter 1, titled "You are Here". I actually used a bit of this for a speech in one of my comm classes and feel that it is one of the most inspirational while at the same time, put-in-our-place couple of paragraphs I've ever read.

 Within the blue circle is the "pale blue dot" we call home. The picture was taken by a Voyager satellite as it left our solar system and turned around for a look back. Enjoy:

That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out there lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar", every "supreme leader", every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam.

The Earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of this pixel on the scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner, how frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds.

Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the Universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves.

2 Year Agreement (with myself)

To any of you, if there are any, who missed my writing, I'm sorry it has been so long since my last post. Since then, I've had semester finals, a move back home for a brief summer, and a jump right back into hectic work weeks and friend-filled weekends. That leaves little time for blogging but, with the conclusion of a rather significant period of time ending soon, I felt it was necessary to devote a bit of time to it.

Two years ago, give or take a day (take one), I ended my last high school relationship. After a bit of time, I realized that almost the entire two years previous (50% of high school!!), I had been in a dating relationship of some type. There was a lot of good things to come from those two years, and I certainly learned things from them that I could have obtained in no other way.  But I decided that the next two years of my life were going to be drastically different than the previous ones and that college was going to entail a much different outlook than high school. As a result, I formed a sort of 2-year pact with myself that I was going to remain single and devote those years to myself, to my education, to experiencing life, and to do all of this while not being restricted in any form by a relationship. (Disclaimer!!!: I know that not all relationships are chains and whips. But, if I were to truly care about someone, I would want to treat them properly and give them the time they deserve. And that necessarily takes time away from other things that were to go on in those first couple of years in college.)

Well believe it or not (believe it), that pact will come into completion tomorrow, June 1st. That is correct. Two years have passed and I have remained 100% single for the entire two years.

In retrospect, quite a lot has resulted from my decision, most, if not all, of it for the better. As of right now, I can only see good stemming from it. Who knows, that could change. I do know there was a (now) noticeable psychological effect on me. It was something that I didn't fully discover until a few days ago, but I fully believe it was there the whole time. However, it seems to not have caused a problem.  Luckily I was able to see it and begin working against it. 

So I guess one thing I can offer to anyone who would consider making a resolution of any type, is try to recognize what it would actually create within you. Try to see how a given resolution would affect your mind and your outlook on the world and those around you. A noble goal may create some unforeseen stepping stones along the way that may not be so good to have in your possession. 

Where do I go from here? Who knows... (actually I might). Regardless, I step forward into a new period of my life, using all the information I've gained from the past two years, taking on new things as they come, and experiencing life all along the way... with whomever may be experiencing it there with me.

         .....ladies.

Last day in April

Well I am officially done with all my classes for the Spring semester of my sophomore year. Consequently, I decided this would be a good time to post a blog before I begin the studying process. Two tests (non-comprehensive) on Monday. Latin test Tuesday. Paper Wednesday. Paper Friday. I'm glad my week fell into place like it did; it could certainly be worse.

Yesterday something happened to me that has never happened before. Little things built up and a few key events occurred back-to-back that tipped it off. I won't deal with specifics (I don't feel this is the appropriate venue for such conversation) but I would gladly discuss it with anyone that desires to know more.

It only lasted about 3 hours. For that, I am thankful. Others have certainly experienced longer bouts of this than that. I suppose you could call it a mood or perhaps a disposition. There were no dangerous thoughts or anything along those lines. In short, it involved a great deal of foundational introspection and radical thinking/questioning. But like I said, I don't wish to discuss anything more than this on here.

I do want to talk about what brought me back. There were three things.

1) A good friend. I'm not much for sentimental *explicative*. However, in this situation, the "ear-to-listen" that this friend embodied certainly was and still is appreciated. More than that, this friend pointed me to the things that matter in this life, the things that truly matter. All it took was directing me toward a picture, toward a memory captured, toward a history of a friendship, wrapped up into a plainly framed moment. Simple, yet shining brightly.

2) music. I'm not sure I will ever have the first clue as to how music is able to affect me the way it does. I have always been fond of music. Over the past 3 years, I have grown to love it though and as a result, it has become a part of who I am. But last night, music had an even more meaningful impact on my life/personality/thoughts. It motivated me. It kicked me in gear. It grabbed me, and pushed me forward.

