facadesaside

Facadesaside has moved

2009-12-30T15:20:00.000-08:00

Facadesaside has moved to wordpress.com. Please come visit.

http://facadeaside.wordpress.com/

Be Free Now

2009-12-27T16:18:00.000-08:00

Going back to the Nietzche don't believe in free will thing; I think it's because the only way that a person could be free is in the moment. In the Walter Kauffman translated Nineteenth Century Philosophy anthology; there's an entry where Nietzche says Free Will does not exist, and in fact it was made up by the religions in order to make the religions powerful. He said it also exists in order to ascribe punishment.

Nietzche might be mad that I'm extrapolating so much from his stuff; but I want to point out that the only time a free choice could be taken is in the present moment. I want you to think about that for a second or at least have it in the noggin while we go over:

Two Kantian Theories of Freedom

The first theory is Autonomy or Moral Autonomy. This exists in his moral writings. The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is often considered the greatest Kantian work on Ethics. I like the Critique of Practical Reason because it kind of rubs my brain the right way.

Anyway, the way Autonomy works is by contrast with externality. What we mean by externality is anything that is not the case.

By isolating the case as the only thing that could be the case, Kant does an elegant hopscotch. He basically asks us to flag our premises, at the top of our baby logic derivation.

The problem of Determinism says that if someone is predestined by natural forces (chemicals in the brain, psychology of the parents raising you, I don't know; maybe the pleasure that you get from doing something) then you do not have the ability to control what happens. If you do not control what happens, then there is no way you can be responsible for what happens.

The Metaphysical theory of Autonomy (freedom) reads like this: in the Antinomies of the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant points out that freedom could be possible if there were a first cause in the noumenal realm, which would then in a non-temporal (not in time), maybe it could jump in the phenomenal realm at any given second and change the series (I'm thinking here thought stream, but it's probably like mental capacities in the whatever-Kant-was-thinking sense).

If the first theory of freedom is satisfying (and I think it is) and the second is unsatisfying, don't think Kant didn't catch it. There are Kantian writings saying that he wishes he put a better stab at it. The first theory of autonomy is pretty good, I think. You might turn to the Ethics of Identity by Kwame Anthony Appiah for a better definition.

I agree with Nietzche though, and even though it is mutually exclusive with Kant's theories, I sympathize with Kant. Kant says we need to pose freedom in order to pursue morality. Nietzche says we need to be responsible in the moment. Ascribing blame and punishment is not being responsible in the way that Nietzche knows we should be.

Wikipedia tells you what truth is: will you listen?

2009-12-13T18:45:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

Existentialism's Demon

2009-12-13T14:53:00.000-08:00

The Existentialist Demon is Postmodernist Commentary-ism.

1) One of the goals of existentialist thought is to get you to live your life as you are living it.

Our Law of Identity reads like this:

x = x

Such that if you want to live your life, you have to live your life. If you want to be happy, you have to be happy.

This is part of the reason Sartre said, "Existence precedes Essence." This simply means you exist before you figure out how you function.

There is no God or moral hierarchy to tell you how to live your life. Before, when everyone believed in God, they basically thought you had a designed function, much in the way that scissors are designed to cut or cars are designed to drive.

I think one of the ideas here is if you want to know how to live your life, you actually have to live. You have to experience life in the moment and create life in the moment because there is no other time that it could be created. You create your originality right now. You live your life right now.

Let's play hopscotch a bit with Philosophy Through the ages. Nietzche says that we do not have free will because free will ascribes reasons for punishing people. But Nietzche still thinks we have to be responsible. Feuerbach believes in the divinity of the moment as people simply live their lives. Divinity is living to Feuerbach. Meanwhile, about a hundred years back, Spinoza cryptically posited this as he Naturalized God or Deified Nature (the words Deus sive Natura appear in some of his letters: God or Nature). People like Roger Scruton in his easy-reader Spinoza think that Spinoza was trying to say something like Feuerbach with the attributes, which are two interpretations of living (Scruton specifically notes music: you can see it as sound waves, or you can see it as melody, both are correct). Finally, Schopenhauer says that you can escape The Will by listening to music and living a very Ascetic life (where you give up your possessions and want of possessions).

2) The Demon

We know better because of Postmodernism. Look at the structures. These philosophers are saying something to the extent that you can simply live life.

Can life simply be lead?

The problem is that the commentaries themselves are part of life. Every time you make a commentary, you cannot separate such commentary from life.

In the case of music, for example, you could not separate listening to the melody and considering its physics structure. The two are inseparable.

Or consider the critic who gets joy from critiquing movies: such is the raw power of life. Consider a chemist who has fun playing with chemicals. At what point can we divide the commentaries of life with the joys of living it?

This, right now, my writing and your reading, is this the joy of life, just reading it? There's this uncontrollable aspect to it all. There is no division between the originality of the moment and the commentary on the originality of this moment because that moment will be gone, too. Which was original? They both were. Which was divine? All of it. How can you escape the Will and realize the divinity of life as compared to the un-divine? You can't.

Some Useful Tautologies

2009-12-13T10:20:00.000-08:00

a(a b) b

(a b)(b) a

b((a) (b)) (a)

(a b)(b c) (a c)

(a b) ((b) (a))

a (b a)

(a) (a b)

(a b)((a) b) b

(a b)(a (b)) (a)

ab a

abc bc

I got them from here

http://www.informatik.htw-dresden.de/~nestleri/logic/08/kurb_e3.htm

Discussing the Last Post's Article

2009-12-12T16:43:00.000-08:00

Why Obama is right: In this blog, the question of healthy rhetoric is posed. The cool thing about positivity and positive rhetoric is the extent of the performative truth and placebo effect.

Not to mention positive rhetoric empowers people. When people feel powerful, they work better.

In other words, truth is created, and also flows into other stuff. This is Existentialism at its finest.

Another Existentialist riff (riff is a rock guitar pattern) going on here is if you prime yourself to see something some way, to some extent you will see it that way. Consider our Pragmatic Maxim a couple of posts back which says that our conception of something is included in that thing.

This is exactly where our "Can you think of a thought you haven't had?" stuff comes in. If you prepare yourself to see issues in black and white, yes or no, you are going to see more issues in terms of black and white, and yes and no.

Obama is exactly right to consider this world as a complicated place because it is complicated.

On the other hand, issues do not always come down to two options. This proposition seems silly even writing it. The Analytic School of philosophy even allows for different systems of truth (Dialethism is I think what it's called).

There are not two choices for every problem. The reason that we think there are two choices is complicated. Off the top of my head, I think the fact that we have 2 parties in power in the United States, is one reason. Another reason is the polarizing effect that Lobbies and constituents have on government and politicians.

There's something about the availability heuristic: we only notice the fundamentalist positions. Giving out condoms seems way less controversial than killing babies (Pro-Lifers) versus sending doctors to jail (Pro-Choicers). Take gun rules: getting rid of assault weapons is sort of inconsequential compared to altering the Constitution (pro-Gun activists) or giving guns to children (anti-Gun activists).

This speaks to, I think, human nature as well. Some of us can just have one cookie; and perhaps see the complete tree branch diagram of every yes or no choice every time they have that one cookie.

first cookie y/n (if yes go on to second choice)
second cookie y/n (if yes go on to third choice)
third cookie y/n (if yes go on to fourth cookie)

After Gretchen Rubin, I recognize that some of us are Moderators and some of us are Abstainers. Some of us need to give up cookies all together, and some of us need to moderate our intake. (Still others of us have no problems at all, but they are beside the point for moral restraint).

In other words, Freedom and Autonomy are complex things.

Why Obama is wrong:
Sometimes these aren't false choices.

In the article it says that Obama is obscuring discussion using a Straw Man argument.

A straw man could have easily come from the 3 pigs and the Wolf Story, where the Wolf can easily blow the straw house down, but has a hard time blowing that brick house down.

In other words, just like the straw house, the straw man argument is a weaker version of the counterargument.

So for example, if Obama wants to defend himself against Anti-troop surge in Afghanistan, he might say something like, "It's a false choice to have America choose between security and freedom." Well beg pardon, Professor, but you just completely distracted us from the real issue, of whether the troop surge is right or wrong.

Barack "False Choices" Obama

2009-12-11T07:00:00.000-08:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2238074/

Sweet Article!

Pragmatism entails Traditionalism?

2009-12-10T17:38:00.000-08:00

Okay, so we've pointed out in the last 3 or 4 posts that the astrological sign Capricorn is known both for pragmatism and traditionalism, both sort of entailed with a motto, "I use."

We pointed out that Simone de Beauvoir (French pronunciation: [simɔn də boˈvwaʀ]) (January 9, 1908 – April 14, 1986) is not a Pragmatist but rather an existentialist; and Charles Margrave Taylor, CC, GOQ, FRSC (born November 5, 1931) a certifiable traditionalist is really a Scorpio. (Hold the phone: doesn't the Traditionalism always smack of Foundationalism, whereupon Foundationalism is a Scorpio trait?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simone_Beauvoir
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Taylor_%28philosopher%29

On the other hand, we have shown the two greatest American Pragmatist Philosophers, Benjamin Franklin (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705^[1]] – April 17, 1790) and William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910), are also Capricorns.

I said to Rick, "Shouldn't Descartes be the poster child for Dualism (Gemini) or Foundationalism (Scorpio)?"

Rick said, "Would Descartes think of himself as a Dualist?"

But again the spirit of all of this is to tell the story of the philosophers and to explore where they fit and do not fit into these stories. In this way it's just as important to see how these do not fit into the story.

I think Pragmatism entails a sort of Traditionalism because the motto of "Whatever works" is necessarily past-dependent. Contrast this with a speculative philosophy, based on what has not happened or the boundaries of experience. Pragmatism necessarily functions based on the past.

Pragmatism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

But John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) is a libra-scorpio; and Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced /ˈpɜrs/ purse^[1]) (September 10, 1839 – April 19, 1914) is a virgo.

Here's what Wikipedia says about Pragmatism:

Pragmatism is a philosophical movement that includes those who claim that an ideology or proposition is true if it works satisfactorily, that the meaning of a proposition is to be found in the practical consequences of accepting it, and that unpractical ideas are to be rejected. Pragmatism began in the late nineteenth century with Charles Sanders Peirce and his pragmatic maxim. Through the early twentieth-century it was developed further in the works of William James, John Dewey and—in a more unorthodox manner—by George Santayana. Other important aspects of pragmatism include anti-Cartesianism, radical empiricism, instrumentalism, anti-realism, verificationism, conceptual relativity, a denial of the fact-value distinction, a high regard for science, and fallibilism.

Pragmatism enjoyed renewed attention from the 1960s on when a new analytic school of philosophy (W. V. O. Quine and Wilfrid Sellars) put forth a revised pragmatism criticizing the logical positivism dominant in the United States and Britain since the 1930s. Richard Rorty further developed and widely publicized the concept of naturalized epistemology; his later work grew closer to continental philosophy and is considered relativistic by its critics.

Contemporary pragmatism is divided into a strict analytic tradition, a more relativistic strand (in the wake of Rorty), and "neo-classical" pragmatism (such as Susan Haack) that adheres to the work of Peirce, James, and Dewey.

Here's the old Pragmatic Maxim by Peirce (also from Wikipedia):

The pragmatic maxim, also known as the maxim of pragmatism or the maxim of pragmaticism, is a maxim of logic formulated by Charles Sanders Peirce. Serving as a normative recommendation or a regulative principle in the normative science of logic, its function is to guide the conduct of thought toward the achievement of its purpose, advising on an optimal way of "attaining clearness of apprehension". Here is its original 1878 statement in English^[1] when it was not yet named:

It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.

(Peirce on p. 293 of "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 286–302. Reprinted widely, including Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP) v. 5, paragraphs 388–410.)

"Whatever works."
"If it's true, it's useful; if it's useful it's true."

More on the Philosophy of the Zodiac (Round 2)

2009-12-09T20:09:00.000-08:00

Flashback from last time:

There are dozens of ways to break down or combine the signs; for one, Virgo is represented by Athena as a war-goddess emphasizing strategies; versus Aries is represented by Aries the war god emphasizing total war. There are lots of combinations, conglomerations and common places for the signs. Some of the broader ones are Quality; Phase; and another is polarity (masculine and feminine signs).

There's a bit of hopscotch about each of these matches around the wheel of the year; fore instance Aries is a Fire sign, and x amount of months later it's Leo, add that same number x to Leo's months and you get Sagittarius, and then x amount of months and back to Aries.

Starsky and Cox identify quadrants as another one of these identifiers. Quote, "The zodiacal quadrants correspond to the metaphysical planes of existence--physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual." The first group of 3 is Aries, Taurus, and Gemini (Physical), next is Cancer, Leo, Virgo (Emotional), Scorpio, Libra, and Sagittarius (Mental), and Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces (Spiritual).

Every time you hit the third one, it's supposed to be a combination or arbitration between the two previous stories.

So Gemini is both Push (Aries) and Pull (Taurus) in its Duality modus operandi.
Virgo is both Intuition-Sensitivity (Cancer) and Discipline-Logical Analysis (Leo) in Applying Fairness in its modus operandi.
Sagittarius is both Foundationalism and Exposing Mysteries (Scorpio) and Higher Civilization and Aesthetics (Libra) in its synthesis modus operandi.
Pisces is both Tradition-Pragmatism (Capricorn) and Invention-Newness (Aquarius) in applying the Dao to its modus operandi.

Hope and Change: The Placebo, the American Humbug and Lacks thereof

2009-12-09T19:22:00.000-08:00

I know Heroes, the heroic ideal, Nietzche and fun thinkning about all of these things. I was thinking yesterday about my heroes. Who are they? Have I selected the best when I select my heroes?

I've been going around this semester saying, "When I speak to you, I speak to the highest nature of you. I speak to what is best in you. This isn't necessarily spiritual. You know when you are doing your best."

I got this from Dale Carnegie's How to Make Friends and Influence People.

I'm interested in Dale Carnegie because he was born on my birthday and he was wildly successful.

I'm also interested in Carnegie's work in this Age of Obama because the man basically man something from nothing, creatio ex nihilo, with his concepts of granting courage to people.

This is charlatanism, that criminal act of selling something that is more hype than useable product. But who can tell the difference and how?

I read the book, I found it at the Natural Resources Library in the Interlibrary Loan shelf and the person who had ordered it never picked it up.

I like the Obama rhetoric. For those of you who haven't read How to Make Friends and Influence people, he gives about 10 pieces of advice, poses them as chapters. The chapters are comprised of cracker jack 1920's (I think it was published in the 30's) anecdotes, about 3 or 4 sentences long, of how people changed their lives using these techniques.

According to the wikipedia page, Carnegie was one of the first to launch the self-help craze. This reminds me of course of the DIY do it yourself craze, or the New York Times Magazine article Chronicling Spirituality-Self Help Guru Louisa Hay; of Hay House publishing. Hay was able to unite the spirituality craze with self-help, which has made her millions. Among her writers include Suze Orman and Wayne Dwyer, both of whom my mother has read.

My mother and I have also read books by Eckart Tolle and Oprah Winfrey. A couple of weeks ago I attended a lecture by August Turak; and two years ago my mother and I went to a spirituality lecture with less-well known Gregg Unterberger.

The best and most substantive is certainly Tolle, and I very much like Winfrey. In fact, I like Carnegie, too. The reason, and I don't think I've said this before, is that Carnegie was born on my birthday. The other reason is that I think there is some substance to what he was saying.

One of his tips? Speak to people's higher natures.

But that leads us back to the question: when are people not acting from their higher natures? Why should I have to tell people to act from their higher natures? What's the difference between our higher natures and our lower natures? Is it possible to ask to speak to those parts of a person? What would be the point of talking to a higher personality part, as opposed to any other part.

Philosophies of the Zodiac

2009-12-08T14:45:00.001-08:00

I am totally nullifying myself from legitimacy here for this blog, but this will be fun. It's not like Facadesaside has that much philosophical clout anyway.

There are 12 signs in the zodiac, signs of astrology, and each of them has a story. I'd like to think of them as philosophies, but the difference between astrology and philosophy is important. These are sort of life-tackling's. How does each sign (conceptually) tackle life? How is this philosophical? How isn't this philosophical?

This isn't my idea; it comes from the fact that Capricorn is known for Pragmatism; the motto of the sign is "I use," and it just so happens that all the signs sort of look like this if you put them that way.

Starsky and Cox in Sextrology say that the Zodiac is a mirror of the Bible, from Genesis (Aries) to the flood (Cancer) to whatever the last part is (Pisces).

Aries - (Creation) Speed and Originality; the creation of life, Oneness
Taurus - (Eden) the Joy of being alive (Epicureanism) & perhaps eastern philosophy, Materialism (I always think of famous Taurus philosopher Karl Marx and his doctrines of Materialism)
Gemini - (Adam and Eve) - Dialectic; Communication, compromise, deals, Dualism
Cancer - (The Flood) - Emotion, Passion, Intuition, thinking here of Leibniz (1 July 1646 [OS: 21 June] – 14 November 1716) who's philosophy's reassured people with God's existence; Cancer is also associated with women in general, thus Feminism and women's studies go here
Leo - Analytic logic, (Thinking here especially of Hilary Putnam born July 31, 1926, famous Leo Analytic Philosopher)
Virgo - Dialectic Materialism (I know this is a Marxist Doctrine, but think like famous Virgo philosopher George Wilhelm Fredric Hegel (?) and his Dialectic), alchemical change, "earning" philosophy and paying dues (although I'm not sure what system of thought this exactly corresponds to); don't ask me why, but Virgos are also known for Ethics
Libra - Higher thought, civilization; Starsky and Cox link this to Nietzche's (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) concept of the Apollonian coming from Apollo the Greek God of the sun; Aesthetics, philosophy of the Forms is especially pertinent, so Plato and the Rationalists like Kant, Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza are over here.
Scorpio - Foundationalism, Discovery, mystery, the unknown, sixth senses, Exploration, power struggles (20th century political philosopher Robert Nozick November 16, 1938 – January 23, 2002 is known for his work on the individual as a building block for governmental systems).
Sagittarius - group thought and therefore political philosophy, Optimism, Synthesis, American Transcendentalism, Romanticism; Starsky and Cox liken the Sagittarius to Nietzche's Dionysian, Existentialism, and also Integration, probably most visible (the only visible) Sagittarius philosopher being Noam Chomsky (December 7, 1928 ); but Voltaire sort of counts because of the intelligent humor he wrote with (November 21, 1694 – May 30, 1778), even though he's right on the line with Scorpio.
Capricorn - the sign that got me on this kick, Pragmatism (Benjamin Franklin's (January 17, 1706 [O.S. January 6, 1705^[1]] – April 17, 1790) philosophy of whatever works and of course William James (January 11, 1842 – August 26, 1910)), contentedness and therefore self control, Golden Age rhetoric, Stoicism
Aquarius - invention, mutation, originality, Stoicism (I know I put this twice) John Rawls (February 21, 1921 – November 24, 2002) practically invented Modern Political Philosophy with his viewpoints on Egalitarianism.
Pisces - Philosophy of Religion, German Idealism, Phenomenalism and Classic Idealism a pretty good representative might be George Berkeley (12 March 1685 – 14 January 1753).

There are dozens of ways to break down or combine the signs; for one, Virgo is represented by Athena as a war-goddess emphasizing strategies; versus Aries is represented by Aries the war god emphasizing total war. There are lots of combinations, conglomerations and common places for the signs. Some of the broader ones are Quality; Phase; and another is polarity (masculine and feminine signs).

