Levinas on Discourse (or how to not have a monologue when talking to people)

Can objectivity and the universality of thought be founded on discourse? Is not universal thought of itself prior to discourse? Does not a mind in speaking evoke what the other mind already thinks, both of them participating in common ideas? But the community of thought ought to have made language as a relation between beings impossible. Coherent discourse is one. A universal thought dispenses with communication. A reason cannot be other for a reason. How can a reason be an I or an other, since its very being consists in renouncing singularity? …

But to make of the thinker a moment of thought is to limit the revealing function of language to its coherence, conveying the coherence of concepts. In this coherence the unique I of the thinker volatilizes. The function of language would amount to suppressing “the other,” who breaks this coherence and is hence essentially irrational. A curious result: language would consist in suppressing the other, in making the other agree with the same! But in its expressive function language institutes a relation irreducible to the subject-object relation: the revelation of the other. In this revelation only can language as a system of signs be constituted. The other called upon is not something open to generalization. Language, far from presupposing universality and generality, first makes them possible. Language presupposes interlocutors, a plurality. Their commerce is not a representation of the one by the other, nor a participation in universality, on the common plane of language. Their commerce ... is ethical.

Schopenhaur on the Will, Intellect, and Moral Judgments

Arthur Schopenaur: The World as Will and Idea, Chapter 19 On the Primacy of the Will in Self-Consciouness

If now it is said of one man, “he has a good heart, though a bad head,” but of another, “he has a very good head, yet a bad heart,” every one feels that in the first case the praise far outweighs the blame – in the other case the reverse. Answering to this, we see that if some one has done a bad deed his friends and he himself try to remove the guilt from the will to the intellect, and to give out that faults of the heart were faults of the head; roguish tricks they will call errors, will say they were merely want of understanding, want of reflection, light-mindedness, folly; nay, if need be, they will plead a paroxysm, momentary mental aberration, and if a heavy crime is in question, even madness, only in order to free the will from the guilt. And in the same way, we ourselves, if we have caused a misfortune or injury, will before others and ourselves willingly impeach our stultitia, simply in order to escape the reproach of malitia. In the same way, in the case of the equally unjust decision of the judge, the difference, whether he has erred or been bribed, is so infinitely great. All this sufficiently proves that the will alone is the real and essential, the kernel of the man, and the intellect is merely its tool, which may be constantly faulty without the will being concerned. The accusation of want of understanding is, at the moral judgment-seat, no accusation at all; on the contrary, it gives great privileges. And so also, before the courts of the world, it is everywhere sufficient to deliver a criminal from all punishment that his guild should be transferred from his will to his intellect, by proving either unavoidable error or mental derangement, for then it is of no more consequence than if hand or food had slipped against the will.

Certainty Without Religion

Certainty doesn’t require knowing. In fact, certainty doesn’t even require facts; except the fact which it itself creates. And in that case, such a requirement fulfills itself.

A little while ago at work, a lady I was working for began talking about god and Jesus and stuff and how (almost verbatim, but forgive my memory) “you may think you’re certain, but the only true certainty is with God.” I just smiled and nodded politely, as I didn’t have the desire to have any form of in-depth conversation given the circumstances. Well I didn’t agree with that statement when I heard it, and I disagree with it more and more as time goes on.

What she is telling me is that human certainty is no certainty at all. Ok then, what certainty is actually certain? Well her reply would be a certainty found through a relationship with god (whatever shape her god and her relationship to it might take). In sum, humans, on their own, are incapable of having certainty (how Cartesian of her). And as you can tell, I disagree.

I assume this religious relationship she is referring to involves a belief, and a faith. In which case, certainty seems to be precluded. Or would she say that? Does she gain a certainty from her faith? I bet she does; she just doesn’t want to grant me the same (godless) result.

But analogously, I think we create our own certainty by taking all sorts of leaps of faith, and without a religious figure in the picture. When two people, both possibly standing on quite uncertain ground, take a leap of faith and create something new through a pact or some sort of agreement, they create their own certainty. In other words (and somewhat perplexingly), through uncertainty, they gain their own certainty. This is because we can create it. And this is what a relationship (of any type) is; for if both parties agree to it, or in other words put their faith/trust in the other, then of course the relationship will be fulfilled. And in fact, that is the only way for it to work. I am not saying that her religious certainty is fake; rather, I am saying it is no different than a secular certainty.