3) philosophy :) Did you really think I could discuss this post without bring philosophy into it? There are pros and cons to philosophy [enter the audience's gasps of shock here]. As much as I would like to say that it is always good, it does have its drawbacks. I personally tend to equate it with and define it as "the questioning spirit" (that is just my view). And similar to the questioning spirit, where you are led can be disheartening and unfulfilling. You can either not find an answer, which can, but shouldn't always, be troubling, or you may not be comforted by the answer that is your result. Either way, the result of philosophy/"the questioning spirit" can be scary and very real.

But how did it help me on the last day of April? Well it wasn't a general aspect of philosophy but rather a specific thought (One huge upside to philosophy is the reality that pretty much everything ever has a philosophy and has been discussed intelligently, or perhaps not so, by someone somewhere). Last night I recalled a quote by Richard Comstock. He said, "If a person were to believe that the cosmos is moral, then one would attempt to behave morally, and thus [help] confirm their thesis." This was an example of a "truth requiring antecedent belief", which I  actually critiqued James' use of them in my paper, but in this instance, I agree wholeheartedly.

To conclude this rather lengthy post, I'll state the thought in my own words: "If you believe the world to be moral, you first must act accordingly." Ponder that piece of prose people!

Memphis Undergraduate Philosophy Conference 2009

I've been wanting to post a blog about my trip to Memphis, and in light of wanting to put off necessary reading, I decided this would be an appropriate time. I've spoken to quite a few of you about it but there are others out there who I haven't informed so hopefully this isn't too redundant for those of you I have discussed this with.

I left at 245 A.M. Friday morning along with my friend and colleague Brian. We arrived at Loveless Cafe. just outside of Nashville, TN, around 730 or so. Dr. Weinberg from IU had recommended it for its excellent fresh biscuits, and I've very glad he did. From the time I got done eating, until I ate sushii at 9 P.M that night, I only ate a bagel around 1. That was one heckuva meal!

The keynote (presented by a professor) was a new perspective on philosophy for sure. It dealt with the epistemology and metaphysics of MLKJ and Malcolm X and how their views, which only differed in slight ways, affected their equally (in)famous, yet variant, responses to violence. Oh and as a sidenote, he basically said that 99% of whites were (and most still are) morally deprived (himself included) due to how they treat Blacks and their personhood. After his talk, it was tough to disagree.

There were 10 undergrad presenters. Each one was in an area I had little to no prior knowledge/background in. That was my favorite part. I came away from the conference with a whole list of topics/philosophers that I want to look further into! I also met a lot of cool people in the short time too, from Arizona, to Missouri, to Arkansas, to Tennessee, to South Carolina, to Pennsylvania! I ate some good sushi Friday night, and BBQ grilled tofu in a black bean chip dip for dinner Saturday night. Needless to say, I packed a ton of experience into about 48 hours (of which, was about 16 hours of driving). 

As far as my presentation itself, I was pleased with it. I don't think I deserve an award, but I was happy with how it went and there know major or attention-detracting faults. I had a couple good questions, one of which, I'm going to have to look into to see how it affects my paper. But that positive is only small in comparison to the people I met and the topics I became aware of for further study.

But I think what I take away from the short weekend is the overall experience. Like I said, I was not gone from Muncie, IN, for more than 50 hours, but I still came away from it with a ton! Most significantly, I further solidified my desire to continue on my present path and stay in Philosophy. Ever since my first class I had fallen in love with the subject, but there is a distinction to be made between loving philosophy and loving the professional/academic side. This weekend proved I love both aspects.

I got back at 5 AM Sunday morning, took a short nap, did some homework, and then was fortunate enough to have my family in Muncie to enjoy the afternoon with! It was a great 3 days to say the least!

The Masters

Every year, I become entranced. The question is: "Why".  I do not watch golf any other weekend out of the year except maybe twenty minutes of a Sunday final round of the US Open or another major if its a close finish and I happen to not be busy. For the Masters this year, I've followed Thursday and Friday, watched a good amount with it muted Saturday, and I've been watching since it began today. 

I surely hope it is not the horrid advertising that somehow grabs my unconscious (because I consciously hate those ads). I'm not sure I've heard more wimpy, agonizingly-nostalgic narrating for a sporting event than Mike Turico and Jim Nance on those commercials. "The masters, a tradition unlike any other..." and that sickening piano music they play when they show the scoreboard.... *wince* They even have 114 year-old Pat Summerall for some of the 3 second ads when they come back from the commercials. Thats it, just 3 or 4 three second ads... Thank you Pat Summerall.