There's a bit of hopscotch about each of these matches around the wheel of the year; fore instance Aries is a Fire sign, and x amount of months later it's Leo, add that same number x to Leo's months and you get Sagittarius, and then x amount of months and back to Aries.

Starsky and Cox identify quadrants as another one of these identifiers. Quote, "The zodiacal quadrants correspond to the metaphysical planes of existence--physical, emotional, mental, and spiritual." The first group of 3 is Aries, Taurus, and Gemini (Physical), next is Cancer, Leo, Virgo (Emotional), Scorpio, Libra, and Sagittarius (Mental), and Capricorn, Aquarius, and Pisces (Spiritual).

Some philosophers and how they do and do not apply:

Shouldn't Descartes (31 March 1596 – 11 February 1650), by such a list, be the poster child for (mind-body) Dualism or Foundationalism, and therefore be a Gemini or a Scorpio, respectfully, (and not an Aries)?

Shouldn't Charles Taylor, known for his Golden Age rhetoric, be a Capricorn and not a Scorpio, as he is?

Thomas Hobbes 5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679 is an Aries, but he's always talking about Materialism, which is supposed to be a Taurus quality.

Nietzche's a Libra, and his philosophy talks about the Apollonian; so why does his philosophy more closely resemble the Romanticism, Existentialism, and Transcendentalism of the Sagittarius?

Spinoza is known for Monism, the philosophy of Oneness. But really he's a Sagittarius. Shouldn't that make him an Aries?

Johann Gottlieb Fichte (May 19, 1762 – January 27, 1814), Bertrand Russell (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970) and John Stuart Mill (20 May 1806 – 8 May 1873)are Taurus-Geminis, but their philosophies are not anything alike; since Mill only wrote about Political Philosophy and Russell only wrote about Political philosophy later in life, he was mostly a philosopher of mathematics. Fichte did rally for the concept of the German state, however.

Willard Van Orman Quine (June 25, 1908 – December 25, 2000) is known for his cool analysis, but he's a Cancer, or at least a Gemini-Cancer. Shouldn't he be a Leo?

Born four days prior Jean-Paul Charles Aymard Sartre (21 June 1905 – 15 April 1980) seems like a poster child for Sagittarius existentialism. He's not. He's a Cancer-Gemini, too.

But his philosopher peer Simone de Beauvoir (January 9, 1908 – April 14, 1986) was a Capricorn-existentialist, not a pragmatic philosopher like we would think.

Don't even get me started on Taurus David Hume (7 May 1711 [26 April O.S.] – 25 August 1776) versus Aries-Taurus Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804). Did these guys match any of the zodiac's philosophy?

Jean Jacques Rousseau (Geneva, 28 June 1712 – Ermenonville, 2 July 1778) was a political philosopher, but of course he's a Cancer by zodiac.

Beginnings and the Cosmological Argument

2009-12-07T13:22:00.000-08:00

Of the stuff that's purely conceptual, beginnings and endings might be more on the conceptual side, and perpetually up for debate.

Events sort of morph into other Events, and Eckart Tolle says there is only circumstantial evidence for time.

There are sparks and there are the straws that break the camels back, but the events that led up to those happenings are indeed hard to place.

The position that the world must have a starter of causes, the chain of cause and effect, is called the Cosmological Argument. Aristotle originally thought of this idea as The Unmoved Mover from this basic thought experiment that

the Unmoved Mover Argument

Premise 1)If stuff causes other stuff
Premise 2) the Chain had to start somewhere
Conclusion 3) Therefore, there must have been an original cause that was not itself caused (the Unmoved Mover)

One of the medievals, Saint Augustine and Saint Aquinas, and it was probably Aquinas, used Aristotle for, you guessed it, a proof of God's existence. Note that above the Unmoved M0ver does not have to necessarily be God per se, we Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions just so happen to be looking for such a thing.

3 Takes on the Cosmo-Argument:

1) John Locke Uses this in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding
2) Spinoza kind of alludes to this using the principles of Sufficient Reason, but his proofs for God are ontological (Existence necessitates Essence, argument from definition); and of course because Leibniz subscribes to the principle of Sufficient Reason, so does he
3) Rabbi Herman two years brought this up. I was furious.

Kant, as per usual, beats them all by saying the Cosmological Argument is an Antinomy.

Here's the gist of the antninomy: we can't know of a first cause because there might be a cause before that. Consider the big bang argument: people say that the universe came from sands slapping against each other. But where did the sand come from in order to slap together.

If there is a Creator God, it might have been created by something else; and there's no fine print here against saying that something might have many causes. The cosmological argument is staked on the fact that we might see causality as only a linear chain, whereas you might see it as a funnel or a 3 dimensional design in your head.

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

2009-12-06T11:31:00.000-08:00

(Conceptual) Success (Digression: But isn't all success conceptual?):

I can't remember if I've written in my world my theory that this world is a meritocracy.

By this I mean that the world rewards (merits) and grants advantages to those who would work hard.

This is what the American ideal of success is: that those who work hard will be rewarded (merited) for their efforts.

I make the distinction between a more man-made merit system, which has to do with recognition, and another more individual-based, or non-recognition based success.

Perhaps an example would help. Consider a bureaucratic conglomerate of people and a person who is promoted. She could only be promoted in this way by the recognition of a "higher up". Her success is predicated on the fact that she did something, that it was recognizable, and somebody(s) actually recognized it. The promotion is thus a merit (reward) for working hard.

The hitch is comes when people are not recognized, and they are not promoted-rewarded-merited for their hard work and actions.

Ready for the switch?

I believe that to some extent, people who work hard will be rewarded for working hard with or without the corporate recognition.

This looks like the person who does a good job, enough to triumph over competitors. I consider a more naturalistic environment: inventing the invention (re: using the wheel, fire, or another primitive invention) was the reward itself. In this way, the world rewarded the success. The promotion was using fire, using the wheel, and other primitive inventions.

Of course, to be in a bureaucratic position in as a situation means that we're a little bit removed from such a system. Which leads us to...

The caveat:
People are not always rewarded in the way they need to be rewarded by nature for their actions. Even if the actions the person takes are the correct ones, and the right ones, that doesn't mean that the person will be merited in the way that they want to be merited, need to be recognized.
Say for example you come up with electric cars when there is no gas crisis, in the way that people have been doing since the invention of the car.

A lot of times a long term investment means sort of committing to the fact that you won't get paid back immediately. In fact I think this is somewhere to the heart of the matter.

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation, the philosophy of Attributes, and Isaiah Berlin's Two Liberties:

Intrinsic motivation is that motivation which comes from the self. That is, the individual self. The common illustrative examples are the motivation to play games and have fun.

What's the big motivation to play frisbee? Playing frisbee. What's the big motivation for going on dates with beautiful people? Going on dates with beautiful people. What's the big motivation for solving a math problem? A lot of times (gasp) it's just solving the problem.

Intrinsic motivation (intrinsic meaning internal) is contrasted and immediately defined opposite Extrinsic motivation, which is simply motivation that does not come from the individual.

Extrinsic motivation might therefore be getting an A + for that math problem, being paid to do a job, getting a punch-in-the-face "pain reward" if you're into masochism, and basically rewards that are not necessarily for being in the act of doing it, but rather from doing it. They are one step removed.

This is remarkably parallel to seminal political Philosophy work Two Theories of Liberty by Isaiah Berlin, which says that negative liberty is freedom from coercion, while positive liberty is freedom to do something. Berlin argues that we should emphasize legislating negative freedom, because positive freedom is really hard to legislate (being so ambiguous and all).

What's the biggest problem with Berlin's theory and how does it apply to intrinsic-extrinsic motivation?

The biggest problem with Berlin's theory is that it is really hard to legislate the difference between positive and negative liberty.

I ask, with this spirit of Berlin criticism in mind, is it so easy to draw the line between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation?

The conflict:

In an experiment on Chimpanzees, which is (semi) famous and I got out of James Kalat's introduction to Psychology book, chimpanzees were given a toy wood block-puzzle to open and close. They opened and closed the puzzle with glee. This is a representation of intrinsic motivation.

In subsequent trials, the scientists put a raisin in the puzzle, which the chimpanzees opened and therefore found a reward for what they had done. Following this, the chimpanzees were less enthusiastic about solving the toy wood block-puzzle.

The point: Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation decreases intrinsic motivation.

My Isaiah Berlin-Criticism's Criticism: How could you tell the difference? At which point was it intrinsic motivation, and at which point was it extrinsic motivation and how do we know that one caused the other to fail, or succeed.

Isn't it intrinsic motivation to work towards a goal that is still one step removed?

Support for the Caveat to the Chimp problem:

Warren Buffett is said to have rewarded his children by paying for them to clean their rooms.

I also have a business consultant friend who rewards his children by paying them for completing chores. (Intrinsic motivation psychologists: where's the joy in doing chores anyway? Mary Poppins calling, certainly).

Hedonism is self-fulfilling, anyway, to some extent. This is part of our rouge theory of attributes; that thought is the feeling of hearing music playing, whereas extension might be the vibrations of the strings, the compression of the sound waves, the written notation of music, and the friction between the rosin, the bow, and the string.

Comic Book Philosophy (Part 3)

2009-12-05T09:58:00.000-08:00

Those interested in this blog entry will be interested in the other two superhero facadesaside posts (Parts 1 and 2). One was on the nature of parallel and opposite enemies versus superheroes, and the other was about the Hobgoblin.

By the way (three posts ago) my friend Rick loves the Joker as shown in Batman: The Dark Knight. He's a Hegelian. He's the reason I took my 19th century philosophy course this semester, and he likes the Joker because there has to be action taken.

An Aside About 2Face:

That's where, so to speak, facades must be put aside if they are there. In the movie the commissioner and the Batman try to eschew their roles (the role of Batman? I want you to think about these questions) and rally behind a new district attorney, Harvey Dent who later becomes Two Face.

This plot (I agree with Denby that the movie itself doesn't really help out here, the plot only really implies some emotional depth) gives two face more credit than he deserves. In the comic book, which I haven't read enough of, and the early 1990's cult classic cartoon show, Two Face was a 2-Dimensional character, and always did the same thing. He chains up Batman on a giant quarter (with two faces, get it?) and roles him down a hill or something.

Now, Two Face needs a coin to make decisions. He is grossly superstitious and, ahem, does not believe in his own free will. In the cartoon show, they point to Harvey Dent actually being superstitious before the accident where he loses half of his face.

So there's this thing about Free Will and superstition. By foiling Batman with a character who is indecisive and immoral (when the coin lands down, he'll murder someone, rob a bank, and so on) because of outside and external happenings; it reveals that Batman himself has such a choice and uses such a choice. So it's this really cool thing about freedom and morality going on.

Generally speaking, this is the big character flaw for Dent-2Face; in addition to this moral conundrum. It's a pragmatic problem, too. For example, when he has Batman rolling down the hill on the quarter, he'll flip a coin and the coin will make him untie batman. This, too, has a neat take home message.

Of course, this is an eternal message that you could do pretty good with. Just as easily, the message could get in a quagmire, or the message could fall prey to overemphasizing the characters, or overemphasizing the plot.

For example, this was completely glossed over in the movie.

Why Rick Loves the Joker:

Considering the foil-aspect, the Joker is Batman's foil in the way that Batman represents restraint, positive proactive established justice, and on and on; all with the "serious" demeanor of doing so. There's established order versus anarchy. The many levels and facets of the relationship are part of what make it enduring. The Joker represents the opposite of Batman so many ways. I think we could break this down into free will, too. Pay attention: we don't want the "free" will of Joker anyway, in the way that such a will would be overly spontaneous; or overly corrupt. Because it's a shoddy free will, it is undesirable.

My friend Rick loves the Joker because Joker is applicable to Hegelian dialectic. Rick says at the point where the Joker comes in and raises chaos, he either has to be answered or he will do whatever he wants. He is pure chaos.

This is a take it or leave it, trial by fire situation, then. This is because when these two forces of Batman and the Joker collide, there has to be one winner or the other will be revealed to be a facade.

When discussing this with my friend Rick, I found myself alarmed. I said to Robert that it is okay for a comic book to have such a moral lesson, but it is alarming to position this to real life. I said that while maybe this is the scenario, we should not have to posit evil in order to assert standards. We do not "need" evil in the way that the Joker "needs" Batman. It makes the story interesting, certainly, but it is a crude misunderstanding to believe that we need this in non-comic book life.

This is only part of what my friend was saying, however. While I realize that my moral impression is pertinent, I think that Rick's criticism needs exploration.

Thought terminating cliche:

I'm out of gas! End

It's impossible

2009-12-04T15:07:00.001-08:00

To say, "I'm here write now" and be lying.

Pretty cool, no?

German Idealists: Georg Hegel

2009-12-04T14:20:00.001-08:00

So the one philosopher who I've read the least-of-but-still-talk-about-the-most is Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who you can meet personally at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegel

and of course at

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

Why is this guy the guy? Well for one thing, he liked my guys Kant and Spinoza, both of whom I have done a modest amount of work about. Remember, the namesake of this blog is Immanuel Kant, who believed all we can know are appearances.

In fact, Hegel thought that he was completing the Kantian system with his more thorough, rigorous system.

What's the big deal about the Hegelian system?

I don't know, and it would be pretense, facade, and hypocrisy to say that I do know.

I can take one limited educated guess, though. One of the reasons Hegel is popular is because of Hegelian Dialectic.

We've gone over Dialectic quite a bit in reference to the Socratic Dialogues, which were Plato's way of communicating ethics (one of the testimonies to their power is their survival: they're over 2000 years old). Dialectic in the traditional-ancient sense is basically the revealing of some truth from discussion, dialogue. Dialogue would become substantial for the Moderns' communication of their moral discussions, too; this includes David Hume, George Berkeley (I remember the 3 Dialogues characters Hylas and Philonous), and Gottfried Leibniz; among others.

Judaism also has its own dialogue called Talmudic Dialectic (again I'm citing wikipedia; Jewish Facadesaside readers, Religious studies majors, or those interested might just as easily look at the Talmud, Mishnah, and so on). Talmudic Dialectic is conflicting dialogues by intelligent authorities in the Jewish Religion committed to the pages of the important works, such as the Talmud. So for instance, if you open a page of the Talmud, you might see one author comment on the primary source, then another author commenting on that author, and then another author commenting on that author.

(Big Digression: One time, looking at the Talmud with my Rabbi, he said that it was like hypertexting in the internet; even bringing out a book that compared the Talmud to the internet; which furthered my hypothesis that Hebrew itself was like the internet. I haven't written any papers on this yet, but it makes sense: for the longest time, only those polyglots who could speak mutiple languages would be able to cut the mustard of thousands of years of texts; all of which were important. This is the big reason why Latin was forced down the throats of the students back then. This was also the big reason why Latin was the language used by Academia for people like Spinoza, Leibniz (a little bit, he also used German and French, which was the slightest bit audacious at the time) and Descartes all wrote in Latin. The fact that Hebrew and Latin were like the internet is most likely the reason Spinoza was in the middle of writing a practical guide for Hebrew at the time he died; considering that he was a Pantheist and was brutally kicked out of the Jewish community, without any remorse on his part.)

Back to Hegel: what's the big deal? Hegel was a three dimensional philosopher in any of the best ways you can stretch that metaphor. There was something substantial about his metaphysics if you will pardon the philosophy joke.

But he also realized that Kant's Categories, the most important of which include substance and causality; should be dynamic; that is, ever-changing.

What did this mean? Again, I'm not offering too much pretense here, but I think it's Hegelian Dialectic.

Okay, we defined Dialectic upstairs of this blog entry as discussion which reveals a greater moral or a series of greater morals (hopefully all having to do with each other).

Hegelian Dialectic is when two things conflict and converge, but this time instead of revealing a moral truth, they synthesize into something greater. The defeated side actually absorbs into the victor. The victor therein has elements of the defeated in the synthesis. It looks like half of the March Madness bracket for the NCAA basketball tournament. (That too, like just about everything, is interpret-able by Hegelian Dialectic).

Hegel applies this everywhere, in a whole bunch of scenarios. You can, too. It's that fun and easy. Friedrich Nietzche hijacks this philosophy for his will to power theory; and Karl Marx of course hijacks it for Marxist dialectic.

Hegel had a master and slave dialectic whereupon the master uses the slave, but her reliance on the slave makes her weak. Once the slave realizes this, she rebels against the master and becomes the master herself. Cool! Of course, it's a little more complicated than that.

Hegel also applied this to substance-metaphysics: the concept of nothing versus the concept of something produces becoming (hence the dynamic categories).

There's other applications of Hegelian dialectics; and this concept is one of the greater unities of his entire work.

One of the most important implications of this theory is recognition. This would be influential on political philosophers such as Charles Taylor and philosophers of the self.

Hegelian Dialectic and Nostalgia:

Take for instance nostalgia, which is actually what brought on this entire diatribe. Hegel would have you missing something, sure. But when you're missing it, it's not simply you in the past or you in the present. It's you considering the past and recognizing the past. You couldn't do it without the recognition of the past. You couldn't miss something outside of the present, but you couldn't miss something unless you had experienced it then (and it was in the present then), and you probably wouldn't be missing it if you have it in the present.

Here's my triangle, but you can sketch your own on paper if you disagree:

past
present
recognition

You, right now: thinking of something or experiencing something, but not having it or doing it
You, back then: having something or doing something
You a couple of seconds after right now: missing something

Remember, the dynamic nature of this stuff doesn't exactly look this way.

It looks more like

the past \ __combine into_________> recognition of the past in the present
present./ ---------------------------->

Nevertheless, you could not experience missing something unless you had that something in the past or did that something in the past. Furthermore, you could not miss something actively in the past, and the only time you could miss something actively is in the present. Sure, we have missed stuff in the past, but we cannot actively miss something without being in the present. We cannot do anything outside of the present.

But there's something sinister about missing stuff, call it the treachery of memory after Magritte's treachery of images series, which we have talked to death about. But nostalgia and sentimentality lay a treacherous trap: they are necessarily in the past and can only be "regarded" as such.

David Denby's Past Shock

2009-12-04T13:38:00.001-08:00

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/07/21/080721crci_cinema_denby?currentPage=2

Time Capsule: This, a year after it came out, is David Denby's criticism of the enormously popular Batman: The Dark Knight. The Dark Knight itself will vanish with enough time because everything does. But the backdrop of morality behind it is something more important, if not more lasting.

Reading Appiah's The Ethics of Identity, the author reminds me we are constantly building our identities; and of the various places we take our identities from, movies are one of them. We tell the narrative stories of our lives and we look for them for ideas for building our identities.

Moreover, watching movies is fun! For me, I like reading the reviews, too, often times without even seeing the movies themselves. I like the joy of knowing without actually doing the immersion of seeing the movie (and to some extent giving myself to a movie). So sometimes I'll read the review and later go to that movie; and other times I'll read the review after I see the movie.

I read this one before I saw it the first time. I can't remember if I had seen Wall-E at the time, but that review matches the movie and really isn't that controversial. (By the way, Denby defends the movie against other critics who think Wall-E attacks the American way of life; but come on, who could hate Wall-E? Except I didn't like how it used the 1980's movie short circuit as inspiration for creating the robot Wall-E himself...Denby also champions Wall-E about morals while knocking The Dark Knight for missing out on its own morals.....hmmmm).