We gain our certainty when we first cease to doubt; and we don’t need religion to do that. [and for the students of philosophy, this is one of the most critical and logically fallacious mistakes of Descartes’]

Some Thoughts of Time, Part II

This post has no real main point that I’m trying to argue but, similar to my last one, is a flow of ideas on time and identity.

In my previous post I said: “As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present.”

The self is always present and only immediate. To be now it must have destroyed itself and yet still recognize itself as having been then, as some thing removed and distinct from what it is now. It is only through this recognition that time is possible, and it is only through time that identity is possible. Seemingly paradoxically, an “I” can only be present and yet is possible only through a succession of those presents, in other words, through time.

But isn’t this how we view time anyways, as a succession of present moments? The past is no special aspect of time, rather it is just the collection of experienced presents, which can be recollected in some fashion. Similarly, the future is just the totality of the unexperienced, and thus only perhaps possible, presents, which can be imagined in some fashion. The tenses of time are always in relation to the present.

The Relatedness of Time

In a blog post awhile back, I repeated a theory I had heard once:
“After one year of life, that past year was 1/1, or 100%, of your experience. After your twentieth year of life…, 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.” So the span of a day (which we calculate by the rotation of the earth), actually goes faster the older that we get, because it represents that much smaller of an experiencing than it once did. If time is only relative, then it is the case that as we get older, time gets shorter.

So I’m not only purposing the relative theory of time that says time only occurs with movement or in the relation of physical objects to one another, but also one that says that time is also related to itself; in fact, that is how it is possible. Because as mentioned two paragraphs back, the past and future are only modes of the present, modes of the “I” experiencing. And notice how I must use the in-process verb of “-ing” to express what an “I” does. When we say that “I worked yesterday”, we are saying that I was working at that given time and thus that I recall an experience of a present that is no longer be”ing” experienced.

So if time is related to itself, then every past event is defined as an experience”ing” which can now be objectified and thereby experienced anew (and yet in a new, removed way) by a new present “I”. Thus, memory is a collection of presents, which have become objects accessible to the now-present “I”.

What is odd is that an “-ing” implies a duration, a succession of experience. So as soon as we try to talk of an actual present (not just the present, as today or this year, but rather as the moment where experiencing occurs), we reduce it to such a slice of existence that it disappears altogether. So it seems that while having this notion of present is useful, when thought through, it is really an impossibility. And if I just spent this whole blog saying that all of time is in relation to our notions of the present, and the present doesn’t exist, then what is time?

Some Thoughts on Time

Time, by its very nature, takes all up within it; thus, there is no outside of time. For anything posited outside of time, so long as it is put in relation to time, will be captured by time. And so as soon as we say a thing is outside of time, it then is taken up by time.

Humanity, at once both crossing time and, as a result, yet nevertheless caught up by it, can only know things through it. For one can only cross in time, and never across or out of it. All things in relation to us, accessible to us, are then tethered by time and, as such, have only finite existence; in fact, they can only ‘be’ through such tethering. We cannot say there is a timeless idea such as Communism or Christianity; rather, in time, things which receive such a name share some commonalities, but each takes up its own identity, specific to that era, to that people. Reciprocally, time makes us and we make time.

As a single event, I do not have existence; as an event, comprised of a past, I take up my identity (or even seen differently, I find myself). For there to be an “I” which looks back, there must first be that past which can be looked upon by the “I,” as the self in the present. For example, when encountering a stranger, that is what they are. They have no history for us, and so we cannot call them anything but a stranger, endowed with superficial attributes that even then, require a history of their own. If we notice a big scar across the cheek, we imagine the sort of past that person would have had.