But then again, maybe it is the fact that the Masters is hyped up like it is. Maybe all the attention it receives makes me want to pay attention.

 In any case, I'll watch the rest of the day to see if Phil continues his Birdie-fever and catches the leaders or if Tiger can catch fire by feeding off of Phil's pace. Or maybe one of the leaders will stave both of the superstars and win their first green jacket. Either way, I'll be watching, and who knows why.

Different World-Views and Different Rationales (sp?)

At philosophy club last fall, we discussed a summer field-study of a small handful of philosophy students who traveled to Professor Kalumba’s home country of Uganda. The goal of the field-study was to see if there was any truth to the claims of an anthropologist who dwelled with a tribe of Africans for almost 30 years, and published a book, in 1959, on his view of their philosophy. But for this post, it doesn't really matter what he concluded, I was more shocked by their experienced way of going through life.

The Bantu are a tribe with very traditional beliefs. To this day, they belief that your ancestors and (their idea of) gods are influencing factors on almost every event in their life. For instance, they belief that if one were to get bit by a mosquito that there were two causes. The first cause, would be the mosquito biting them, but the final cause would be either god or an ancestor inflicting this upon them. They believe that for every event, there is a reason behind it, viz. there is a supernatural power manipulating the natural world. They see the current events in their life as directly resulting from either a  past trespass or good deed done to the gods or their ancestors. When there is an ailment, they go to a type of witch-doctor who prescribes some actions that would appease their ancestors or god and wash out their previous trespass.

Recently, a cousin of professor Kalumba was sick. She went to a M.D. and found out she had cancer. Then she went to a witch-doctor and the doctor told her to do so and so. 2 months later, she died. But this is not a problem for the tribe. The blame is put on the cousin. The witch-doctor didn't fail, because he simply has to say that the cousin didn’t do all he prescribed.

But here is the rub, this doesn't bother them. They have no concern that there could have been another result. They don’t use experience to try different methods of curing. They have no knowledge of the scientific method (or similar methodologies). They ‘know’ their beliefs are the right ones, and that there is no other way. The witch-doctor certainly doesn’t keep records of who he saves and who he kills. What happens was meant to happen.

But don’t they realize that there may be other ways of achieving their goals? The answer is no. Their world-view completely directs their beliefs. It simply is what there is. They have no reason to question it. We feel that the reasonable thing to do is to get medical help, but to them, the rational thing is to go to the witch-doctor and do what he says. Their world-view dictates reality and what is rational.

This has been a huge eye-opener for me. Its simple, but has had a profound impact on me. To me, it shows that what is rational, is subjective, and relative to the individual subject and their social location. Rationality isn't this objective ideal, but rather a personal approach to life. For some, that may be a no-brainer, but it certainly wasn't to me. As a result, this story has dramatically affected how I tend to view the different situations I'm presented with.

Quick post: Pictures of Reality

Busy and exciting day today! Professor Jonathan Weinberg from Indiana University will be coming to give a presentation on "Armchair vs. Experimental" philosophy. Yesterday we realized the room we had reserved was not a "smart room" with a projector and computer. So we scrambled around to find a projector and then spent forever trying to make sure it was in working order. Things should be good to go.

I know I've linked this before but you all seriously need to subscribe to this picture blog from the Boston Globe. They post new photos about 2 times a week and they are usually quality, but there are some weeks where the pictures just grab you. This week's post is one of those posts. Enjoy!

Lastly, I just found out this morning that I was accepted to give a presentation of a paper I had been working on. It will be in the undergraduate part of the Midsouth Philosophy Conference taking place April 17th and 18th in Memphis, TN. I'm looking forward to seeing what people think of my work as well as hearing what everyone else is working on, at the undergrad, as well as professional level.

Misc. Post

Well I said my next post would be light-hearted, so this will be that.

First, I'd like to point out that I just noticed how many labels (at the bottom of my posts) I put on all of the posts and that only 3 of them have been repeated. This means two things: (1) - my blogs haven't had very many related themes and (2) - the three repeats are what matter to me most. I believe (2) is exactly right. "Human beings" and their "value", and "philosophy" are the most important things in my life right now.

Second, does anyone know why we have to quotation marks outside of punctuation? (See the last sentence of the previous paragraph as well as all of the quotation uses below) I understand following the rule when it pertains to dialogue, but why should that rule follow when you're just referring to a short phrase that you want set off by quotations? It has nothing to do with the sentence as a whole, so why should the punctuation have to fit inside of the quotes?