I ended up seeing the Dark Knight twice. It's a long movie, and like Denby says, it's violent. One guy does have a bomb sewn into his stomach, but I didn't think it was that violent physically. I thought it was violent emotionally. Denby also recognizes Ledger's performance as brilliant, and I agreed both times. I remember being enthralled by the way that the Joker has two different stories for why he has the "smile" scars (which I much later found out are common among some gangs). In the movie, he says that his wife killed herself at the party, and that he had an abusive dad; and my point is that they are obviously contradicting and so it's a good show that he's a psychopath.

What was Denby's big problem with this movie? Denby seems to put up all of which he knocks down: the killer performance by Ledger sort of ties with Denby's bitching about Christian Bale; the soundtrack is too intense; the intensity of the movie is one huge climax; only half of the actors can act the movie appropriately; and that the plot moves abruptly. But these, especially in a thriller, would usually be triumphs (on the Wikipedia page, it says Ebert gave this a rave review). You could check out Denby's positive review of the much less acclaimed Will Smith movie "Hancock" which was another summer superhero movie which he wrote a couple of weeks before, which has stark contrast at least to the ambition of the Dark Knight script.

I think Denby's ultimate conclusion about the movie that

"The Dark Knight” has been made in a time of terror, but it’s not fighting terror; it’s embracing and unleashing it—while making sure, with proper calculation, to set up the next installment of the corporate franchise."

is the really important point for Denby. This movie has morals, but these morals are corrupt. Denby says that this movie is a hyperviolent spectacle, and he's worried about the ramifications for our culture. He poses the Wall-E movie as a morally on-level movie.

I also use another magazine, n+1, (which is a sister magazine to the New Yorker; some of the writers from the New Yorker also write for n+1); which had a big argument that wrote something similar, if not on the exact same train of thought as Denby. The n+1 article, and I'm sorry but I don't remember the author's name, said that the Dark Knight actually encourages the war on terror, and takes the neoconservative standpoint; and I don't know if that's exactly right.

Thought terminating cliche (people new to this blog: look it up on the search bar): There's a fortune cookie that said "It's a good thing that life isn't as serious as it seems to the waiter." I can't help but be thankful that not all of our identities come from the movie; but also that maybe it's just cool to watch the movie and not have to think too hard about all this stuff (at least as I'm watching it).

Thing about Baby Logic

2009-12-03T21:51:00.000-08:00

Thing about baby logic is I'm always thinking: this is so boring, not fun, and so on.

And then; everyone around me is having fun. Everyone loves symbolic logic and on and on.

The Law of Identity and the Law of Substitution

2009-12-03T21:41:00.000-08:00

I'm absolutely fascinated by motivation. What motivates me to be fascinated by motivation? I like the idea of power surrounding it.

Je te presente The Philosophical Law of Identity.

The Law of Identity states we can identify something; and substitute it in later. This is cooler than it sounds.

The Law of Identity gets expressed basically as x = x, or other inane obvious ways. But this stuff is more subtle and interesting than that.

Check out this philosophical classic by Bertrand Russell:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Denoting

If I told you that gravity is bodies being attracted to a larger body; and that bodies being attracted to a larger body is gravity; You would say, "Bum rap! That's a terrible answer!"

But in order to give any truthful answer ever, you would have to have an answer that is a true proposition. I know this could be explained better but I'm going to let you chew on that.

And sometimes it can be good to identify something as is. There is some strength in saying an apple = an apple; or x = x

The Law of Identity is closely related to, and this is going to sound heartbreakingly obvious, The Law of Substitution.

For example, in a basic informal proof, we could say that x = (y+z). Then every time we have an x, we can get y+z. This is akin to the point in the Harry Potter movies where he learns to raise his wand and turn an apple into a goat. But even cooler!

The big guy for all of this, again, is Gottfried Leibniz.

Aristotle's big three Logic laws were:

Law of Contradiction (Never P and not P)
Law of Identity (P = P)
Law of Excluded Middle (P or not P)

You look good to me by Oscar Peterson

2009-12-03T21:40:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7xodWzLbCo

Operational Definition of Philosophy, and some problems with Simplification

2009-12-02T17:37:00.001-08:00

In this blog we do both academic philosophy and popular "pop" philosophy. In my last post I gave a link to Rosenbaum's pop philosophy article, so I want to talk about pop philosophy a bit.

Operational Definition of Pop (popular) Philosophy: An operational definition of pop philosophy is philosophy which is written with a very large audience in mind, especially to the extent that such philosophical ideas will be simplified.

I'll remind you that Simplification is great, but if we miss out on some relevant material we're in big trouble.

Thusly, popular music includes the Beatles, who write great love songs, but does not necessarily include less instrumentalist and composer Jon Brion. The strength is we get the Beatles on the radio, but the weakness is we do not get Jon Brion on the radio.

Nietzche wants to "do philosophy with a sledgehammer" getting rid of Idols of past heroic philosophers. This hammering is my biggest problem with him as a philosopher. I often joke with Rick, saying that I do not understand all of this stuff but I understand that it is important. He retorts: I understand all of this stuff but I do not understand why it is important. Nietzche himself would not have most of the ideas that he did without reading the classics. He was a professor of Classical Philology; the study of original source texts.

One of the theses played with on this blog, and in my life is, "Everyone is a philosopher, they just may or may not know it." I cite the fact that we use maxims and idioms in order to get through the days. I cite the fact that everyone has to employ some morality in order to assess their goals. Everyone has to make some meaning in order to keep living.

Why can't everyone be a philosopher? Is this an existentialist question? Well basic set theory says we have to denote a group somehow. Intuitively we know that philosophers have a certain number of traits that other people do not.

How is this relevant to our original paragraph; relevant to popular philosophy? I think it's pretty clear that if we are all philosophers then philosophy is pretty popular. Ha! But the reason we scorn pop music, pop psychology, and pop-whatever is because they gloss over some good stuff.

I can't name any really bad music right now, but I certainly can say the Eugenics movement, as it was popular science, was a bad call.

Thought terminating cliche: All of these things are things to think about.

Slate: Rosenbaum on how we haven't solved 3 big mysteries yet

2009-12-02T17:36:00.000-08:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2236563/

I really liked this article.

This is "pop" or popular philosophy; which I'll give an operational definition of in the next post.

Some more Philosphical Musings

2009-12-01T18:25:00.001-08:00

Wild Philosophy Ideas:

1) Happy people are not more selfish, lazier, or less unimaginative. We could put this in terms of depression in the chemical sense (bipolar, manic depressive and all of the rest); but also in terms of just ordinary happiness and ordinary sadness. I'm using specifically Gretchen Rubin's insights from her Happiness Blog, but also I think I might be using the Dalai Lama's Art of Happiness introduction in that book.

2) Nietzche saw it all as a whirlwind of colors whipping at our faces. He saw objectivity as a facade! He thought so much of human life was hypocrisy and facade. What does this mean? It means ditching philosophers who said this life is not a whirlwind who used that lack of whirlwind as a sense of objectivity. (Would Nietzche have made a shitty scientist? Would it have mattered?)

3) For that matter, Mahatma Gandhi is against hospitals. He said Hospitals weaken the people and that they are not really a sign of civilization. The people get to thinking that they need hospitals in order to be healthy, or that it is natural to extend life in the way that humans do. Both Nietzche and Gandhi (and Nietzche and Deleuze speculate, my main man Spinoza) believe we get into a sort of death worship when we care about death so much through fear. To quote Spinnerzzzza, "Hope and fear are part of the same thing." That is, we get outside ourselves, and into living a sort of third person life, where we're only commenting on the life we're living instead of living it.

4) Marx thought that working can lead to alienation (his concept). Alienation means that the life force that went into making the goods just leaves us.

5) Schopenhauer thought that all of this is THE WILL. I am he as you are he as you are me is all the Will to Schopenhauer. It's just a force. What's this you're reading? The Will. What's the point of all this? The Will.

5b) He thought that you can satisfy the Will, and thus staunch it, by listening to music. Schopenhauer thought that Music is the Best. He was correct in this. Whether this is actual escape from the Will, I cannot say. I don't even know if I believe in the Will.

6) If you want a comprehensive philosophy of empowerment, you don't get much better than Nietzche, which is probably among the reasons why Nietzche is popular with Americans, and young men. Nietzche's philospohy to me feels like, "Shut up and be empowered." or "So what? God is dead. Make up your own." or "There is no free will. Do whatever you want and feel good about it."

7) John Rawls rules. He's the most famous political philosopher outside of John Locke, and he argued for egalitarianism. Egalitarianism is a belief that the most advantaged should help the least advantaged. John Rawls is a hero of many of us young philosophers. He's also awfully recent, and the problems of political philosophy are among the most practically and obviously and readily applicable to life.

8) I agree with my friends. Popular music, the stuff that's on the radio, is philosophically vacant. I like Lady Gaga, but that's the apex of it all, and that's it. There's no greater philosophy in there. (3 years ago's) T-Pain's "I'm in love with a stripper" is a little bit postmodern in that he is being outrageous by saying that, but that's the pressing issue. It's nothing more than that. If you're looking for more behind the lyrics, it's just not there. On the radio now, "Empire State of mind" by Alicia Keyes and Jay Z is the top 100 for the "Billboard" sales chart is the same message as "New York State of mind" by Billy Joel. I like the new one better, but that's arbitrary, at least in terms of philosophy: it's the same idea as some thirty years ago.

Nietzche calling: why should popular music have any greater good or philosophy attached to it?
Marx calling: all artwork is ideological
Schopenhauer: music is our sanctuary, our way out!

9) David Foster Wallace (not a philosopher?) said in his essay about Dostoyevsky (not a philosopher?) in Consider the Lobster said that without Dostoyevsky there would be no Nietzche. Something that DFW says Dostoyevsky realized that Nietzche liked is our love affair with our problems. We aren't ditching them. We aren't working on them. We are just complaining. We are to some extent in love with our suffering.
Modern psychology collates this (I'm quoting from my Industrial Organizational Psychology class); saying that many times people who hate their jobs don't do anything about the jobs or being in the jobs.

10) When I'm having a good moment, sometimes my whole life looks great. When I feel like hell, it feelsl like my whole life has been hell. Perspective means so much. Nietzche formulated Perspectivism, that everything is from a perspective, that perspective cannot be lost and all there is is interpretation.

Gloom doom boom! Wazooo!
Glad Happy Explosion! Hartabokahshoo!!!

I said to my history professor Dr. Ambaras, that this is history for me. This was the last time I was going to see him for this semester. His last test (not a final? He says it's not a final) and his last essay are both entered on line. He cancelled class for Thursday. I said that this is one of the times that we know history is happening.

The Objective-Subjective Nexus Infects Us

2009-11-30T16:09:00.000-08:00

I wrote in a Technician article about Performative truths. A performative truth is when performing an action is what makes the truth of the proposition. So when I say, "I now pronounce you man and wife," it means that "the couple is man and wife" is false still after I say it.

But when a Priest says, "I now pronounce you man and wife," it means that the proposition "the couple is man and wife" is true after he said it, and because he said it.

Another example: We give an umpire the authority to say a ball going over is a strike. It's something about his authority that makes it true.

It's a matter of authority, and the authority that we give to people in our society. Philosopher Jamie Whyte has more to say about this, in fact saying that having one's right to her opinion is false and even dangerously wrong. Let's point him out later and maybe retype his argument from the Popular Philosophy Book Crimes Against Logic.

All of this has been said on this blog before. I even said that I got all of this from my philosophy of language class, which wasn't so worthless after all.

My friend Rick says that Performatives existed before the Analytic-Continental divide in philosophy; maybe even Kant did them (we know that we have him and Leibniz to thank for all of this proposition garbage).

My big rant here; my insight is this: Performative truths are a Nexus between objectivity and subjectivity. I was saying this in my article and blog posts before this, but I never really caught it in this way.

I've been posting a lot about Spinoza's Attributes (Thought and Extension) and Feuerbach's divinity of Nature (almost identical to Spinoza, but talking and explicating in his own Feuerbachian way).

This is perhaps where the two planes interact. Spinoza thought that thought is parallel to reality, and that the two were too unalike to interact. Some scholars think of this in terms of listening to music and the production of music. Or, you might consider the stream of consciousness as you are feeling it versus the stream of consciousness, as it exists as a billion's billion chemicals popping and whizzing in your brain, right now. These four things are their pair's two things, and that's what Feuerbach and Spinoza have in mind. FOOTNOTE: George Eliot (Female British Novelist and Philosopher) translated both Spinoza and Feuerbach. Coincidence?

Bring it on home: so the point is this: thought, while seeminlgy subjective (and we can talk about this for a while and try to erase all subjectivity, but until we have the neuroscience to say otherwise will have a difficult time fully unlocking; I personally doubt we will ever eliminate subjectivity (but that is only my belief? (meta-humor people stay with me))) has this foothold in the objective world.

On the other hand; if we reduce all of this business to objectivity, in other words see it in terms of x amounts of chemicals firing in the brain and on and on, everything is completely objective. It works just the same way: objectivity has a foothold in the subjective world.

See? I told you Sarah Palin was like Lady Gaga!

2009-11-30T16:08:00.000-08:00

http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/12/07/091207crbo_books_tanenhaus

A moral question: happiness or maximized utility?

2009-11-30T15:57:00.000-08:00

Here is a threaded email discussion I had with my friend Robert, who sometimes appears on this blog under various names.

so: (in fact, I /will/ put it anywhere)

> Why is it
> such a bad thing that the man is beholden to a group, so long as the group
> is justified?
- who justifies the group?

>But put him in front of the they self, have him be both a grass clipper
>and have him feel good and you've won the best thought experiment.
- cf. Eminem

>So long as he did not have any sadness-regret at not curing AIDs. So
>you've got your man who can justify himself to a bunch of AIDs victims;
>but what kind of happiness is that; and what kind of woman is that?
- the Ubermensch kind

> The truth is, and lamentably so, that humans go for immediate hedonism
> regardless; often times even perceived happiness.  The majority of human
> actions continue not because they are the right thing but because there
> was a degree of happiness in them.
- the other lamentable truth is that, once this problem of hedonism is
recognized, actions continue by some other equally arbitrary
justification in place of pleasure/happiness (e.g. that action being
"the logical/reasonable/altruistic/self-determined/factical/etc thing).
I don't mean arbitrary as being arbitrarily chosen, though...more like I
don't see what larger standard could determine which of these smaller
standards is correct (and what determines that larger standard's
standard for correctness? - so can we even talk about a larger
standard??)

I just lost the game.  But I lost the game after I typed 'Best, Robert'
below; so when I inserted this here this wasn't really the point where I
lost the game; I could have put this anywhere.  So that makes for a good
discussion: did you lose the game at the beginning of this email, since I
told you so then?

Best,
Robert




>
>
> Good, it seems blurry between what society commands him and what he
> justifies to society.
>
> That is, however, the essence of the moral imperative, not a distraction
> from it.  There has to be a society to help in order to cure the society
> of AIDs.
>
> Posing a person who asks me what he *should* do, cure AIDs for a career or
> become a grass clipper; the question is a moral imperative.
>
> What should the man do, cure AIDs or cut grass?  The should says it is a
> moral imperative, he should cure AIDs and work toward that.  Why is it
> such a bad thing that the man is beholden to a group, so long as the group
> is justified?  Put him in front of tyrants, and the case seems weighted
> for your point;  Put him in front of AIDs victims, and the case seems
> weighted for mine.
>
> I think the they self is an excellent test of a happy life in this way.
>
> Stick that man in front of a crowd, have him tell the crowd that cutting
> grass was justifiable so great the happiness gained was.  (Is it always an
> either/or?  And you and I would agree certainly grass clipping as a career
> and AIDs solving is not mutually exclusive, a person can be many careers
> over her long life).
>
> But put him in front of the they self, have him be both a grass clipper
> and have him feel good and you've won the best thought experiment.  We
> could even have the option be for him to either cut grass or cure AIDs,
> and I think people would back that;
>
> So long as he did not have any sadness-regret at not curing AIDs. So
> you've got your man who can justify himself to a bunch of AIDs victims;
> but what kind of happiness is that; and what kind of woman is that?
>
> The truth is, and lamentably so, that humans go for immediate hedonism
> regardless; often times even perceived happiness.  The majority of human
> actions continue not because they are the right thing but because there
> was a degree of happiness in them.
>
>
>
>
>
>> glad you had a good time!
>>
>> and quality stuff here.  I especially liked:
>>> So you say, "Well at least he's doing what he wants to do."  But isn't
>>> it
>>> a crude assumption to say that the person who could be happy being a
>>> grass
>>> clipper is our standard of human happiness here?  Living on a lawn,
>>> clipping glass?  Self-fulfillment?
>>
>> and
>>
>>> That is, I think the greater assumption is for the happy grass clipper
>>> than the unhappy AIDs-curer.
>>
>> But what kind of assumption are we talking about here?  My
>> understanding,
>> since you said "disanalagous" a few times, is that the grass-clipper has
>> to make more of an assumption that the potential-AIDS-curer since his
>> place in our culture has to be justified by something when happiness is
>> not a sufficient justification (and that doesn't even have to be because
>> he doesn't know for sure that he's happy, but perhaps just because we're
>> just not satisfied with his justification that he's happy).  If I
>> understand that correctly: to whom is he making this justification, and
>> why to them?  Perhaps, because his culture/nation/age/etc, maybe even
>> the
>> "fact of the world," is dissatisfied with such a decision (or, at least,
>> he feels that way).
>>
>> Mind that distinction I mentioned in class: when we say "one is free to
>> do
>> what he chooses," do we really mean, as "outsiders" looking at that
>> person, "you are free to do what you choose"?  And if so, welcome to
>> Heidegger's they-self, in this case, where freedom is determined by the
>> third person.  It was a nice move, when folks realized that one ought
>> not
>> to lord over another; but that third-person is still quite powerful,
>> here
>> even to the point where it is that third person that establishes what
>> one
>> can and cannot freely do when /it/ proclaims that "one/you can do what
>> one/you want[s]".
>>
>> Best,
>>   Robert
>>
>>
>>> Robert,
>>>
>>>
>>> That was my favorite birthday ever.  Thank you for a great time.
>>>
>>> I kind of feel like if I have to say that it was a great time, I'm
>>> taking
>>> away from the experience.
>>>
>>> Happy Thanksgiving!
>>>
>>>
>>> What I'm more interested in is this one moral issue we got down to in
>>> that
>>> last 15 minutes.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here's the sketch:
>>>
>>> You said that if there is a moral imperative for someone to do
>>> something
>>> as a Calling, a career,  they should not do that if it does not make
>>> them
>>> happy.
>>>
>>> This is almost entirely conceptual, so I think the thought experiment
>>> of
>>> the person who has the cure for AIDs (or the realizable-potential over
>>> the
>>> course of a career) should do that instead of the doing something like
>>> the
>>> grass clipper like in Hinton's class.
>>>
>>> The objection:
>>>
>>> So in this case you said the person should become the grass clipper if
>>> it
>>> makes them happy.  I'll remind you here that happiness is nebulous and
>>> a
>>> conflicted issue.  Happiness in comparison to other potential
>>> happinesses
>>> is not the least of the problems here: this is because it is very
>>> difficult for a person to say "Okay, if I had become a grass clipper
>>> when
>>> I was 20 years old, then all of my life's worries about becoming a
>>> scientist would be over."
>>>
>>> But my greater argument is against the assumption of the philosophy of
>>> happiness; which derives somewhere from the faulty assumptions of the
>>> previous inklings.
>>>
>>> That is, I think the greater assumption is for the happy grass clipper
>>> than the unhappy AIDs-curer.  There's something dis-analogous about the
>>> unhappy AIDs-Curer;  almost especially in light of the comparison with
>>> being a grass clipper.
>>>
>>> So you say, "Well at least he's doing what he wants to do."  But isn't
>>> it
>>> a crude assumption to say that the person who could be happy being a
>>> grass
>>> clipper is our standard of human happiness here?  Living on a lawn,
>>> clipping glass?  Self-fulfillment?  At the very least it's disanalogous
>>> to
>>> the majority of the human race.
>>>
>>> It's a Mill-ian greater hedonism and lesser hedonism problem.
>>>
>>> Which is why, if he asked me what he morally *should* do, I would tell
>>> him
>>> to cure AIDs, maybe for 10 years of his life, see how he feels, and
>>> then
>>> hit my lawn.
>>>
>>>
>>> -jrg
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Habits, Consciousness, Poetry, and streaming consciousness between it all

2009-11-29T12:37:00.001-08:00

I took a (minor) poetry class with my pal Delray, who is cited sometimes on this bloggo. The class was rustic, strange and awkward and it didn't cost us anything. It was taught by Professor Scanlon from Lemoyne University (in Syracuse).