But at the same time, what is time without a recognition of itself? Can there be a succession of events without some event (some thing in time) first recognizing that succession, and thus those events. That we say there is a time before man is only the necessity of succession being thrown upon the preexistence which lays dormant for us, hiding in shadows. We only infer a before-humanity because, as mentioned before, we need a past to have a present. We cannot be without at least some thing once having been. But notice again, there can be no outside of time; even when some thing lies outside humanity’s jurisdiction (i.e. the time before we were), we still find a way to account for it (our current theory is evolution). Thus, we create our past, even when it is inaccessible to us, and never ours to begin with.

Deconstructing

Two prefatory points:

1) What follows is going to be something new for me. Rather than constructing and thinking about a piece of writing, this is just going to be a straight copying from some writing I did a few weeks back. I just started writing and the body of this blog will be word for word from that. As such, there is less argument and more contemplation. I'd love to hear feedback/criticism.

2) I don't believe I've read any explicit deconstruction literature; but I have read a good deal of recent literature that has all the general tendencies which I perhaps incorrectly presume to be a part of the deconstructionist goals. In general, I'm sure I haven't read near enough on this subject. I also believe that some people who are labeled deconstructionists, don't like the term. This may point to something about their thinking.

----

When one deconstructs, destabilizes, disfigures, fractures, delimits, or muddles the very concepts in question, what is left? More importantly, where is that person then left? On what basis can they discuss the given thing? By transfiguring the words, by doing all the things from the list above, what are they then talking about? Something new? What are they then critiquing? Can the deconstructionist talk? And thus, can the deconstructionist think?

Perhaps they are aware of this, and this is what leads to their abstruse rhetoric which obfuscates the reader into frustration, anger, and then dismissal. Their text leads to submission of the reader. Communication is relegated to a realm of errors and is thus done away with. This leads us back to the guiding question: how can the deconstructionist think. If its transmission, and thus logos itself, is unable to do its job, what does the intellect offer? Indeed, what progress is made from human discourse?

Perhaps something new is more appropriate. Let us hope progress is a concern. Correcting error is indeed progress, but to do away with so fundamental of an object, concepts themselves, is to do away with one's own progress. So the deconstructionists are inventive; forging ahead, and finding new concepts. They create a new form to human discourse. But can we then call it discourse? Earlier I mentioned there is a loss of communication. So maybe there is some vestige of discourse still present. At the very least, if there is to be any progress, there must be some resemblance to the former discourse and this new, "non-discourse".

Update

Well since I almost never give personal updates on here, I decided to break up the academic-oriented posts and update my life (which, oddly enough, primarily consists of academic things).

Winter break was splendid and productive. I was able to hang out with all of my friends quite a bit: continued the tradition of New Year’s Eve at my friend Hugo’s; got a night of bowling in with the crew; watched a few football games with them as well; had a poker night; had two risk nights; played halo with the cousins (thanks Blake for the commentary); had a movie night with Carden; and visited some friends from Ball State who went to Wawasee.

I was also very pleased to spend as much time with my family as I did and really enjoyed drinking coffee with Shawn while he worked on the wireless and I read; we always had a sporadic little side-bar story from our respective work to tell the other person for a good laugh.

Speaking of reading, I was able to read:
- Kierkegaard’s “Fear and Trembling”
- -half of Hick’s “Faith and Knowledge”
- some of Pascal’s “Pensees”
- Sedgwick’s “Epistemology of the Closet”,
- Foucault’s “History of Sexuality”
- Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian” (which had one of the best short essay’s I’ve ever read called ‘The Free Man’s Worship’)
- I am currently ¾ the way through Kojeve’s Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (by far my favorite overall reading of the break)
- and plan on reading Milton’s “Paradise Lost” before school starts back up.

On to the upcoming semester:

I am the editor-in-chief of Ball State’s undergrad philosophy journal, Stance. We’ve already received the papers and will begin the process to pick out the top papers over the course of the semester.

Like last semester, I’ll be a tutor for Phil100 and will also be a T.A. for an introductory Religious Studies course.

As far as “regular” classes, I will be taking Philosophy or Religion, Feminist Ethics and Epistemology, and Latin (we’ll actually be reading real, not textbook, latin this semester!).


It will be a busy, thought-provoking, exciting, eye-opening, interesting semester to say the least!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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....

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..."