Third, earlier I mentioned that I had 3 labels which had been tagged two times. Here's the catch, I'm going to label (appropriately so) those three things for this post considering I mentioned them in this post. So as I typed it in the 1st paragraph, was incorrect for me to say the proposition that "those labels have been tagged 2 times"? I guess as I typed it, it was not, but as you read it, it is. 

abstract form: I say, "A", followed by "this line contains one "A". 

How can I form a statement over time when the very statement I'm trying to say defeats itself? My 2nd statement is true when I form it, but after it is formed, it becomes false.

Does this have ramifications for everyday life? Maybe and maybe not. Any ideas out there? Time and knowledge is a possibility for one of my papers coming up here so that is my particular interest in this subject right now.

Follow-up to Previous Post

I asked my readers to respond to the last post concerning certain African churches and their treatment of what they call "witch" children and I am very pleased with all those who took the time to contact me! That being said, I need to apologize for the immaturity that pervaded the last post. I homogenized an entire religious stance in one paragraph. It was simply unacceptable.

I tried to show that whatever you believe, this should affect you. But what came out was, "If you're Christian, you're wrong, and if your secular, you need to show Christians that they're wrong."

In regards to me putting words into Christian's mouths, that was uncalled-for as well. My whole point of that bit was to say that, when I was a Christian, those were things I heard which I found to be unacceptable. Now, they seem even more so. So what I was asking for was a response that went above and beyond the common phrases that were thrown around before. It did not come across as such, and again, I apologize. All the responses I did receive did count as being more than those simple phrases.

Before I received all the responses I did, I was actually planning on coming up with a new post. I noticed a majority of my blogs come across as 'religion-bashing.' We all know there are plenty of those, and I did not want this to be a space for that. And my last post went above and beyond all my others in its anti-religion statements. So I wanted to say I do not want this blog to be only concerned with religion and that I will keep it much more balanced as this blog evolves.

Almost speechless

This video is... well I can't find appropriate words for it. [original link is no longer available, try youtube. it breaks it up into 9 parts but it should still work]

I just ask that you watch at least the first 7 to 10 minutes, but I think the full time of the video is most impactful. Also, if you do only have time for the first ten minutes, you must also skip to 31 minutes in and watch the clips of the evangelism video created by an African church.

I will give a few of my reactions as best I can, while at the same time trying to not effect how you view this video. So I would suggest first watching it, to get your own views, and then read my personal thoughts below.

- I do not care what you believe, this raises problems for your belief structure. 

If you're religious (Christian especially since Jesus' name is being evoked in this video), well... I'm sure you can justify this is some off-hand way or just say that we cannot understand the ways of the spiritual, but I will NOT accept those accounts. If you take that route, you must have more meat to your argument than "the will of god is unknowable" because this horrendous experience deserves way more consideration than that. 

If you're secular, we have only ourselves to blame and this call to action is urgent. We cannot keep on mutilating our society like we do. Superstitions and myths have dominated our race for far too long. (I'm not saying Christian doctrine is useless but the Old Testament certainly discusses ostracizing wayward children and stoning delinquents, punishments not unlike some of the appalling occurrences shown in this video.) But more importantly, action is required if we have only humanity to blame. We cannot fallback on saying things will work out in the end. We have to take a stand and bring about this change  ourselves.

- This reminds me of the witch trials of Salem as well as the Dark Age period where the church had ultimate authority and could account for any aberrant behavior as evil and demon-like.

- I'm simply disgusted. 

The Good and Bad of Movies

Movies are dangerous. In my opinion, they are the most expressive of the possible mediums we as humans have at our disposal. By being able to combine both the oral and visual transmissions of ideas, movies mirror reality more closely than any of the other forms of expression such as books/novels/poems and paintings and songs. Don't get me wrong, I find all of the latter to be great vehicles for communicating thoughts and feelings from one to another, but movies, due to the reasons I mentioned above, are able to have a much more drastic and direct effect upon us.

Often times, I will catch myself doing something that I would only have seen in a movie. Certain facial expressions, catch-phrases, mannerisms, all from movies. I know for a fact that the first time I ate after watching the Dark Knight that I licked my lips like the Joker. Its cheesy, odd, and yet I found myself subconsciously mimicking the character (a villain no less) I saw on the big screen. Sometimes I'll even think of how I'm supposed to react in certain emotional situations based on some scene I can recall from a movie.