It has been said that modern philosophy is either poetry or grammar. This refers to the analytic/continental divide because analytic goes by grammar and the assessment of language as a portal to real Truth; and continental explores reality in an essay-style. But there's more interchange than that.

Poetry is supercharged language, and people are trying to be honest when they can. Something strange happens, often: when "being honest" people play to the camera. Cue in your favorite memory of bad poetry. Usually we associate bad poetry with the teenager who complains about how terrible her life is. Give me a break! we all say. In psychology, the name of this is the Hawthorne effect, that considering surveillance changes behavior. In other words, you will act differently in front of the camera.

I read a Men's health where they presented this as a good thing. They called this the Awareness effect. It might be said that Eckart Tolle's Spiritual philosophy is merely the Awareness effect applied to life constantly. I just lost The Game. Once you are aware of an effect, you change your behavior about that effect.

What I learned in David Kessler's The End of Overeating, and from subsequent conversations with my friend Mike Bennett, is that we have habits and that many times that's a great thing.

There are things that some instrumental musicians cannot do which jazz musicians can do while improvising. This applies because the jazz musicians are working as a sort of habitual newness. Meanwhile, when the instrumental musician plays, she doesn't think, "this is a note, this is a note, this is a note"; or even "F#, G#, C#," there's a point where consciousness or subconsciousness and habitual consciousness blur.

Same goes for us, when we do something like tie our shoes, we never say in our streams of consciusness, "Bunny goes through the loop," or "Right string over left string," and on and on and on.

Truth Musings

2009-11-28T12:03:00.000-08:00

1) Truth can be broken down in mathematical philosophy. We call a proposition true when it is not false.

2) I knew a kid named Truth McDavid (I think his last name was McDavid, and I think his first name was Andre, but I can't remember exactly).

3) Mr. Nietzche says that there is no objective validity to this world; there is only a world in flux. This is why people have to create their own meanings.

4) All the propositions-studying might have originated with Gottfried Leibniz, who systemized logic by studying language; his two big contributions were the Law of Identity (that something is what it is), and the Law of Indiscernibles (if two things are exactly alike in every possible way, they are the same).

5) My dad says that humor is sudden realization of the truth. I don't know if he originally said this.

6) Spinoza was leery of all humor. He thought humor quickly turned into mockery, which he didn't like. Spinoza also thought that someone who makes fun of other people would be cherished by groups for singling out someone's errors, which Spinoza thought was wrong.

7) They say that people lie but numbers don't. People do lie a lot.

8) I really liked Frankfurt's second venture into Pop-Philosophy On Truth (right down to the fact that in chapter 3 he mentions Spinoza hehe). He said that Truth helps us recognize our limitations. He also said that our whole world is empirically dependent on Truth, like constructing a building.

9) John Stuart Mill, of course, points out that Truth can be suppressed. Oh yes. He cites countless examples, but the one relevant to all Christians might be that Christ's Truth was immediately suppressed. (Hey Atheist philosophers, cheer up, he mentions Socrates, too (who was put to death)).

10) Snoop Dogg said, "What's the use of the Truth if you can't tell a lie, sometimes?" (On Tha Last Supper Album)

Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, and the Lovable Exorcism of Postmodernism

2009-11-24T01:32:00.000-08:00

1) I consider the problem of postmodernism like the last cookie problem, which I have previously written on this blog, but I post again here (flag some assumptions at the top of this derivation, philosophers, I need you to digress with me for a bit):

Imagine a party, where there is a platter of cookies. Everyone is at the party having a great time, you're there, and I'm there. As the party goes on, everyone eats more and more cookies from the platter until there is only one left.

Now, at this point, the music of the party stops and everyone looks around. Manners dictate that no one should take that last cookie, because generally speaking manners are meant to put everyone at ease. In this case, with the cookies, the ease is supposedly that taking the last cookie means that no one else has the potential to eat that cookie, that you're claiming something better, that you take away from the group, and other tensions.

So while everyone is thinking about how polite it is to not take the cookie, and leave that cookie that everyone wants on the platter; someone is honest enough to grab the cookie.

But a funny thing happens: when this honest person grabs the cookie, everyone bursts out laughing for the cutting of humbug. Everyone feels relief at the grace of taking the last cookie and being happy. The true manners in this situation were to eat the cookie and not feel guilty.

But I feel as though taking the cookie is still wrong in this situation. Everyone is laughing and having a great time as the person reaches in, and in my mind's eye I have them laughing, too; then all of the sudden this person eats that last cookie and that's the end of the story.

My philosopher friends ask me, "Why does it matter?"

Hold tight folks I'm about to make a move.

2) This is my solution postmodernism: I think the end of the meta-analysis is the intuitive way that things feel.

Consider the Emperor's new clothes story: it took the little boy to say that the emperor was wearing no clothes in order to realize that everyone was doing something ridiculous.

The analysis of meta-analysis, the problems of problems, and so on, they all end with how it all feels.

So the woman was right in the story to take the cookie because everyone felt better; end of story. Is it the end of the story? For them it is. I might add we have to bring more cookies for the next one. There's other stuff to analyze here, like group dynamics, individualism, and leadership, but I feel like the problem was solved when that last person took the last cookie.

3) Meta Analysis of Gaga and Palin, and the cookie problem

A) Why is Lady Gaga a post-modern figure? I've already commented on why this woman counts as more than your average pop starlet, including the article from Slate where I got the idea.

I say to my friends Lady Gaga is performing an exorcism of the mass media demons.

The mass media demons are the "paparazzi" and the people who would have us second guess ourselves; perhaps when we say that we want to ride a "disco stick" or that we are guilty about what we like, as in "bad romance" (all these quotes are songs by Lady Gaga).

But the songs keep creeping up on me. "Paparazzi" talks about loving a person like the paparazzi. The reason this is wrong is because love and paparazzi parallel each other in lust. The same sexual satisfaction we get from following celebrities is the same as a bad crush, a lust that we might have on someone around us whom we don't really know, but we want to know.

I know better, and hopefully you know better, than thinking stalking is akin to love, or leads to love.

The song, however, isn't aimed at us, it's aimed at "paparazzi". The truth is, right down to "Okay" and "Us" (literally Us) is that we are the paparazzi. We are the people who judge the song "disco stick". We are the second guessers, the judges, of this madness. Lady Gaga is the person in the room taking that last cookie, everyone is laughing, even she is, but this is uneasy laughter, folks.

Who are they to judge? is us, it's us, it's us.

And we root for Lady Gaga to exorcise these evil demons without realizing that it is we who are the demons.

B) Sarah Palin is a parallel to Lady Gaga and the cookie eater. Lady Gaga comments on how terrible the music environment is for its double standards, the cookie eater skates the line of both doing what everyone feels like they should be doing and not doing, a morally dubious course of action that is okay (?).

Sarah Palin continuously talks about how awful the liberal media is; from the lectern of the media.

We're all laughing, and Palin is certainly a rich woman from her new book, as this woman takes this last cookie.

And the people who are rooting for her are the ones who empathize with her the most.

The Biblical saying is, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." the truth is that we are constantly judging negatively and we are constantly fearful of being judged.

People who empathize with Palin, and this is no secret, are the judgers. They are evangelical Christians, the midwesterners, the far right of Republican party.

But who perpetuates all of this?
Who is it that reads the People magazine with Sarah Palin in it?
Who revels in these double standards (right down to the blog you're reading, with yours truly writing)?

She is taking the last cookie, Gaga and Palin are exorcising these demons, and we are all laughing.

****

I think there's something else about calling out a Liberal bias when that's humbug.

Mainstream media, it brings up, and I think it should bring up, news events from an objective standpoint.

That is, when someone comes to you with a whole lot of problems, you might be inclined to call them biased and deluded because they are bringing up problems. You might even be subconsciously inclined to do this.

But that doesn't mean that they are deluded, or that they are biased.

It just means that you were mistaken.

In Groups and Out Groups

2009-11-22T09:01:00.000-08:00

I learned about it from my friend Delray, the idea of in groups and out groups, and that's when I first started thinking really hard about it.

I think he was using Max Weber, Weber's text, and probably the first person to put this idea forward.

I saw it confirmed, maybe in Riggio's Industrial-Organizational Psychology, but I don't have the source handy.

We discussed the idea of scapegoating on this blog, in an essay I originally entered to my International Political Economy.

There was an experiment we did together: we went to a party, we picked (an acceptable? I'll try to show you what I mean) universal scapegoat, and we tried to strengthen the group.

The scapegoat that we chose was a bully who had died in a car crash. He was a local bully and he was a seemingly justified target (don't take me out of context; I'm going to talk about this in a second).

So we did it and of course it worked. We were playing a game and we brought it up, making fun of the kid;

It wasn't even making fun of the bully, it was a game we were playing called "non-factors in Clinton, New York."

And he said it, and everyone felt the sort of anger at this bully and the (guilty?) pleasure of saying this kid's name. After all, he was dead!

I've been thinking about the ascetic life lately in previous posts, but I'm also considering the life of the outsider.

Eugen Victor Debs wrote:

As long as there is a lower class, I am in it
As long as there is a criminal element, I am of it
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free

Which is about the fact that we establish low class as a way to recognize the other; we pose these people as criminal because we don't want to recognize the other; and we put them in prison because we don't realize this process.

I keep thinking to myself that I don't want to be part of the in-group, and I don't want to fit in; because I run into these problems of wanting to please people. It's dangerous stuff!!!

But more on this later......(a thought terminating cliche??)

More on the Ascetic Life

2009-11-21T14:12:00.001-08:00

We already did one of the criticisms of the ascetic life in the last post (unless you consider some of the subtexts in there criticisms, but I'm not going to research myself because I'm on a role).

The criticism was from David Hume, which I learned from Melissa Schumacher. The criticism is that the desire to get rid of your desires is a performative contradiction. "I want to have no wants" is proposition P and not proposition P.

Another problem is that it's really hard! I believe it's a sort of natural disposition to want stuff. Spinoza lived on light beer, bread and butter, and oatmeal with raisins, for the greater part of his entire life.

Nehru thought that Gandhi was wrong to talk about getting rid of hospitals and railroads.

But is self-control real freedom?

Well yes and no, but I want to consider Isaiah Berlin's critique in "Two Concepts of Liberty".

In the article, Berlin, who is a national intellectual hero in Great Britain and the Commonwealth, argues that the only freedom that can be successfully legislated is negative liberty. Negative liberty is the freedom from coercion.

In the third chapter of the essay, "The retreat to the Inner Citadel," Berlin says that if you had some person who was convinced to cut their leg off and feel good about it, that's not the freedom to cut their leg off.

Berlin is worried about making the worse seem the better (we've gone over this extensively in this blog) from simply leaving the people to their self control.

But more on this later, perhaps.

Diogenes, various philosophers, and the Ascetic Life

2009-11-21T13:50:00.000-08:00

Here's a new ancient philosopher for your collection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

In the Ancient period, it kind of reads to the undergraduate philosophy student something like a Charles Dickens' novel: there are all kinds of 2 dimensional characters which crop up and then are quickly forgotten. The 2D ness of them is that they only have the one idea and then they're out. It's no help that the names are exotic and foreign.

I wrote on this blog that I had to spend time in front of the mirror practicing to say "Prolegomena." Well, reading about the Ancients can sometimes be like this.

Another thing about the undergraduate philosophy student is his insatiable wikipedia-bombing in this day and age; which is absolutely no different from anyone anywhere in the United States who is curious about anything.

From skimming this article about Diogenes, you can see he was a poor philosopher. The philosophical concept of having nothing (poverty) is the ascetic life. The ascetic life is getting rid of not only your goods and (often) your ability to get goods, but also your mental (need) want for goods.

This gets fascinating for 20th century Americans and Westerners who have made a culture of consumption.

Among the philosophers and do-gooders who lived the ascetic life are of course (in no particular order):

Jesus Christ
Mahatma Gandhi
Eugene Victor Debs (I want to talk about this, the answer is sort of, but still)
For that matter, a great many Communists including Marx, and the Chinese and Russians
The Stoics
Later, from the Stoics work, my main man Spinoza
The Cynics (the article says Diogenes was working from them)
Schopenhauer
Eckart Tolle & August Turak (speaker for the SKS)

And the list goes on and on. The ascetic lifestyle is associated necessarily with self-control. The way this works is we all want stuff, and we keep wanting stuff, and the only way to satiate this comes from within, from within our individual selves.

The Cynics' article on Wikipedia says the school of philosophers were cynical about getting joy from goods. In his Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect (I am pretty sure it's in this one), Spinoza talks about the vanitas, which is latin for vanities, which is all this stuff we're talking about. He makes a similar move in the Ethics about the passions: get rid of them and control yourself.

Easier said than done!

One of the critiques of getting rid of your desires is that doing so is a performative contradiction (see earlier blog post and discussion thereof); to the extent "I desire nothing" becomes the desire to desire nothing.

Schopenhauer, we learned in 19th century philosophy, sees a way out of this in music; and to the extent that Feuerbach and Spinoza think that thought only works with thought, they believe this too. The Existentialists (Heidegger, Camus, and Sartre) hit on this a little bit with the creation of the world through experience.

It works like this: think of your favorite song and how you feel when you listen to that song. At the time when you feel that elevation and you don't want to do anything else, to the extent that you are completely satisfied and don't want anything else, that's what Feuerbach, Spinoza and the philosopher in question, Schopenhauer; that's what they think is the joy of living (francophiles: the joi de vivre). They don't think you can get it from consuming, consuming, consuming.

Essay One for Hi 264

2009-11-19T22:08:00.000-08:00

Topic 1: Comparing and Contrasting the Indian Nationalist Movement to the Japanese Nationalist Movement

Violence marks the difference between India and Japan in their respective nationalist movements; India was more violent than Japan in the creation of its national identity. This conclusion goes against shallow consideration because India is known for Mohandas Gandhi, who in turn was famous for his philosophy of nonviolence. Gandhi's focus on nonviolence can be contrasted with Japan's nationalist figure Fukuzawa Yukichi who makes little mention of violence at all: he did not have to mention violence because violence was not an issue. While Japan's wars in the early 20th century are violent, they do not necessarily mark that of a nation struggling for identity; whereas the connection between a national identity crisis and violence is recognizable in India's conflicts.

India had several major and minor conflicts which were violent. The definitive creation of contemporary India was the partition of Pakistan from the larger “British India” when India got rid of British rule in 1947. The nationalist leader of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was reacting to the “late 1930's mounting communal violence” between Muslims and Hindus when forming his decision to advocate partition. But even the first attempts by India to establish itself as a nation in the Great Revolt from 1857-1858 were violent uprisings. It was under these circumstances that the British thought that the British East India company could no longer govern the Indians, and that because of the violence the Indians were too uncivilized to govern themselves (Jinnah, “Speech to the Muslim League” and class notes).

It is essential to view both the violent start of the Indian Nationalist movement and the violent definitive end to the movement as events leading to nationalist identity because such incidents are vacant in Japanese nationalist history. Two modern wars that Japan engaged in after the Meiji Restoration (1850-1858) were the successful Sino-Japanese War (1895) and the successful Russo-Japanese War (1905). If one considers the Meiji restoration as the consummation of national identity, these two major conflicts of the new Japanese nation happened after the Japanese national identity was established. Thus the national identity had already formed when the conflicts happened, and these wars do not represent a nationalist movement marred by violence. Perhaps the Japanese wars could not have been initiated and successfully managed without such a unified national identity (class notes).

Gandhi and Fukuzawa Yukichi's respective stances show how violence marks the difference between the two movements. For India, Gandhi’s movement was summed up in the word “satygraha,” or nonviolence. Passive resistance was integral to Gandhi's philosophy, whereupon he urged protesting laws by “personal suffering” and “sacrifice of self.” These tactics mean to disobey laws and accept consequences without violence. Had every Indian known not to use force or violence, then Gandhi would not have to advocate such philosophy in his writings. The British government was not Gandhi's target audience, and so Gandhi was specifically telling the Indians to passively resist, and practice non-violence (The article that Gandhi originally printed the article in was censured by the British government). Thus, we may conclude that violence was enough of an issue that Gandhi would advocate its opposite (Gandhi, “Hindi Swaraj”).

The Indian nationalist movement contrasts markedly with Fukuzawa in the Japanese movement, which did not have the same acknowledged factor of violence in his work. Fukuzawa argued for a break from China and Korea, considering them to be backward; but this act was not passive resistance because it was more more like letting go of Asia. The break did not have to be peaceful because it was a formation of identity based on the conflict of traditions and not physical friction. Fukuzawa did not seem to take the matter to be of urgent seriousness when he wrote that Japan's position next to China “is not different from the case of a righteous man living in a neighborhood known for foolishness.” He said, “What must we do today? We do not have time to wait for the enlightenment of our neighbors [China and Korea] so that we can work together toward the development of Asia. It is better for us to leave the ranks of Asian nations and cast our lot with civilized nations of the West” (Fukuzawa, Good-bye to Asia). Violence wasn't enough of an issue to mention, and Fukuzawa simply advocated education programs in order to make a clean break from China and Korea.

Gender issues further solidify the theme of greater violence in the Indian movement compared to the Japanese movement. In the case of Japan, there was a massive migration of women from the country farms to the cities, such as Nagasaki. This parallels the exodus of thousands of Hindu women escaping Pakistan after the announcement of the partition in 1947. This is the end of the similarities, however, because Japanese women had hopes of better lives as they had left their brutal farms. The Hindu women abused during their exodus were not as fortunate, as they were subjected to violent antagonism from Muslim populations (Mikiso Hane, Peasants, Rebels, and Outcastes and R. Menon and K. Bhasin, Borders and Boundaries: Women in India’s Partition, with class notes).

T.A.'s grade & notes

Picture of Kapil Vasudev
Kapil Vasudev
Wednesday, 14 October 2009, 01:40 PM

Grade: 70.00 / 100.00
Please submit the honor statement by email in order to receive credit for this assignment.

Please see the following comments for your midterm essay. Feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Before doing so, please review the "Approaches to learning and grading" page in the Course Information section of the website.

Introduction
Introduction attempts to provide some key points of discussion that will be later addressed, but is unclearly written. Thesis is adequate in form, if not substance.

Use of Evidence
Makes use of the readings, though the entire argument seems to be based off a misreading of Fukuzawa and drawing strange conclusions from the comparison of Fukuzawa to Gandhi. Draws simplistic and inaccurate conclusions from Hane and Menon/Bhasin readings. Does not utilize India (1) material at all.

Original Ideas and Command of Historical Context
Does not discuss how the Meiji Restoration created Japanese national identity; simply states that it did. Does not consider the various Japanese wars as part of the development of national identity or indicative of anything regarding the nature of that development. Glosses over the development in Jinnah's decision to advocate two-nations. Does not analyze role of women in creation of nationalism. Does not discuss issue of tradition vs. modernity. DRA adds: Jake, I'm sorry, but this essay makes no sense at all. Please see me.

Writing Mechanics
Does not have a conclusion. Makes some poor word choices (vacant rather than absent or missing). Some awkward sentences and phrases.

Feuerbach Paper 11-19

2009-11-19T21:40:00.000-08:00

In his book The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach claims that religious beliefs are basically the result of confusion about human potentiality and the expression of our dependent situation as humans. He says God is “an instantiation of the ideals of humanity.” This seems to be a purely atheistic claim. Why do you think Feuerbach does not want his theory to be called atheism? Why would he rather prefer to refer to his theory as to the anthropological analyses of religion?

Feuerbach doesn't want his theory to be called atheism because it is not atheism.¹ Atheism is belief that there is no God; but Feuerbach thinks the question of if there is a God is a distraction. The theory has to do with God, but is not about the existence of God. Feuerbach contrasts this with deluded religion when he says, “Feeling is atheistic in the sense of the orthodox belief, which attaches religion to an external object; it denies an objective God—it is itself God” and he also says, “Thou hast thus no other definition of God than this: God is pure, unlimited, free Feeling” (both on page 147). It's beside the point to consider God in a more unlimited sense than the sense that we have of God already.

Feuerbach's theory is not really religion and is an anthropological analyses of religion because the theory describes how people realize the divinity of nature. The theory itself can only describe what can be felt. “True existence is thinking, loving, willing existence. That alone is true, perfect, divine, which exists for its own sake,” says Feuerbach (on 143). I think he's trying to say that divinity exists, but divinity is not what we might be lead to believe it traditionally is. Describing what divinity objectively is and how it could be realizable objectively is a marked departure from the mysticism of religion, and into studies of human nature (anthropology).

The theory is a study of what humans feel, but to leave it at that would be wrong. Old religion traditionally has God as a separate entity which seems to make things divine by a grace outside of what the objective world is. Feuerbach would say that there is no need for anything extra. Nature is already divine. For this philosopher, there is no need for “divine” divinity. It's just divinity in the first experience, the first sense.

Feuerbach's theory holds beauty as divine, but the theory is still more than this. The theory goes further because the only realness of God is the infinite that we pose as an idea anyway. The idea of infinite love is infinite, but the act of loving is real. “It follows that if thou thinkest the infinite, thou perceivist and affirmest the infinitude of the power of thought; if thou feelest the infinite, thou feelest and affirmest the infinitude of the power of feeling.” (146). The thought is absolutely objectively real, but the thought is not just the objective thought that it is. It is the greater feeling that Feuerbach refers to.

The greater feeling-ness of a thought is the way the thought is felt. Feuerbach says, “Feeling speaks only to feeling; feeling is comprehensible only by feeling. That is, by itself – for this reason, that the object of feeling is nothing else than feeling.” (146). Feuerbach thinks first we could talk about the scientific makeup of honey; the way honey is made by bees, the chemical composition of honey, how it is harvested by farmers. He thinks secondly we might address the actual feeling of tasting the honey. But this joy, which is especially pertinent considering how honey tastes, only reacts to feeling and can only be considered through feeling. There is objective reality to all of this, but the only real thing is the feeling, and the feeling of “tasting honey” is only possible through feeling it. This is an objective process that can be considered in the first way, but the second way is divine in the only way Feuerbach sees it could be divine.

I critically compare Feuerbach's theory of religion with Baruch Spinoza's (b. 1632- d. 1677, with help from course notes) because Spinoza's theory of attributes is one of the philosopher's most controversial claims and it resembles Feuerbach's theory. Spinoza claims there are infinite attributes of which humans only know two, thought and extension. Some critics would say this is similar to Feuerbach's theory because thought only reacts with thought (like Feuerbach's feeling) and extension only with extension (which is something akin to describing the honey scientifically).² By some critics, Spinoza's claim of thought and extension resembles Feuerbach's description of divinity.

1(Perhaps) For your information: In the course notes you say that Feuerbach takes a Spinozistic approach to God. George Eliot did the English translations for Feuerbach (for our course text) and she did one of the first English translations of Spinoza's Ethics. You might remember from class that I am a huge fan of Spinoza and he is my favorite philosopher. I read something similar in some Spinoza literature which resembles Feuerbach in Spinoza's application of the two attributes of Thought and Extension. It's all one philosophy family.

2Using Spinoza by Scruton, Roger.

More Recapping!

2009-11-19T20:41:00.000-08:00

So we do some recapping on this blog, especially in light of the fact that I run out of things to say sometimes.

That is, I'm stalling. My word count for this blog, I've set the goal for myself, is a measly 200 words.

Start your own blog, and you'll see my frustration.

So I've done two or three recaps and here's another one: Philosophical concepts covered on this blog thus far!!!

Philosophy of Self
Some very basic Political Philosophy
Political Philosophy's problem of scapegoating
Rhetoric,
Mikhail Bahktin's concept of rhetoric (dialectic)
Some basic Existentialism
Some very basic Postmodernism
Some more real Undergraduate level Political Philosophy
History of Philosophy (is this really Philosophy?): Kant, Spinoza, some of the Moderns (Enlightenment Philosophers), some other philosophers
Ethics
Meta-ethics
Aesthetics (but have we done aesthetics? I've just posted a Shakespeare-Sonnet and I wrote about it)
I described, but I haven't really done any Analytic or Discreet Math
Some very basic Psychology
The Magritte Problem
Philosophy of Religion: Atheism, The Problem of Evil
Some Kantian problems and solutions: the categories, synthetic a priori knowledge
The Goldman Barn Example
Free Will problems: Determinism, Compatibilism versus Incompatibilism,
The Cake Problem: A contextualist delineation of freedom

Good times!

Thinking about Thinking and Thinking Pleasant Thoughts

2009-11-18T16:22:00.000-08:00

The Game I just lost the Game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_%28mind_game%29

The object of the Game of course, is not to think of the Game. Once you think about it, you have to say it out loud to at least one person, but you can say it to everyone around. There's anywhere between 30 second and 30 minutes where you can talk about the Game as much as you want, a "Grace period" in order to reset the Game, but this period changes from people to people.

One time I went to my philosophy of knowledge (epistemology) professor Dr. John Carroll. I told him about the Game, and he said, "Well, then I've been playing for a long time."

The funny part of this is that he wasn't joking in the least (contradiction much?).

I play another version of this, at least what I consider another version of this, as outlined by Eckart Tolle in his New Age-Spirituality (Eastern Philosophy?) book A New Earth.

Tolle recommends considering, "What will I think next?" as a way of getting a hold on the stream of consciousness.

So the way that I play this with myself is, "I wonder what I'm going to think of next." And then I wait. Then I have a thought that's really funny like, "This is a thought."

Another strange thing happened: I realized after playing Tolle's version of the Game, that a great deal of my thoughts are so reactionary to what is going on. The mind flow stream is influxed and injected with all sorts of stuff going on that is outside of the mindstream.

Another interesting thing that happens when you pay attention to your thoughts is you start to notice the evolution of thoughts within yourself. So a couple of weeks ago, if I were thinking about hamburgers, that might come up in conversation this week, seemingly "randomly." (I wrote a bit on the philosophy of entropy on this Blog a while back).

Things to think about

2009-11-17T19:47:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been saying to myself: say something funny. I say it in my mind and no one hears me. I also think to myself, "What's the funniest thing that you can think of?" and it's hard to think of something. It's hard for me to do it on command.

When I type, sometimes my hands get veiny.

Next week, I have to go to Colorado. I don't know anything about Colorado, what it's about, what it's like and so on.

What's your favorite thing to think about?

Sometimes I'm asking just to ask. Sometimes I'm asking just to know for real: what do you like thinking about? Sometimes I like asking because I want you to ask me. Sometimes I'm asking because I want to know this information about myself, but I don't know what the answer is for myself, so I want to see how someone else is doing.

Like: What makes me happy? What makes you happy?

Should I become a lawyer? Should I become a philosopher?

The reason I want to become a lawyer is because both of my parents are lawyers, and because I already try to argue everything I can. I like disagreeing with people. I like hearing myself talk (I think?). I like talking with people and my friends often times reduce to my greatest priority. That is, I'm looking out for them first, sometimes even before myself.......

Things to think about!!!

Goldschneider's Path for me

2009-11-17T19:44:00.000-08:00

Goldschneider has this to say about my life's "Path"

Gifts: Sensuous, Direct, Intuitive,
Pitfalls: Snobbish, detached, Impatient
Suggestion: stop overanalyzing and make no assumptions

What you seek is within yourself not in the next relationship
Develop a breathing practice
Goal of this way: To fully realize the experience of living
"Those on this path are often somewhat emotionally numb: they live and love, but only according to the standards or rules set by others, rather than according to what they themselves feel
"Frequently, they don't know what makes them truly happy; some may have given up on trying to find out"

Day of Contentious Conviviality
Loyal, spirited, involved,
Escapist, isolated, argumentative

Cusp of Revolution: Ecstatic, loyal, gutsy; autocratic, derisive, wild

Portfolio 23: Use the Wolfprowl for the Technician Newspaper

2009-11-17T19:26:00.000-08:00

Give Wolfprowl a try
By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article
Share this article
Published: Monday, November 16, 2009
Updated: Monday, November 16, 2009

© 2009 NCSU Student Media
If a program is not used, it will be lost. In other words, if you don't use it, you lose it.
Wolfprowl, the nighttime bus system, began operations last year and has been an apparent success.
Kim Paylor, the transit manager who oversees the program, said riders have increased week after week. [And] it's out there on the days Transportation thinks students are out there, 9 p.m. until 3 a.m.
One might think the Wolfprowl is only for students on campus, but Paylor pointed out that there is a reverse route that connects to Raleigh's R line -- also a free service -- and Glenwood South. Hopefully I don't have to remind you that downtown Raleigh has and will continue to have several arts and music festivals – many of them free -- that can be accessed from the services.
Drinking and partying present basic safety issues in and of themselves, but students must also take nighttime safety into account. Students who ride the buses will not be put in a situation where they would have to drink and drive and the community would realize an increase in public safety. But if one did drive to Glenwood and was unable to drive back, the Wolfprowl is a significantly cheaper and safer option than calling a $50 taxi, relying on your passed out friend, or walking 5 miles back to campus.
The bus has obvious safety credentials. It is well lit, spacious, relatively comfortable and has drivers employed by the University.
The Wolfprowl is also more compassionate than a designated driver when you go out. I often feel guilty that the designated driver has the burden for the night, or is having less of a time because we forced him or her to take the responsibility on a night that's supposed to be a fun and carefree experience. The Wolfprowl means one less hassle and one less thing to worry about for everyone and eliminates the need for a designated driver.
Frankly, the Wolfprowl means students don’t have to worry about the cop cars around campus or the chance of getting stopped on Western. It’s sensible on a level of self-preservation if nothing else.
Wolfprowl accepts students from other campuses as well. It’s a great way to show Raleigh off to our competitors at Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill. Raleigh is huge and the bars here are great, it doesn’t just have a single street like 9th Street in Durham or Franklin Street in Chapel Hill; Raleigh has Hillsborough Street, Glenwood and the cluster of other streets in downtown Raleigh.
Above all, barhopping and exploring the city is fun. Enjoy the city while you’re in college -- especially one so close. But make sure to do it a safe and comfortable way.
Comments
Be the first to comment on this article!
Log in to be able to post comments.

Some notes on writing

2009-11-16T16:48:00.000-08:00

I've got some basic types of writing under my belt at this point:

1) More or less academic, as I've written for school. This is the one that I need the most work on, but helps me out the most in terms of life goals at this point (grades are a big deal to me).

2) Streaming consciousness, where I write whatever comes to my head. I write these in letters to my sister Paige; to some extent they are me naked and are not as smart as I would like them to be. At least they feel like I'm writing myself at my most vulnerable.

3) I write for the NC State Technician Student Newspaper. This has varied, and my archive is available on the Technician Website and on this blog. For non-opinion pieces, of which I have written 4 to 6, it is mandatory to have at least three sources.

4) For opinion pieces, I sometimes incorporate three sources, but sometimes I don't. 500 words is hard to put both an opinion and sources into it.

Sources are not always as academic as I would like them to be, either. For the non-fiction pieces, for the sake of what is being covered, I usually end up using people involved with the issue on campus. This is trickier than it sounds at first because the events themselves I am assigned to are on campus and should involve students to some extent. This narrows it down quite a bit.

But I haven't even written that many non-opinion pieces for the Technician. I've written more opinion pieces, and these are a different breed.

Opinion pieces are encouraged to be about the school, and current events at the school. But the option to become either too ideological, too advice-y, too conceptual, or too evaluative are all pitfalls.

For instance, some students write about North Carolina's Republican politics. Obviously this is smart, but it's completely ideological, and it has nothing to do with NC State students (nevermind the fact that Republicans generally tend to be wrong these days).

On another instance, I've fallen into the trap of trading timelessness for pertinence. I have written columns encouraging successful studying, for example, but this does not have anything to do with current affairs. It might help students, but it is not quite on target for a nice sweet spot.

I wrote an article on sex and individuality, and I think most everyone who read it probably got caught up in the big words from the sources I used. This tells me that I made a mistake to be too academic and that I should simplify my messages for the articles.

The first outraged response (is really just lukewarm?)

2009-11-16T16:38:00.000-08:00

Here, a student comments on my article on sex and individuality. She totally misses the point of my article and in fact does not mention my name at all. So much for provocative discourse on my part.

1 Her point is lame.
2 She totally misses the point of my article, which addresses these objections anyway.

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/campus-forum-november-16-2009-1.2084379

Mistakes are a part of growth

Sex as a commodity is not a new idea. It is in what we read, listen to and see in advertisements. Sex is not necessarily the way to be free, but to shoot down the attempt to find oneself seems counterproductive. These experiences are not for selling, but for learning what not to do in the future. If you do not fall, you will not know how to get back up. People learn that meaningless sex is not “noble” or gratifying, but they will not know this until they feel the bittersweet stab of regret. Once they have missed out on finding something real and true, they will understand why to search for what will make them happy. Learning to survive is a noble thing, and people learn best by action. Condemning these people for their search not only for themselves, but for what they want on a deeper level will not help. If you protect them from their own right to experience, they will come to question even more. Instead of bragging, let these people ask themselves, does it hurt to see others happy in a relationship and why they are giving up on that happiness. To an individual, life is a search and you have to make mistakes. What if meaningless sex is yours?

Christina Lynn Belville
freshman, English

2009-11-15T14:06:00.002-08:00

"That which doesn't kill us only makes us stronger," I think is false. How are you stronger for having your arm cut off?

I think we have to be careful in making distinctions. Of course your mental character and other limbs will grow stronger. But we shouldn't say that all cutting of arms off is good or a good thing.

We have to somehow encourage the good and dis-encourage the bad. I think retrospectively "That which doesn't kill us only makes us stronger" is a great reliever, a sort of calming aphorism, but I don't think it's always true.

We have to be careful of mixing up sciences, too. Ramus basically made half of his career from critiquing Quintillian's claims that rhetoric is everything(even doing good deeds?) which seems kind of silly.

I always talk about how philosophy should play a part in the integration of sciences between each other, and the interaction of sciences.

I also talk about how philosophy can play referee to the sciences, in light of the study of knowledge (Epistemology).

But this third part I'm talking about is the dis-integration of sciences. Sometimes we call the wrong stuff philosophy, or the wrong stuff chemistry when we really mean physics.

I've also talked about the Magritte problem on this blog: Magritte draws an apple and under it writes, "This is not an apple." Because of course it isn't, it's just a drawing of an apple.

But we also make this problem of unhealthy mixing when trusting scholars. Somehow we trust actors more than scientists when they sell us things. Somehow we trust Al Gore or Michael Crichton on climate change more than the actual scientists who study this stuff. I believe in global warming and that it exists, but I lament the fact that we can't trust scientists when they tell us this.

And sometimes these people aren't scholars in the least. Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein turned their brains into political analyzers over the course of their careers; but what does nuclear physics have to do with politics? This is cool when Einstein talks about Nuclear Proliferation, but not necessarily when Russell talked about the Vietnam War.

"Pop's Most pretentious Starlet" Article from Slate

2009-11-15T14:06:00.001-08:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2220502/

This article is excellent.

Wray Herbert's Why We Procrastinate and how to Stop

2009-11-13T20:42:00.000-08:00

MIND MATTERS

Wray Herbert

The Lure of Tomorrow

New research on why we procrastinate and what we can do to follow through on at least some of those plans for the new year.

Dec 10, 2008 | Updated: 9:55 a.m. ET Dec 10, 2008

Late holiday shoppers will soonbe rushing out to get the things they'd planned to buy way back in November, when they made those well-intentioned lists. And by New Year's, people will start thinking about projects: updating that resume, cleaning out the attic, starting that exercise routine. But the sad reality is that most of us will not follow through on these commitments, and not because we're insincere. We'll just never get to day one. Tomorrow is always a better time to get going.

And tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow. Procrastination is a curse, and a costly one. Putting things off leads not only to lost productivity but also to all sorts of hand wringing and regrets and damaged self-esteem. For all these reasons, psychologists would love to figure out what's going on in the mind that makes it so hard to actually do what we set out to do. Are we fundamentally misguided in the way we think about plans and effort and work? Is there some perverse habit of mind that automatically dampens our sense of urgency? Are we programmed for postponement and delay?

An international team of psychologists has begun exploring these questions in the laboratory. Led by Sean McCrea of the University of Konstanz in Germany, the researchers wanted to see if there might be a link between how we think of a task and our tendency to postpone it. In other words, are we more likely to see some tasks as psychologically "distant"—and thus to consign them to some vague future rather than tackle them now?

Psychological distance is a well-documented idea. It's been shown that people think of geographically distant events and ideas as less detailed and concrete than things taking place nearby. So for example, "locking the door" means simply turning the key here at home, but locking the door 3,000 miles away means security and personal safety. McCrea and his colleagues suspected that this same cognitive oddity might show up in the way we think about time and tasks. That is, vague, abstract tasks might be easier to mentally postpone into the future than concrete tasks. They decided to test this notion in a few simple experiments.
Here's an example. The psychologists handed out questionnaires to a group of students and asked them to respond by e-mail within three weeks. All the questions had to do with rather mundane tasks like opening a bank account and keeping a diary, but different students were given different instructions for answering the questions. Some thought and wrote about what each activity implied about personal traits: what kind of person has a bank account, for example. Others wrote simply about the nuts and bolts of doing each activity: speaking to a bank officer, filling out forms, making an initial deposit, and so forth. The idea was to get some students thinking abstractly and others concretely.

Then they waited. And in some cases, waited and waited. They recorded all the response times to see if there was a difference between the two groups, and indeed there was—a significant difference. Even though they were all being paid upon completion, those in a what-does-it-all-mean mentality were much more likely to procrastinate—and in fact some never got around to the assignment at all. By contrast, those who were focused on the how, when and where of doing the task e-mailed their responses much sooner, suggesting that they hopped right on the assignment rather than delaying it.