The dangerous aspect of movies lies in the fictitious and doctored-up storylines and acting (its called 'acting' for a reason) found within almost every single movie. While some movies more closely mirror reality, they almost always alter some portion of the narrative so that the story becomes movie-worthy. If movies were nothing but accurate representations of reality, there would be no problem or worry, but this is not the case.

But like I mentioned before, movies are, for me, the best method of portraying the various troubles and highlights of humanity. And personally, I love movies. I can watch a movie and spend hours discussing the quality of the movie, from the writing, to the movie-sets, to the themes found within the story; but sometimes I wonder if we are creating a false reality for ourselves by bombarding our mind with all these impactful scenes and stories, that for us, are so real, but in *reality* are merely 'fit for hollywood.'

Why Time Flies

First off, I hate when people look back on a week and say, "Man that week flew by" or, "Ugh! This week will never end, it's going so slowly!" Unless the earth slowed down on its trek around the sun, the days and weeks still went by at the same rate. And yes I am somewhat aware of relativity, but as long as none of us were going light-speed, I believe we were all going about the same speed as we stayed attached to the earth. (That being said... I can't help but say it sometimes)

I'm going to present two ideas, none of which are mine, but that do seem to provide likely answers as to why we get these feelings of time 'flying' and why we always have to let everyone else know that it is for us.

1.

I read this one awhile ago, but I can't recall where I read it. Its simple, yet makes complete sense. After one year of life, that past year was 1/1, or 100%, of your experience. After your twentieth year of life (of which I am about 4 months from completing!!!), the previous year was 1/20th of your experience. So each year, since we are unable to expand our brains,  causes the percentages of our brain to get reconfigured. While this does seem too simple, and it probably is, it does make sense and is most likely correct to an extent.

2.

This one comes from Jeff Hawkins (creator of the PalmPilot) in his book, On Intelligence. One of the main subcategories to his overarching theory is that the brain's neocortex has a hierarchy of cells. Thus, there are lower levels and higher levels to it. The lower level take in basic sensory experience and then relays this up to the next level. At the next level, those cell's input is comprised of the various neuron firings from the lowest level. As this level recognizes patterns, it relays to a higher level where they see a pattern and begin to do different things with it. This a very poor reconstruction of his argument but I think it will do for this. 

Now when these patterns are something we've seen before, they follow a certain path and this pattern fits the previous path and so we recognize it (from memory). When it is new, it does not follow a common pattern. So while we see a person and we recognize (from memory) that it is a person on one of the mid-levels of the hierarchy (because all our low-level inputs show a pattern consistent with the inputs a person has normally given us), that is where it stops and we cannot associate a name with the person (which would be a higher-level task). So when a new series of inputs fits a pattern we've already seen, it is 'recognized'. If an experience is completely new, our neocortex takes notice of it and it goes all the way up the chain to the Hippocampus, where it is stored (in a sense).

Now how does this relate to why time flies???? Well Hawkins suggests that over time, and after more and more experience, we see less and less 'new' things. So while we may see 500 baseball games, they start to blend together because not a lot of 'new' experiences are occurring. We remember our 'first baseball game at Wrigely,' but we most likely won't remember the 73rd one, unless it happens to be the game the Cubs win the World Series (which would certainly be 'new' for us!!). In his diagram then, as a pattern is familiar, it will follow similar paths that we already have. If nothing new results, then it doesn't make it to the hippocampus. But if a guy spills his beer all over you in the 8th inning, that is most likely a new experience and it makes it all the way to the hippocampus to be stored. So while you may not be able to tell a friend how many strikeouts Zambrano had, you will certainly remember that spilled beer.

Again, I seem to avoid the question! But here is what it comes down to. As we experience more and more, less and less becomes 'new', because we have all this background that our brain is able to relate to the current situation. I think Hawkins uses the quote, "The more you experience, the less you remember." So in regards to the passing weeks of our life, as we experience less and less new information, it tends to not make it all the way to the hippocampus and as a result, we do not remember it. So weeks where we do 'the same old thing' are not the 'memorable' ones and our brain aptly 'discards' them.

another good example is people's names. Lets say you meet a new person and their name is generic, like Sarah. If you know 50 Sarah's that is most likely going to be tough to remember. But if her name turns out to be Jerra, it will most likely be foreign to you and you'll comment "Wow, that is a different name!" and you'll most likely remember that person and their name. While this is something we've all experienced, I'm still amazed at how Hawkin's theory is able to explain it scientifically and anatomically.