This makes sense in an odd sort of way. When you first think about the possibility of trying something new, you're focused on why: What's the purpose? Does it make sense for me to do this? It's still just a distant possibility, and these are the things that matter. Only as you get closer to actually taking on the task do you start to think of the more immediate how-to details. So conversely, thinking about the how-to of a job gives it immediacy—and urgency.
Even so, the scientists decided to double-check their initial findings with a different kind of laboratory technique. In this experiment, the task was to complete sentence fragments, either in an abstract or a concrete way. For example, some might complete this fragment: "An example of a bird is ______." Others completed this kind of fragment: "A bird is an example of ______." The first requires a concrete example—an indigo bunting, for example, or scarlet tanager—while the second asks for an abstract category—warm-blooded vertebrates, say. So again the experiment primed one cognitive style or the other, and again the psychologists logged in the e-mail response times.

The findings, reported in the December issue of the journal Psychological Science, were very clear. Even though the sentence fragments really had nothing to do with the actual task, those primed for concrete thinking were much less apt to delay and postpone than were those primed for abstract thinking. They saw the task as more immediate and acted with more urgency. Those prompted to give vague and amorphous answerswere indecisive.

Lots of psychology experiments don't have a practical take-home message, but these do. You know that exercise routine you've been talking about starting up in January? Well, forget about how virtuous it is, or how healthy, or how it might boost your confidence. Instead, think about putting on your sneakers and tying them, one at a time; entering the front door of the gym and walking to the first treadmill you see; stepping aboard and starting to move your legs, right leg first.

Wray Herbert writes The We're Only Human blog at www.Psychologicalscience.Org/Onlyhuman .

GSYBE's Moya

2009-11-13T19:56:00.001-08:00

I just like the song. Listen at least until like minute 5, which is just great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsf2LoLk3SA&NR=1

Some thoughts on thought terminating cliche's

2009-11-13T19:41:00.000-08:00

Before we start, at the end of the article it says, "The statement "That is a thought-terminating cliché" can in and of itself function as a thought-terminating cliché. Once the stator has identified a first statement as a thought-terminating cliché, they may feel absolved of needing to determine whether that first statement is indeed a thought-terminating cliché or whether it has actual merit."

(So it's like a Russell's Paradox: the set-denoter is a set unto itself (or something???))

***
So a thought terminating cliche, which I posted just before this, is a word or phrase which ends the thought process; like, "The end."

The evil part of this is that we don't know that it's being done. It seems out of our control.

I don't remember when I learned to go on the Wikipedia page, but I do remember my friend Liz saying, "Whatever," in a comical way. She kept saying it at various times, most of the time absurdly so as to provoke humor.

"Whatever" as it is used to quell the thought process, is a thought-terminating cliche. There's others out there and I challenge you to find them.

Thought terminating cliche's are bad when we don't want to stop the thought process, or when we don't know that our thoughts are being stopped and we don't really realize it; such as in the case of George Orwell's 1984. (see previous post).

Okay, so when are thought terminating cliche's good?

Well, when the thought process should be stopped. Maybe an ethically illustrative example would be the obsessive compulsive thinker who keeps thinking, "I have to do the dishes, I have to do the dishes;" or worse, a suicidal person.

Cue in the thought terminating cliche, "You think too much."

I wrote earlier on this blog that some people who tell me this are completely wrong. This is because I cherish thinking so much.

I reform my opinion as such in the light of new thought: some thoughts are not as good as others. The stream is obviously harmful when it kills us (as in suicide).

The last relevant point is that there are no thought-pivoting cliche's per se: they would be simply distractors; or maybe the way that stream of consciousness flows and pivots anyway doesn't seem so morally dubious. There are no stream of conscious guiders, either, or thought beginning cliches per se.

I think this fact alludes to the moral dubiousness of thought-terminating cliches.

Get a load of garden path sentences while you are at it. These are probably the closest to thought-pivoting cliches that I could think of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence

Thought Terminating Cliche

2009-11-13T19:37:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_terminating_cliche

A thought-terminating cliché is a commonly used phrase, sometimes passing as folk wisdom, used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

The term was popularized by Robert Jay Lifton in his book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism. Lifton said, “The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis.” [1][2]

In George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to reduce language entirely to a set of thought-terminating clichés. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as, “A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away.”

Critique Impure Reasoning

2009-11-12T20:33:00.000-08:00

When I was a young little one in Hebrew school so long ago, there was a time when I was maybe 6 or 7, I don't remember how old I was.

Hebrew school met three times a week; twice after school and once on Saturdays.

They had us all around, and one of the teachers, who was a guitar-player with bangs and dark brown hair, maybe blackish in color, and sort of pinkish-pale skin; she went around the room, and there were dozens of us, I don't remember how many.

There were I don't know how many kids in the room, and we got into groups, and nobody knew what to say when this one lady asked the groups to come up with one wish.

So when the spokespeople were asked to represent the groups, of course I was selected. I don't remember the deliberation process, but I remember what I said.

One spokesperson for another group said that they wished they could cure world hunger, and another group wished for world peace.

I then spoke for my group and I said, "We couldn't decide on what to say, so we said we would wish for more wishes."

And then this idiot Hebrew School teacher said that I was wrong to say that, that that was not part of the game.

I don't know what else the Hebrew School teacher said but I remember what my older sister Raina said, who was old enough to know better. I remember Raina told me not to listen to the teacher, that the teacher was wrong. Thank the universe for my sister Raina.

***

Now, often times I will tell people a story about me and a wasp's nest from when I was very very young.

There was another time in High School where I would attack a very large paper wasp's nest, which was roughly the size of one of those red coolers in my basement.

This one was different, way back when I was really really young.

It goes like this: I had watched on television or heard from my parents that if you leave wasps alone, they will not bother you.

One day, assorted children and I were playing in the backyard when we came across a wasp hole. Those are holes in the ground where wasps fly in and out.

I said, "Don't worry guys, they won't hurt us if we leave them alone."

As I was saying this, I backed up toward the nest and eventually of course I got stung.

There's the no duh part of all of this, where if you go up to wasps, of course you're going to get stung.

But there's also the Tornado's responsibility. When a tornado goes through your village and wreaks havok, we know what was responsible: the tornado. But the best solution to the problem is not to yell at the tornado or break down crying. The best solution is to research meteorology, storm proof houses, build houses out of brick and not straw; and other relevant conclusions.

To some extent, the amount of scientific reasoning (in this case meteorology) we understand in a given situation is the amount of potential power, physical power and therefore moral.

You couldn't help but reacting in a certain way if you had computer programs predicting a tornado coming your way. Obviously this amount of control is very much proactive. Who lead you to learn about meteorology in the first place?

This is why Spinoza said, "Do not weep, do not wax indignant. Understand."

I'll leave you to apply the wasp story to some of the charlatans and shamans we've discussed on this blog.

Another way to spin morality is perhaps with the words of Galileo, that you could say anything you want, "But, it [the earth] still moves."

Some of the SKS speaker's pros and cons

2009-11-12T20:29:00.000-08:00

Cons: Used vulgarity, used too much popular culture (Devil Wears Prada, Matrix, Simpsons), was pretentious, didn't involve enough student discussion, espoused some pseudo-scientific storylines ( such as people want to escape themselves when they watch television: how can this be deductive or at least scientifically inductive??) advocated some dubious morality (telling a woman who had a hard life that she should have wished for wisdom);

Pros: Got people thinking about higher purpose, didn't let up enough with his talk to let anyone else say anything stupid, was interesting in that he formed MTV, knows much about popular culture, has passion and clearly some intelligence

Self-Knowledge Symposium meeting tonight

2009-11-12T20:02:00.000-08:00

I just got out of a Self-knowledge symposium lecture by the founder of the club, who is a successful philosopher and entrepeneur (he was one of the people who founded MTV, and worked successfully at IBM).

Auggie mentioned he had won the presitgious Templeton prize for one of his essays on life's purpose.

Perhaps in order to connect with the crowd of college students, some of whom were from Duke University, and perhaps some of them were from UNC (although I only talked to one Duke Student), Auggie used vernacular language and slang, re: the words frickin, screw, and bullshit.

The crowd was diverse ethnically, too. I am Jewish, and the Duke University Student I talked to is Jewish, and we could tell because we were wearing Yamulkes. I had a talk with the kid about conformity before the speech. There were also black people, some middle aged people, Indians, and both men and women.

He improvised his talk, and he had talked for over an hour and fifteen minutes when I had left.

Auggie introduced the talk with a story about how he went to a Rolling Stones Concert and sat front row; and he still ended up feeling badly about it later; he felt unfulfilled. He said he was worried his whole life would be like this: anticipation and unfulfillment. He asked us to consider times in our lives when we felt unfulfilled.

He spoke about how people specifically want to get away from themselves, literally get away from their selves. We do this by watching movies, watching television, and reading books, he said.

After saying people want to get away from their selves, he then said people want to move from being selfish to self-less.

We went over the spiritual journey shown in hollywood movies. This starts with the character being called back into action, then he goes into the wilderness for training, then he gets superpowers and has the ability to use them badly but instead uses them for good, and finally the protagonist then fights the monster or bad guy and goes home to his wife and kids.

He applied this to the movie, the Matrix.

He then applied this to the movie The Devil Wears Prada.

He said some other stuff and then he told a story about how a cleaning lady friend of his a few years back was talking to him.

She said all she ever wanted was a nice husband and kids in her life.

Auggie told her that she should have wished for wisdom. She should have wished for wisdom to pick a better husband and make better life choices.

That was when I walked out.

Portfolio 20 or 21: Sex and Individuality

2009-11-12T20:01:00.001-08:00

Don't let sex crowd out individuality

By Jacob Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Sex and individuality are magnified in college, and these issues are of concern for us because we’re defining how we think about them, and reacting to how people think about them.

Ariel Levy’s book “Female Chauvinist Pigs” argues that people are mistaking consumerism for romance. She notes that people (especially college students) are having sex and bragging about these experiences to the extent that these experiences become commodities. She says that people are mistaking hook-ups for individuality and mistaking sexual promiscuousness for freedom. Two conflicting works comment on the identity of an individual, and these have repercussions for Levy.

In Allan Bloom’s “Closing of the American Mind” he argues that undergraduate students are trading faith in objective goodness for a kind of selfish subjectivity. Bloom wrote, “[For] the great majority of students…there is a certain rhetoric of self-fulfillment that gives a patina of glamour to this life, but they can see that there is nothing particularly noble about it. Survivalism has taken the place of heroism as the admired quality.” This book rang true with many people and was a controversial bestseller in the early 1990s. Bloom’s argument was that students are giving up heroism, objectivity, belief in classical literature and science and acts of goodness all in order to be true to themselves.

Charles Taylor’s reaction to Bloom, “The Ethics of Authenticity,” argues that the belief in selfish subjectivity is actually misguided but still alludes to a greater issue. Being true to one’s self for Bloom means students are avoiding difficult or provocative works, such as nuclear physics or the works of Plato and are doing this under the pretense that they are only following their personalities. But to Taylor, while this problem might be true, it still hints at a greater call to individualism.

To Taylor, the issue is actually a greater one of how we assert our individual identities in the midst of these pitfalls. Taylor says, “There is a certain way of being human that is my way. I am called upon to live my life in this way, and not in imitation of anyone else’s. But this gives a new importance of being true to myself. If I am not [true to myself in this way], I miss being true to my own originality, and that is something only I can articulate and discover. In articulating it, I am also defining myself. I am realizing a potentiality that is properly my own.”

To the extent that students are accepting an “it’s all good attitude,” toward hook-ups and their sex lives, Levy, Bloom and Taylor would all agree that people shouldn’t sell themselves short. No one should treat the other or the experiences we have with each other as commodities or conquests.

With both Bloom and Levy in mind, we can affirm the greater thesis given by Taylor that to be true to ourselves is our ultimate goal. The way that we can realize this is by striking down humbug when friends bring it up. If friends are talking about their latest conquest in a sexist or immature way as if her/she were a commodity, then shift the conversation to something else. In this way, people who are pursuing hook ups need to be told that what is right for them is not right for everyone. The answer to the commodification or greatness of hook-up culture is to tell people who brag about their experiences to shut up.

Be the first to comment on this article!

Portfolio 23: The Story of DH Hill and Me

2009-11-12T20:00:00.000-08:00

The story of D.H. Hill and me

By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Published: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

Updated: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

I never knew you could keep a locker at the DH Hill library; I’ve been having fun taking out the laptops; I use the tablets for reading, despite their unpopularity.

I just discovered that the philosophy section is on the third floor; but I never forgot that one night that DH and me got down with English literature on the fifth floor.

I love the diversity. I sit down with Druze, African-Americans, German and Nicaraguan foreign exchange students and Arab- and Asian-Americans.

The special collections room is my favorite right now, with its combination of desk and ceiling lights. I feel like the library got the lighting just right (except for the last table on the left as you enter -- which hasn't been fixed in the couple weeks since it went out, I don’t think anyone has told the staff). I like the fact that there is, at any given time, at least one kid there.

The Unity lab on the second floor is another new favorite. The Learning Commons on the first floor is usually for faster stuff, but I still adore it just the same.

I love the second floor space in the L of the stacks next to the men’s room with the giant windows in the morning, where the natural light merges with the artificial light. I like the searing yellow at this same spot in the late afternoon that reminds me to take a break.

I just discovered you can use dry erase markers on the glass tables on the ground floor, which I have been having fun with; but I’ll never forget one math class I took where we met Monday through Thursday and surrounded ourselves with the white boards in the Learning Commons.

I like the people who keep this place up because I feel as though I can identify their sense of purpose as they keep this place up. Vice Provost Susan Nutter, who oversees the libraries, does not know me but every once and a while I see her and she’s always smiling. I’ve had great chats with several of the circulation desk workers.

I meet my friends there. On weekends for a while I was coming here to take practice LSATs. I like the quiet semi-silence and blue morning light of the mornings. But I also like the uproarious din at 10 p.m. on a weeknight. I like how, if my friend Jon likes listening to music, he can take out headphones.

I’ve played Smash Brothers when I needed a break. I’ve taken walks to talk philosophy around the library. I’ve spent night after night before finals at the library. I’ve had too many all nighters here, and the strange sort of clarity that comes with the waking hours after you’ve spent all night here.

I don’t know what’s up with these tiny trash cans -- they’re always overflowing. And they’re there for 30,000 students.

I’ve met friends for studying, but I’ve also met people for the first time here. I was bored in line at the Hill of Beans, so I struck up a conversation with a beautiful woman one time, and we ended up dating.

It’s even safe to say that every relationship I have had has been made better by studying at the DH Hill Library.

In fact, every time I have been to the library, I’ve made my life better. I don’t think I can say that about any other place I’ve been to.

Be the first to comment on this article!

Thoughts on purpose

2009-11-11T20:49:00.000-08:00

I think that nihilism is a performative contradiction. The last post has the wikipedia link, but we can just as easily explain it again here.

A performative contradiction is when performing the action contradicts what is said in the proposition. "All statements are false" is a performative contradiction in this way.

I think someone who believes in nothing, which is Nihilism, when they say, "I believe in nothing," and they believe what they have said, they have done a performative contradiction.

My friend says if we are looking for something truly fresh, then if we use the term new that because newness is only defined as what is not old, we have already lost the battle. Thus the endeavor to create something "new" might be self-contradicting, that is perhaps self-defeating.

If you want to build a better mousetrap, then you are all set for building a better mousetrap. But to prepare the mind for something that is not old or derived from the old, we might seek higher ground.

I read on the wikipedia page of Picasso that he did not consider imagery and meanings of what he was painting as he was painting. I remember seeing a video of Ray Bradbury where he described the process of writing as creating and then justifying later.

I know that most of people's actions, from Emily Yoffe's Slate article, are justified afterward, and I can't help but feel as though this sort of fits with Rick's theory.

That is, we do things and justify them after. I have said as much about Jared Diamond and Adam Gopnik's work before.

So we are deluding ourselves when we consider that we consider purpose in these terms.

I never hold purpose for motivation the way that someone holds a carrot as reward. It's just not how it's done.

Performative Contradiction

2009-11-11T17:43:00.000-08:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_contradiction

From the page:

A performative contradiction arises when the propositional content of a statement contradicts the noncontingent presuppositions that make possible the performance of the speech act, such as occurs with "all statements must be false."

My friend Rick thinks that newness and the concept of newness is like this because we force newness into a hole which can only be compared to the old. But we don't want to compare to the old, so we have failed in our endeavor.

The Weakerthans song: "Aside"

2009-11-11T17:16:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A927zcSSw2s

Measure me in metered lines
And one decisive stare
The time it takes to get from here to there
My ribs that show through t-shirts
And these shoes I got for free
I'm unconsoled
I'm lonely
I am so much better than I used to be
Terrified of telephones
And shopping malls and knives
Drowning in the pools of other lives
Rely a bit too heavily
On alcohol and irony
Get clobbered on by courtesy
In love with love and lousy poetry
And I'm leaning on this broken fence
Between past and present tense
And I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
But it almost feels okay
Circumnavigate this body
Of wonder and uncertainty
Armed with every precious failure
And amateur cartography
I breath in deep before
I spread those maps out on my bedroom floor
And I'm leaning on this broken fence
Between past and present tense
And I'm losing all those stupid games
That I swore I'd never play
But it feels okay
And I'm leaving with goodbye
And I'm losing but I'll try
With the last ways left
To remember sing
My imperfect offering

Is this an existential Presidency?

2009-11-10T20:57:00.000-08:00

I seek to make the point that the current presidency is an existential one.

First, I'll remind you the previous presidency of George William Bush was called the post-modern presidency.

This is because President Bush seemed to question basic tenets of reality; one contradiction that springs to mind is the "Compassionate Conservative" stuff; another thing that comes to mind is the seeming devaluation of science that riled so many liberals up.

The Presidency of Bill Clinton was also called the postmodern Presidency because of President Clinton's famous declaration that it depends on what the definition of is is.

Now for the Goods:

Obama's presidency has seen a marked movement from the Iraq War to the healthcare debate.

It seems to me there is a new scandal every day, which is typical of the nature of the media and the public at large.

But I think that Obama is running the media more than he is running from it. I think he is deftly changing the media; this is why it seems like he is over-saturated. He is changing the rhetoric by making himself the rhetoric. By changing the rhetoric he initiates, Americans have given their full attention to the healthcare debate.

We are all creating the reality that we are in.

Even me, as I write about Obama making his own reality....(?)

"Poverty Porn" and Some thoughts; especially in light of some previous discussions

2009-11-09T13:10:00.000-08:00

Here's a game of hopscotch for you:

I just read Dana Stevens' review of Precious, a movie based on a novel which tries to depict a story of triumph.

http://www.slate.com/id/2234728/

Stevens argues the movie amounts to poverty porn, which means the display of poverty for the sake of entertainment.

In other words, we watch movies about poverty when poverty is supposed to move us to action.

Stevens compares it to another author's review of the hit movie Slumdog Millionaire.

http://www.slate.com/id/2209783/

Which talks about the issues surrounding the movie. In the movie a person from a very poor part of India wins millions of dollars. The basic argument is that there is no introspection for American viewers because they believe people win lotteries and escape poverty like in the movie.

This sort of reminds me of the Horatio Alger myth, whereupon Americans believe people go from rags to riches. (you might want to take a look at the American Humbug entry on this blog, taken from a Slate Magazine article, and contrasted with Wes Anderson's humbug archetype).