Side note: On Intelligence has become one of my top 2 or 3 books of all time. I've read it in two days and am disappointed it is over with. At the beginning of the book Hawkins says that when people read his book, they find themselves nodding in agreement with the things he says and how they can relate it to their lives. What is brilliant about his book is that it takes all these different aspects of our lives (on the scientific as well as social levels) and provides a theory of the brain that explains almost every part of them! While reading it, I did just what he said people usually do and thought back to all these instances that have occurred in my past that this theory explains. Now, after reading it through, I experience something and immediately think back to his book and how it perfectly explains what just happened (like with why people say "time flies"). 

I strongly encourage everyone to read this book! I know people always bombard you with these different books that they think is the greatest book ever, but seriously, this will change how you view your every-day life. I'm not saying you're going to quit your job and divorce your wife, but it will provide insight into why we do things we do and why we experience different things the way they do.

Tuesday Morning Thoughts

A very good aspect of my studies of interest is that they allow me to do a lot of thinking. A very bad aspect of my studies of interest is that they allow me to do a lot of thinking...


As a result, I end up with somewhat unproductive mornings (academically speaking) like this. I begin to read a chapter of a book, I begin thinking about the contents of the chapter (which is what I'm supposed to do), and then my thinking begins to drift. This is not an unconscious wandering, but a thoughtful trail of thoughts. All too often I am nowhere near the original themes of the book and I end up with thoughts like these:

I believe we all have ridiculous beliefs. Some of us, have them and don't know it. Some of us have them, know it, and don't care. And then there are those of us who have them, realize it, and subsequently try to rationally dig ourselves out of them. But I feel that any attempt to rationalize our old beliefs or construct new ones will ultimately lead us to equally absurd positions; these positions are just more thought out. I think, to an extent, that this is what philosophy is. It's an attempt to rationalize our belief systems and the world around us. But the complex, if not crazy, results we are left with just go to show how inadequate we truly are at understanding our existence and the world we inhabit.

A simple example is the fact that we have gotten all the way back to questioning how/if the mind and body relate. As a result, you have Malebranche and his idea of occasionalism: that every time you want to make an action, god necessitates it. That was his explanation for how, when our 'mind' wants our body to do something, our physical body does it. Even more shocking are the metaphysical attempts to prove/disprove identity. We aren't even sure if there is an "I"!!!!!!! Hume gives us yet another example of an, on the face of it, absurd idea that matter can be infinitely divided. Mathematically we can't refute it, yet it simply seems nonsensical.

In the end, whose to say the more complex, and perhaps more thoughtful answers are more tenable than the inital, perhaps irrational, thoughts that we start out with?

Both Hume and James (I'm sure there are many more, but these are pretty much the two that I've studied at any depth thus far) are philosopher's that my preceding statement seem to line up with. Both point to the fact that even seeking truth (whether through reason, science, or something else) is just another belief we have which we are impotent to validate against any other.

Well I am one who champions the search for truth, whatever that may be and in whatever form it may take, but I can't prove to you that my position is any more rational than any other.

And now off to Epistemology, where we will be discussing whether it's possible to construct a structure of knowledge such that we can ever truly know anything....

Life Captured by Photo

The Boston Globe has a picture blog they update at least once or twice a week. I cannot get enough of it. This week revolves around Bolivia and their new constitution. I'm not sure I've seen pictures that are able to capture the moment, the scenery, and all the emotion behind the people that are photographed. Who knew one still-frame picture could say so much about the people it is capturing.

I highly recommend checking out the archives too. But beware! It's addicting and you may spend the next 5 hours going through them.

Enjoy!

Re*vital*ization

Revitalization: a constant construction of an end as a conscious or unconscious realization of the lack of a final one.

It's seen everywhere: sports, church, school, video games, running, education, and in every goal we create. In every event, we *create* the end (or the final event). But the fact is, they all come to pass.

Sports:
The championship happens again the next year (or in four years for the olympics). But what does this final goal (of a championship, or perhaps a lesser goal of a .500 record) require of us? Concentration and commitment. Conscious time, effort, and devotion, It's something that gives us a reason to keep struggling through life.