The first time I heard about Poverty Porn was from William Easterly when he spoke this past semester, Spring 2009.

Easterly's primary claim was politicians and bureaucrats were fouling up the process of helping nations by not letting the people help themselves. He said these politicians, and photojournalists, were making "poverty porn" as a way to make themselves feel more important than they are.

Easterly claimed that industrialization was inherently a good thing; which is certainly debatable.

In fact, I felt passionately disagreeable with Easterly's main claims; but after I attended a class discussion for International Political Economy, I understood Easterly had generalized his claims as a way of making his speech more palatable for a larger audience.

But I knew the concept of Poverty Porn before Easterly said the term. This is because my friend Soyee and my High School English teacher Deborah Hepburn succumbed and are still succumbing to this.

Hepburn made us read Jonathan Kozol books about impoverished inner-city schools. Soyee had a problem of bullying me into a corner about every political issue. The problem was, in retrospect I absolutely agree with her.

My friend Joseph Ladret I think was quoting Descartes when he said, "If there is no problem, there is no solution."

What this means is that we have to acknowledge a problem in order to solve it.

But do we? Are we inventing our problems? What is the best way to solve a problem?

Dostoyevksy and Nietzche, and contemporary psychology confirms, that people who are in pain or struggle sometimes stay in that struggle and that pain.

There's a lot to say here; there's a lot of the creation of reality going on here.

Let's call the problem of overwhelming political stances bleeding heart liberalism.

The problem of bleeding heart liberalism is poverty porn. The problem of bleeding heart liberalism is the way that people fall in love with the act of helping.

We then get into this relationship of help; therefore dependence; therefore disintegration of self-reliance.

I think we also might fall prey to the romanticization of the problem instead of attacking the problem itself.

I mean no harm to anyone or offense to anyone with this post; it's just my reaction for now and I reserve the right to change my mind about anything I just wrote.

Some morning routine

2009-11-09T05:39:00.000-08:00

I ate too much for breakfast and now blood is rushing to my innards. I feel it pulsing downward and through my abdomen. I ate cottage cheese, yogurt, granola, cantaloup and honeydew melon chunks, chocolate milk, eggs, and some hash browns. It was too much!

Don't worry, I've got some bananas for later and so I'm going to try to skip lunch. I ate way too much. There's a certain point where if I eat too much I get sleepy. It seems easier just to snack.

I got up early today in order to move my car from the parking deck, where I had parked illicitly. I checked to see if I had gotten a ticket yet. It was about 7:10AM, and I reasoned that I might as well get a bite to eat because I was so close to Clark Dining Hall.

I then got all that food. I drove my car over to my dorm, and it must have been 8:00AM on the dot, which meant I saw the north campus reverse shuttle. I could have spent the next half an hour working on hygiene stuffs, but I didn't want to fight with the bus later; what happens is everyone crowds on the bus at the same time, around 8:50AM; in order to get to the 9:10AM class.

Then I talked to fellow RA Hosea Banks for a little while in the Industrial Organizational Psychology Lab, and then here I am.

It's all too much to take in!

2009-11-09T05:33:00.000-08:00

I didn't see it coming. Buffett is pretty cool as a symbol of America; read the sentence of this article where it says Buffett called the investments in railroads "an all-in bet on america."

The recent headlines about Warren Buffett are that he's pulled a big comeback with his policies.

Get a load of this:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/learn-how-to-invest/is-this-buffetts-best-run-ever.aspx

This reminds me of the end of a game of Monopoly, where the one person who has a ton of money is able to make unreal deals with everyone else just to keep the game running.

Portfolio 22: Studying for Life Purpose

2009-11-09T05:31:00.000-08:00

Studying for a life purpose

By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article

Published: Monday, November 9, 2009

Updated: Monday, November 9, 2009

Maybe the reason all of us are having existential crises is because it is the week before the last round of midterms. I personally have an existential crisis before I do anything that I do not want to do. The question of “Do I have to?” has been with us since we were young.

Instead of grimacing and bearing it, the students of the Self-Knowledge Symposium, the preacher in the Brickyard and the philosophy club all attack the problem -- albeit from different directions.

I went to the Self-Knowledge Symposium meeting this week, a club that meets Thursdays at 7:31 p.m. in Riddick Hall. The moderator asked one student why he was at the club meeting and with a passionate answer the student said he did not know. From his face, he was visibly rocked by the fact that he did not know why he was there. I do not think he was freaking out because of the factual causes involved in being at the club meeting; he wanted to know what meaning he was bringing to school, life and the club meeting.

Of course, this emotional identification is what the club specializes in. Two of the club members talked in a calming way in an attempt to settle the kid down. Instead of telling him about how much purpose is in his life, they approached the problem from a different angle. They talked to him about how it would be nice to feel nothing. They asked him to think about how he brings meaning to his life and to consider how it might feel nice to not have to concern his mind with some problems. In other words, sometimes it is acceptable to let go.

Marie Lackey, a sophomore in international studies, said she really likes the Self-Knowledge Symposium because the students talk about a variety of issues and it helps her find a path and be more responsible.

The second run-in I encountered with purpose in mind was with one of the Brickyard preachers. I was with a friend walking to class and the preacher came up to us and started making conversation. He then talked to us very nicely about how he was trying to unify ministries from different colleges in Raleigh: Shaw, St. Augustine’s, Peace, Meredith and State. Of course he talked about various religious practices, which alienated me, but I could still make out the good universal intentions underneath his rhetoric.

The third existential event happened at philosophy club, which meets every Thursday at 4:30 p.m. next to the philosophy department in Withers Hall. The club presented student speaker Robert El-Jaouhari last week, a senior in Philosophy and History. El-Jaouhari’s presentation was a paper on existentialism.

At the event, Robert El-Jaouhari detailed a new theory of viewing life without reflecting on it. In other words, living without filtering life through consideration of it. This theory of “freshness” is from the philosophies of Heidegger, Sartre and Camus. I understand that life is more fun if we live without fighting the living that we do.

About his theory, El-Jaouhari said if you’re caught up on discerning your purpose, you’ve missed the point.

The three theories of living based on these scholars: be cool if you don’t have a reason in mind while your doing something (like our Self-Knowledge Symposium students); have joy in a purpose (like the Brickyard preacher); and finally, sometimes you should enjoy “freshness” -- the unfiltered being of being (like Robert El-Jaouhari and the philosophy club).

Good luck on midterms. Yes you have to, but maybe you can do that while still thinking effectively.

Be the first to comment on this article!

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/studying-for-a-life-purpose-1.2057704

Against Pretense = Facadesaside

2009-11-07T16:18:00.000-08:00

I heard these two words close to each other, and in the spirit of the blog I had to post it here.

I've been posting all day, and really in the past week I've posted a lot.

I think I've even posted the definition of pretentious before.

Here's Dictionary.com for all of you cool cats:

pre⋅tense

[pri-tens, pree-tens] Show IPA

Use pretense in a Sentence

See web results for pretense

See images of pretense

–noun

1.	pretending or feigning; make-believe: My sleepiness was all pretense.

2.	a false show of something: a pretense of friendship.

3.	a piece of make-believe.

4.	the act of pretending or alleging falsely.

5.	a false allegation or justification: He excused himself from the lunch on a pretense of urgent business.

6.	insincere or false profession: His pious words were mere pretense.

7.	the putting forth of an unwarranted claim.

8.	the claim itself.

9.	any allegation or claim: to obtain money under false pretenses.

10.	pretension (usually fol. by to): destitute of any pretense to wit.

11.	pretentiousness.

So we've got this word that essentially means bullshitting and pretending. I usually think of it as when someone is telling me about a person who is pretentious because that pretentious person talks down to the person telling them.

Some postmodern inklings: I wish I were pure enough to say that I am unable to understand pretentious but I think I just haven't had enough experience with the word. It might be pretentious to say that I don't think I'm pretentious (in the claiming something when you don't have the right to claim that something sense from the definitions above).

Another pretentious example (but am I talking about the example or my making the example haha it's all so weird): is John Mayer; which I have heard a couple of times when he was beginning his rise to popularity. It just stuck with the guy.

But the claim that he is making is what? That he's a good guitar player; but also the heir to a guitar-god tradition the likes of which come up in basically every generation.

It does not help the fact that Mayer himself is really proud and boasts of his achievements; he brags about himself and advertises the fact that he sleeps with Jennifer Aniston and Jessica Simpson. Every once in a while I feel like I catch Mayer saying something like his audiences don't actually understand the blues.

Another pretentious example (this time I'm writing it on purpose; but I ask: am I being pretentious for exemplifying this, or is the example itself of pretention? or both or what? I'm getting confused myself): I was telling my friend Mike about my ex-girlfriends who are vegetarians, but would not dare tell anyone what they should eat. I told my friend Mike that these girlfriends knew all of the reasons that they went vegetarian, and that a lot of these reasons were in fact about life-threatening-ness. One of my ex-girlfriends actually pointed to a vegetarian activist one time and explained to me why that vegetarian was wrong.

My friend Mike said being a vegetarian for ethical reasons and then leaving everyone in the dark is pretentious.

I mean, just imagine yourself eating a nice, juicy, disgusting steak, and a woman who knows everything about how bad it is; and she's smiling while she thinks to herself how long she is going to live.

I don't expect the debate every time, but there is something bullshitting about this; dare-I-say pretentious about this.

My brother told me that one of these girlfriends was pretentious because she was judgmental while trying to seem like she wasn't being judgmental.

One last one about my friend Jason:

We were in the car with the gang and my friend Jason was talking about my friend Jiggy (the names have been changed to protect the privacy).

Jason made an observational humor joke about children of Doctors acting like they know what they are talking about when they don't, because Jason had noticed his friends who were the children of doctors prescribing and acting like they knew about medicine when in fact they did not. In this case he was calling Jiggy out (who wasn't in the car at the time).

I said, "You know who else does that?"
Everyone in the car said, "No, who?"

I said "children of pilots." because of course, Jason was the child of a pilot who was pretentiously taking down pretention.

A little bit like I am right now!

Such are the dangers!

In the Bible it says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones."

I enter, Let all of us who surely are facades, all of us who surely have facades, and all of us who are surely against pretense, rejoice in criticism.

In other words, "Stone the facade, not the person."

Some Aretha Franklin: Don't play that song for me (You Lied)

2009-11-07T15:24:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAa8vwmeewU

He said, "Darlin, I love you"
But I know that you lied
"Darlin I love you"
But I know that you lied
You lied!
You lied!
You lied!
You lied!!!!!!

4 Brand Spanking new fields for Philosophy

2009-11-07T11:30:00.001-08:00

Here are some cutting edges in philosophy these days:

1) Philosophy of Language and Analytic Philosophy - I have described this to death on this blog, and I have actually done very little of it.

The Gist: These guys build very intricate systems for representing knowledge and answering the basic questions of life.

What it looks like: They use discreet math and symbolic logic, which looks like atomic sentences and predicates (capital and lower case letters, like Pa, where Adam is a, 'eats a popsicle' is P ) and four or five symbols; interspersed with very dry sometimes fun sometimes boring essays.

People they use :
They dip in to Frege, Russell, and Kant, very often; with an emphasis on the newer guys including Chomsky, Kripke, Quine, among others.

Minor details: Sometimes this stuff is heartbreakingly boring. Sorry.

Concrete usages: This language-writing stuff turns out to be great for writing systems for machines, computers and so on.

2) Political Philosophy and Ethics:

Political Philosophy and Ethics are ever-new, and even more fun because of our new democratic advances (say what you want) and scientific advances (do whatever you want a la clone a sheep and grow a human out of a petri dish).

The Gist: One good example is the 1970's to present academic debate between John Rawls and Robert Nozick which pitted Rawls' philosophy that we should give money to the poor versus Nozick's philosophy that we should allow people to keep their money.

The point is that we have to keep tweaking our ideas that form our concrete aspects of democracy.

There are plenty of debates as to what we should do, and I'm not so certain that Political Philosophy is so different from Ethics in this respect, except for the fact that Politics and Government is so large that it seems to be calling a drop of water the ocean if we didn't specify.

People in the present day working on this stuff: I honestly don't know. Rawls and Nozick are dead. There are no stand out rock star ethicists. Maybe that would be a contradiction because they are not trying to accrue any fame and fortune. Good job guys!

3) Specific continued-analysis ontologies (definitions) and explorations thereof

The Gist: Certain concepts ask for continued exploration. Theories of happiness, what a good life is, and genius all fit under these categories

What it looks like: People will offer new theories based on these concepts. Concepts like free will, happiness, genius, and what a good life is all ask for a more useful, more specific, and generally better assessment. They offer books and academic essays on these things.

People they use: It depends on the relevant topic. These guys will use what has already been written, or they will use their own stuff. Usually it's a combination of both. So for instance, we might use Aristotle's concept of happiness from the Nicomachean ethics and maybe make our own definition based on that. This is one way that the older philosophers are still relevant: a lot of times their stuff is obscure and incomplete. Enter philosophers who need to extrapolate and "finish" what these older philosophers were saying. One of the new guys who used the old guys is Gilles Deleuze.

So Gilles is one of the new philosophers.

One of my favorite people these days is Gretchen Rubin. Rubin is never going to declare herself a philosopher, but what exactly is studying the concept of happiness except a philosophical issue? If it's studied the way that she does, which is a cross-disciplinary approach using ontology, imperative ethics, psychology, and biology, I think it's certainly philosophy.

Minor problem: It's hard to compete with the old philosophers for new ground. I have a microcosm of the problem when I write music: sometimes I write music that has already been written, and I'm only accidentally imitating what I heard; or maybe someone already had the idea that I'm having. This begets debates about if you should know everything about the subject before you make an entry into that field (example: Immanuel Kant began his works when he was 50 years old).

Noam Chomsky is a new age philosopher, sure but he's also a genius in half a dozen fields. Some words for cross-disciplinary genius: polymath or renaissance man. One argument from my friend Melissa is that it was easier to be a renaissance man during the Renaissance because the breadth of knowledge for each of the subjects could be vastly expanded easier. People did not know about biology, say, so any entry that Descartes made into the field was considered a significant entry.

4) Where Science versus Religion ends up today: Atheism and Apologetics- the whole God's not real bit. Is this philosophy; well it's definitely not art, science or religion; so shoot it seems to fit....

Atheism is pretty well known as the position your independent rocker friend assumes in order to look cool, but also assumed by academic philosophers who want to look cool.

Apologetics is just as well known but not as well diagnosed. These are the grown up versions of the Bible nerds in High School. They wear bright colors and are always smiling. They want to fight for God and are not afraid of looking lame while doing it.

They are called Apologists because they have to explain why God exists and why considering the fact that he is benevolent, he lets bad things happen. This is also called the problem of evil. They are the reigning defenders because the position of Atheism and Agnosticism has never before had the popularity that it does today (but is it popular? are atheists really attracted to the nihilism belief in nothing that it entails? can you be attracted to a belief in nothing? In this way I think it's obvious that Atheism is almost entirely reactionary....more on all of this later).

The Gist: The argumentation of the position is a bit more philosophical. If you do not believe in God, amateurs can do that for whatever reason. Philosophers have to hark to a better position if they are going to do it academically.

What it looks like: These people write articles and essays (just like the rest of the others?) but they also are a bit more public in their aspirations, as shown by public debates.

People the Atheists and Apologists use: The most prominent Atheist philosopher in the world these days is a guy named Richard Dawkins.

The most prominent Apologist might be John Lennox, who is a legitimate mathematician who like Dawkins comes from Oxford University and speaks eloquently. The two debated in Alabama a few years ago.

Dawkins is actually not so much a philosopher as a really ticked off scientist. If you haven't noticed, religion has been taking a bite out of a particular part of Biological Science; called evolution.

If you consider how much this would affect someone if they spent their life studying evolution, you get Dawkins' position in a snap.

But the other issue that the Atheists take with religion is how people justify doing bad things with religion, which is often just as easy to point out as the good things (what is this, one of our Heuristics again? the visibility heuristic or badness heuristic?). That's the other prong of Dawkins' attack.

Check out Christopher Hitchens Religion Poisons Everything and Sam Harris's Letter to a Christian Nation; both of which arrive at a time where the United States is fighting the War on Terror, which is a heated battle with what seems like Islamic fundamentalists. I might put it in terms of poverty and insanity, and, uhm, terror, but it really does seem like America versus Islam sometimes. We also had an evangelical president in President George W. Bush; so it all sort of came together in the Bush years from 2000-2008.

The most prominent guy who looks like a real philosopher is Daniel Dennett, who has a very Socratic beard.

Minor Problem: We haven't really broken any new ground since Immanuel Kant drew the line between Empirical Sciences and Religion a little over 200 years ago.

Or have we broken new ground? The year I was born in 1987, the Catholic Church formally apologized to Galileo (still a little late, but better late than never), and very recently the Church began a state of the art multi-million dollar astronomy facility in Arizona for Empirical research on Astronomy; seemingly affirming the Church's devotion to Empirical sciences.

Or are we deluding ourselves? A few years ago the Kansas school board was formally thinking of bringing in Intelligent Design, which basically substitutes God for legitimate Biology. A concerned citizen wrote them a letter demanding that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster be taught 1/3 of the time: so 1/3 of the time for Intelligent Design, 1/3 of the time for legitimate science, and 1/3 of the time for Giant Flying Spaghetti Monsters.

Some Concrete Definitions of Philosophy

2009-11-07T11:09:00.000-08:00

Found myself last night at a local religious group trying to explain what philosophy in contemporary times is.

I had a cock and bull (facadesup) story that I've written about Leibniz before: the full extent of Leibniz's writings have not been assessed; and this is important because Leibniz created calculus and binary code.

The student I was talking to then said, "But how come you call that philosophy and not history?"

Which is completely legitimate.

I then had to tell him about embryonic sciences, such as how astronomy started, and I had to mention ethics, and philosophy of history instead of history of philosophy (complete with the digression I'm putting in these parentheses whereupon I mention Hegel and the questioners of if history is going anywhere teleologically (did I really say teleologically? yes)) and all of the sudden it didn't seem like I was so confident about philosophy anyway.

I did mention that philosophy sort of acts like the referee of the sciences, and that the study of knowledge itself had an important (?) breakthrough with Edmund Gettier's Knowledge is not Justified True Belief paper.

But I wasn't convinced, and this wasn't so concrete.

Some concrete aspects of philosophy in contemporary times:

1) Philosophy is the necessary sister to any science or art: in this way, Philosophy is simply intense consideration of its sister

re: ethical consideration of stem-cell research, utilitarian and metaphysical theories behind political science, regimented theories of political science

2) Embryonic sciences: by which we mean we designate a way of unsystemized though so that maybe later we can systemize it. This is as simple as chasing down digressions (alchemy a la Newton, and pseudoscience a la CG Jung); and as complex as forming a new scientific system (mathematics a la Russell and White; and whatever it is that Noam Chomsky really does).

3) Philosophy is good for metaphysical questions we don't want answered by religion.

4) Philosophy is good for ontology and the study of definition. Philosophy can get stuff running efficiently.

5*) (fivestar?) Philosophy is also good for necessary skepticism. This relates to 3) in that we should not always be satisfied. I don't know why, and maybe that's a philosophical question in itself, but sometimes questions have to be pursued.

But necessary skepticism leads people like me to be shaky when we give even our most basic answers.

One time, when I was describing my concept of God to about 100 Jewish people, I started yelling passionately about Skepticism (about wrestling with God). To my credit I was trying to imitate Dr. Martin Luther King, Junior. I don't know if it helped the speech at all. I doubt (am skeptical) that anyone got it.