Video Games:
Now, with the advent of the avatar and Gamer-Ranks, all those meaningless single-session games (whether football or halo) are now valuable. Creating these final ends, we are making our little tasks that we go through day-to-day worth something. And as a result, we have addiction. People are addicted because they have to play more and more games to *improve* their character on WoW, their EASports tag in Madden and their team slayer rank on halo. But there is no end, just the opportunity at improving your character.

Church/Religion (this one might be touchy):
I was always confused as to why we had to keep having retreats and conferences and special events at church (why can't the love of an all-powerful god sustain us without having to fully submerse ourself in and with fellow believers to boost our *faith*-bank). The answer back then was that the devil (or society) had been dragging you down, slowly draining you. I agree that we slowly become worn out from living, but I no longer believe there is a devil on the other end. I also disagree with having to go on a retreat to get revitalized. So in this sense, these conventions are a way to drill in to your head that there is some final end, and that, as a result, all this living is going to be worth something in the end.

Running/exercise:
This became my baseball and my religion. What do you do? You sign up for a race 4 months down the road and suddenly you have a purpose for those 4 months. But then the race comes and goes, and what are you left with? A sense of accomplishment sure, but what do we almost invariably do? We sign up for another one, because a sense of accomplishment does little for our life down the road.

Conclusion:
I think life is a series of small goals, constructed in such a way as to keep us moving forward. What about all those people working for the weekend or getting through the last months of school for their spring and summer breaks? (I don't think this is a new concept but) what about mid-life crises? You get through high school to get to college. You get through college to get a good job. You keep working hard to get promotions. Now what? All of the sudden, we realize all the goals we've created for ourselves have gotten us to this point, but they're ends have come and pass. We are constantly unsatisfied with some aspect of our current selves, so we create a goal to improve ourself, and so it goes


What happens if we no longer create goals for ourself? Desire, the essence of human existence, is expunged and leads to apathy and nothingness. But I don't want to be depressing on this hump-day. I don't believe there has to be a final end. Perhaps, if we continue to have goals to aim for, a final end is not necessary. Surely a life of constantly striving for our goals is one that will be *meaning*ful and show us that a final end is not needed to have joy in this life we've been given. We must also live in the present,but that is for a whole other post or 5.

Well this is far too long, and although I feel that I could write on this forever, I have some homework to do... so I can do well in this class... so i can get a degree... so I can get into grad school... so I can get a good job, make money, and retire young.

Lucky for me, there is a lot of knowledge at the end of my rainbows.

Dangerous Philosophy

Monique D. Davis (D) representative of the 27th district of Illinois criticizing Robert Sherman, an atheist activist, in front of a Government committee: "I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous... dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!"  

"land of Lincoln": 

Lincoln never explicitly expressed a religious belief, and certainly never joined a church nor pushed beliefs upon another (Lincoln's religious beliefs are disputed by historians. Wikipedia has a page with references to multiple books discussing them). So the "land of Lincoln", while having relevance as a motto for democracy, freedom, and equality, is a phrase that does not appear to have any religious significance.  

Freedom:  

Lincoln emancipated thousands upon thousands of human lives with his presidency and set a precedent for taking a stand on the belief in the value of human equality. What is Ms. Davis calling her state to do? Repress ideas, perspectives, and values of one type, while force feeding and indoctrinating values of another. I am not a Lincoln biographer... but I highly doubt this is something Lincoln could side with.  

Dangerous: 

What is dangerous? The spreading of information and diversified perspectives? The belief that human beings have intrinsic and inherent value? The belief that children, while being young and thus impressionable, are nevertheless valued human individuals and consequently should be presented with multiple viewpoints such that they may begin to form their own values, rather than become a mirror of ignorant ideology which suppresses views that conflict with that ideology?  

I for one say that what is dangerous is exactly what she is imploring of her fellow statesmen. She is calling for the suppression of ideas and the rejection of varying perspectives. These varying ideas say nothing more than the following: we as humans can think for ourselves and determine our own values based on the diverse viewpoints we are presented with; that this life is beautiful; that each human matters in themselves; that we do not need a judge in the sky to make us moral. If these ideas are *dangerous*, then consider me a daredevil. 

Philosophy:

I myself will continue to be a daredevil, spreading my ***dangerous philosophy*** which seeks nothing more than the liberation of human value and perspective. Such dangerous philosophy has germinated in the Land of Lincoln. The land of Lincoln being not just Illinois, but these United States of America which he left behind. "The land of the free..."