And another time, which is where we started this post, I said how sure I was that I knew what philosophy is in contemporary times that I didn't sound sure at all.

On Thursday of this week I was reminded about another one of the cutting edges of philosophy in contemporary times, which I will post in another post immediately after this one.

Some correspondence with Rick

2009-11-06T20:44:00.000-08:00

I definitely can't publish Rick's correspondence without asking him, but I can publish my own consideration of his philosophy, right?


Maybe not; maybe this is dubious.  But we'll get into the ethical debate later.

I'm pretty sure this entry is too obscure to be really considered as anything but evidence that at least I'm writing every day.



> So I said that the Space shuttle is a clear sign of newness:  we never had
> space shuttles before a certain year (definitely not before 1959) and then
> we did have them.
>
> it applies to building a better mousetrap and it doesn't
>
> you maintain that the "freshness" you define in the paper is even more
> "new" than building a better mousetrap;  in this case building the space
> shuttle
>
> (part of me is disbelieving:  why should we subtract the awe from such an
> awe-inspiring achievement?  Why is the newness of the space shuttle
> inconsequential here?  Why is creating a new space shuttle only building a
> better mousetrap?)
>
> I think that it has to do with the individual's formation of reality as
> experienced in the present
>
> but like Alex I want to reduce it to only that;  and if it is only that
> then why should we write the paper on it?
>
> Maybe more than should be answered in an email.
>
>
>
> -jrg

2009-11-05T12:03:00.000-08:00

Sometimes when people want me to do an option, they will offer it seemingly out of nowhere (out of nowhere in Latin might be phrased creatio ex nihilo, or creation from nothing).

So with this friend of mine when we were out for dinner, I would finish my dinner and she would finish hers. She would then present an option, saying, "Do you want to have desert or are you going to not have desert?" Then I would say that I wanted desert. By presenting the option that wasn't there before, my friend Diane mastered a fundamental sales technique. The creation of the situation is what prompted the option to have it be chosen.

The option was not there in the first place.

People do this intentionally and unintentionally. For Diane it was a mixture of both.

Come to think of it, I believe that a great number of our actions are more of a cross between raw functional habit and intense focus and consideration.

Maybe we in fact do these extremes (feel these extremes) during acts of doing. Maybe right now, as I am typing, the action is a combination of intense consideration or maybe it's completely absent minded.

On a different note:

What about gum on the bottom of desks? I reach down to feel how smooth the desk is to find some semi-sticky lump.

We don't consider this that big of a crime because it's not seen. No one is going to start an anti-gum placing campaign because this isn't like littering.

I told my friend Rick that the worst crimes are the crimes that are legal. The crimes that are the worst are the ones where no one really notices. Of course, this is a mistake, but I think there is some truth to it.

One of my editors has been ragging on me at the Technician. He gives out orders when he does not have to and he does it in a way that makes me feel bad, which I call pulling rank.

But no one knows about this problem and there is not too much I can do about it.

Notes on Scandal 3, "Deserving it" 2

2009-11-03T22:24:00.001-08:00

My friend Jason will beat the crap out of me in a game; like any parlor game such as trivia questions, pool, poker, gin rummy, and board games; and then he has the audacity to make me feel bad about it.

This momentary interaction has brought out the worst in me in the past.

This realization should be no small admission: how often can we point out when we are at our worst?

Finally I stopped playing with the kid.

He asked me to tell him a story about when I failed at palmistry. I told him that one time I read palms for a beautiful woman; who's name I won't mention here; and that I ended up hooking up with her.

Now this is a true story for all of us. Lately I have been bragging to my friends about being able to talk to beautiful women. Maybe I'm trying to Lord over my friends with this garbage like Jason tried to Lord over me with the trivial games.

And I declare: Some of the same ways that Jason finds peace are found in his grades and his work ethic. He is competitive and razor sharp; he gets perfect grades. His successes are many.

It took me a long time to realize that I had to stand up to the kid by not playing the games with him. It did not take any discussion or debate with the person, I just had to decide that I did not want to be told I was stupid or slow for being lousy at board games.

Two:

This is a cool story because it shows what my friend Rick was trying to tell me the other day: there has to be a time when the vulgar meets the learned (re: the other two Notes on Scandal entries of this web blog; I've been using Berkeley's famous statement "We have to speak with the vulgar and think with the Learned" to comment on the intersection of moral ideals and social pragmatism.) We have to set up a guideline of morality that accounts for the real world.

My three feminist Duke University friends got into heated debates about the Duke University Lacrosse Scandal: what did it all mean?

On one occasion, I said to one of them that wearing revealing clothing is genuinely a way to invite sex. I mean, on commonsense intuition: isn't it? I was specifically talking about cleavage. Perhaps needless to say, the feminist yelled at me.

She said that no one invites rape, and that rape is never warranted.

In this blog, I said in Notes on Scandal 2 (I think), that one of the groups that I visited at North Carolina Central University, one of the group leaders said that a woman should be able to walk down the street in the middle of the night in a dark alley and not get raped.

This is because rape is wrong.

So my friend Rick said that this is correct, but we should still account for the problems of what's going on. Feminists account for this too (I've written a little bit in this blog on Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs, a call to self-responsibility of women).

If a woman is naked and says, "Let's have sex," to a man, and then regrets it because he's ugly, that's not really rape in the same way as the one that everyone is thinking of.

Which is what happened with the Duke University scandal; which is what happened with the Hofstra scandal a couple of weeks ago. (I know the woman didn't have sex in the Duke scandal, but I'm trying to make a certain point here).

We have to speak with the vulgar and think with the learned. The intersection of morality and realism I think in this case is that we have to account for reality in all possible ways.

Think with the learned: That is, we certainly can affirm the fact that rape is a terrible thing, that you should not judge a woman as promiscuous because of what she wears (nor conclude anything prejudiced because of the way someone looks); nor should you deem that rape is a wonderful occurrence when it is in fact a crime.

Speak with the vulgar: We have to be as realistic as possible in our prescriptions for people (ourselves). We have to warn people that going naked in dark alleys in the middle of gang-riddled Durham is a dangerous thing. We have to take into account all possible real facts and conceptual facts.

I think that is an okay conclusion for now.

Two Postscript:

I've been thinking about making a stand, too. William Salatan's science blog talks about how people are getting cosmetic surgery to fit in.

At what point should a person who is short say, okay now society has to fit in to me, and not the other way around?

Is it the naked woman in the alley? But this is such a strange way to make that case.

Is it the hippy-scientist; or the Black President; or the short-cool person?

But more on this later.....

Some more postmodernism

2009-11-02T16:30:00.000-08:00

I just read David Foster Wallace's Consider the Lobster.

The most fun that Wallace has is consideration of meta-irony and post modernism.

Consider how sprite markets itself as the anti-drink. Well, then Sprite is still marketing itself, isn't it? Or independent music markets itself as outsider image; but this is still an image. The pop musician Pink, for example, sings music written by Max Martin just like Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera; which would be great except that Pink markets the image that she is different from or better than or at least separate from these other two singers.

Well I have another one: Ben Folds' song "Hiroshima."

There is something unnerving about the song, which is a "benign" pop song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNqj-0YLOoM&feature=related

In it, Folds (the explanation is in the video before the song) explains that he hit his head after he fell at a show in Hiroshima, Japan.

The dandy point of the song is that in the midst of a fall, he was able to get up and succeed at singing.

The song could be taken even more literal than that, in the way that he sings, "They're watching me, watching me, watching me fall."

The point is that we're all in front of other people and these people watch us whether we succeed or fail.

The reason that Hiroshima is supposed to be a big deal for everyone else, or have emotional significance, is because it's about thousands of people dying when a nuclear weapon went off.

The reason why this is a memorable title is because thousands of people died.

I mean it gets down to this "no you didn't" thing because it's so straightforward: Folds simply fell on the stage in Hiroshima, Japan.

But is comparing his humiliation or our humiliation (of being human and empathizing with him) okay for writing a pop song when the name has so many connotations?

So there's this one level where it's just him saying he hit his head in Japan. Then there's this other level where he's using the name of a city which was bombed in World War II and has significance because of that. Either we know the significance of the people bombed, in which case I think he's wrong to use that song name, or we don't and that doesn't eliminate the significance, and we're still wrong about it.

Come on Ben, there's too much of an in-joke on this one. Postmodernism strikes again!!!

Notes on a Scandal Part 2

2009-11-02T08:05:00.001-08:00

But the discussion that I had last night was going back to "deserving it."

Now, being friends with three Duke University feminists during this scandal, I got some pretty good discussions in. One of them was a Pro-Choice Activist, and the other two worked at the Duke Women's center. I note here that these three people were lower middle class (not rich) (however, two were minorities ((however both of those minorities took lots and lots of Advanced Placement exams and scored 5's or perfects on them) (important and unimportant points of analysis, surely)).

Facadesaside: We talked about what it meant, and what it meant for the school, and what it meant for them as students and their identities. I never thought about what it meant for my identity. There were a couple of times that I felt like I had to reassure them that Duke University is a good school.

Before the evidence proved the Lacrosse players innocent, there was a reaction on campus where a group of Due University professors petitioned the student body. This letter said that the students were partly to blame by facilittating a party culture.

There was then a counter-backlash from conservative students, and one charismatic student lead the charges; asking for those professors to apologize or to be fired. And So On.

I can't remember if the professors had a counter-backlash toward the counter-backlash; except to say it would be a shame if some professors were fired because of this.

(This smacks of a debate I have been considering lately; I can't remember if I've already posted this or not, but the debate is Allan Bloom's scathing attack on students in America being too subjective. This subjectivity comes at the expense of being objective and caring for older classical works. Charles Taylor in his response, The Ethics of Authenticity said that there is an ethical way to go about finding your individuality without losing emphasis on objectivity. All of us just shrug and say, okay. I submitted an article trying to apply this to Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs, but I'm not sure that it's going to run).

Between the pornography and parties,he some feminists call what we're living in a "rape culture."

That is, students and men end up looking at pornography so much, some feminists believe that it is a small step from devaluing women to raping them.

Add that as our second facade: the ambiguity of the intersection between culture (re: the contingencies of the scenario that lead to the rape) and the actual events themselves (re: the actual rape).

Where do we draw the line and how can we tell the difference?

Part three, for continuation later:
I also attended a feminist group at North Carolina Central University. The leader of the group said that a woman should be able to stand naked in the middle of the streets and not get raped.

There's another post here that I'll have to post later today.

Notes on a scandal

2009-11-02T07:39:00.001-08:00

We have to speak with the vulgar and think with the learned. - Bishop Berkeley

Berkeley's philosophy was that this world is entirely ideal. This world exists in minds alone. Ultimately this leaves God to be the master-Mind in all senses.

Berkeley's philosophy influenced Bertrand Russell and Immanuel Kant.

The point is that there is an intersection between the vulgar, which is reality, and learned, which is ideal.

When I was at North Carolina Central University, there was a nation-wide scandal called the Duke Lacrosse Scandal. The Duke lacrosse team had a drinking party whereupon they hired a stripper. The stripper then accused the entire team of rape. She had help from District Attorney Nifong. There was outrage. When it turned out that she made up the accusation, there was more outrage.

The elephant in the kitchen was the massive class difference between the rich students and rich campus of Duke University and the poor population of the City of Durham, North Carolina.

According to one person I've talked to, not coincidentally (or coincidentally?), Durham is the descendent of Tobacco slave labor. Tobacco farmers worked in Raleigh and kept the Help in Durham.

It's no secret that the Duke fortune was built on tobacco, however.

According to some people I've talked to in Durham, today, half of the population of Durham is impoverished.

How is the division between impoverished-and-the-rich-blurry? Well, Duke University employs a large part of the city. North Durham is almost completely consumed in business and university related jobs. The medical center offers tons of jobs, as does the normal university-related jobs.

Duke University keeps a modest and yet defensible amount of diversity. At least 1/5 of the student population are minority students.

Duke University enriches Durham in more ways, too. The students volunteer around the city and tutor at high schools.

As mentioned before in this blog, Duke University, like NCSU, NCCU and UNC prefers applicants from North Carolina.

So far as I know, employees are treated well.

There is therefore this explicit and obvious have and have not division. This is emblematic and symbolic of a division between two populations. But there is also a way in which the two are so intermixed that the division is not a division.

So there's this big blurry issue of impoverished Durham versus rich Duke University. On one hand is the fact that 1) "duh" some people who go there are rich, and on the other hand 2) it's like not everyone there is rich, and as a matter of fact we work/are/live/research/and so on at Duke University.

They call it, "Town versus Gown," as in the townspeople versus the students who graduate (in Gowns).

In other words facadesaside, there's all this class struggle stuff behind the actual scandal proceedings.

If this is the case, we're going to see scandals again.

When you do something for a while and then it turns out to be fun

2009-11-01T20:42:00.000-08:00

Meditation: The only reason that we like doing certain hobbies and routines is because we have broken through a facade in the first place.

Something that I have had a hard time trusting is myself; especially something that I do for a while and then it becomes fun.

Out of all of my main hobbies, and boy do I have a lot of them, it just seems like patterns of stuff that was fun and I kept going. I have them all separate in my head such that I can't help but think that I continue them for different reasons.

Diamond wrote, and I've rewritten this a couple of times on this blog, that "All happy families are alike, all unhappy families are unhappy in their own ways;" which is a rewrite from Tolstoy. In other words, success is the conglomeration of each individual success. Unhappiness or unsuccess is when a family succumbs to one individual problem (or more). In this way, happy families are all alike in that they have answered all of the problems that the unhappy families did not.

Take the zodiac and palmistry, both of which I consider under the same headings. I consider them under the same heading because they are both superstition. I used to be big into palmistry. Was I ever good at it? Can you be good at these things?

Pretty good to get sucked into oblivion with superstition; fun that is. No fun to look bad doing it, however. When have I looked bad doing palmistry? Plenty of times. It's worked out sometimes. But what's the criteria for working out?

Take another hobby: extracurricular music, playing the electric bass guitar alone and with friends. I started because I wanted to be like my brother and be like people who were ahead of me in school, one year up to be exact.

Why did I keep going? Well because it was cheap and fun and it made me both happy at the time and I wasn't too embarrassed about it afterward.

Writing. I've written a whole lot and it's hard to say where and when it starts. I started really heavily writing to my sister Paige in the second half of my senior year of High School, and then a whole lot during my year off between high school and college. I had a fallout with the Natural Resources Library, where I worked, and then I started writing for the Technician. My sister Paige encouraged me to keep a blog, and some of my friends were blogging, and here we are.

Reading? But I feel as though everyone reads.

But the question is: why do I feel like I've got to keep going with these hobbies? And how could I apply that to stuff that I want to do? (Like stuff that is not as easy to do, or that I don't want to do, like difficult philosophy tests, writing and running flashcards, doing difficult readings for school, and so on).

I remember in High School, and even College, I've told myself that if I get down to some studying, I will end up liking the work.

Such is true! And in fact, the only way to do studying, or studying successfully according to Richard Palmer, is to have fun while you are studying.

Large works like ahem Tolstoy's War and Peace seem like they are impenetrable until we get started on them and keep going.

The limitations are our own, enjoyment is subjective, and we should find the fun and the successful enjoyment through doing the work, and not in anticipation or consideration of the work.

But something tells me that the work is still brutal regardless; depending upon the job itself....

Consider It Considerate

2009-11-01T03:06:00.001-08:00

Thinking: maybe it's good to be inconsiderate of others to the extent that you don't know what they are going to; to the extent that you don't know what pain they're having.

What is the shut off point of all of this, when is it supposed to be like that, when should we ignore what people are going through?

Is inconsiderate just sloppiness on the authentic, actualized, individual?

Like: if someone is absurdly ignorant of someone else's needs (inconsiderate), isn't that just a commentary on the situation in the first place.

The second person thinks that the other person should be considering him. Isn't this a flaw in the second person, to believe that the first person should be doing something for the second person?

The answer is sort of, sort of, sort of.

Lately I've been thinking that someone who is selfish is like this inconsiderate person above.

What situation are you in to be considered inconsiderate? What situation are you in to be considered selfish?

If someone is locked in their basement making peanut inventions to save the economy of the southern United States, like George Washington Carver, isn't that a good thing? It's not a situation where he could be considered inconsiderate.

Methods

2009-10-29T22:02:00.000-07:00

So we've gone over some methods of philosophy by now.

1) The Analytic method - is just math. Get your math out and rock it. We've had more on this before and after.

2) The ordinary language method - take your favorite idiomatic expression and then stretch it out in order to reveal some larger truth (re: Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind).

3) The dialogue method - just talk to people in order to get down to foundational beliefs. (re: any number of Socratic Dialogues by Plato).

4) Eastern Philosophy - Stopping the "thinker" by using breathing exercises and meditation. The "thinker" here being mind-flows; and therefore involves consideration of the stream of consciousness (I'll get a post here one of these days on some of my findings; re: Thich Nhat Hanh's Peace is Every Step, Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth).

5) Some Romanticism and Post Modern Schools - argue for the exact opposite of 4). They recommend just writing and writing and writing.

6) Thinking of how things ought to be - The imperative or subjunctive nature of philosophy is all over. These people feel the ethical need to write and convince people. (re: any number of Christian Apologists (is this really philosophy?) or Atheists; and I guess Kant sort of slips into here)

7) Thinking of how things are - Describing our world in a way that shows a coherent or foundational knowledge (Like Sosa's "Raft and the Pyramid" Article? maybe.....)

Many possible words in many possible worlds!!!

2009-10-29T04:46:00.000-07:00

What am I doing here?

Getting an education!

I thought it was a stupid idea. Leibniz has this idea of many possible worlds. Dude this is totally a 20th century idea. They brought it back.

That is, if you accept certain dynamics of reality, then you almost always get to Determinism whereupon people don't have free will.

But hold the phone because Leibniz's stake in the Free will debate was contingency and the idea of many possible worlds.

There are 20th century philosophers, even analytic mathematical weird ones, who actually believe this.

I remember going to Modern Philosophy and hearing about old Gotty Leibniz and his wacko idea of many possible worlds for the sake of Free Will and contingency, and thinking about how kooky the idea was; and then going to Philosophy of Language (a 20th century course) and watching my weirdo professor draw circles on the board and dots in them.

I guess it would be funny here to mention that yes this professor was tenured.

But they seriously believe this stuff. In fact, it's a great way for them to consider the contingency of logic. Some stuff is necessary and some stuff is less necessary. (New word proposal: Lessecary?)

Existentialism's Guerrilla Philosophy: You are living your philosophy

2009-10-28T17:57:00.000-07:00

On my year off, I ended up visiting Hamilton College, up the street from where I live.

I studied and I explored.

The first one is more surprising than the second.

But what was I doing up there and why? I don't meet Raleigh people at North Carolina State University parties in the same way that I myself was a Clinton resident at Hamilton College.

This outsider experience prepared me for attending the historically black university North Carolina Central University.

While I attended North Carolina Central University, I visited my friend James. My outsider experience prepared me for visiting my friend James when he went to Duke University.

At North Carolina State University, which is known for its preference of North Carolina residents, I have been asked this question over and over again.

All four schools, North Carolina State University, North Carolina Central University, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Duke University, have preference-quotas for North Carolina High Schoolers who apply; so does Hamilton College. The Duke family did support James E. Shepard when he founded of North Carolina Central University. The basic reason is: we have to help out those around us.

The black people of NCCU and the rich people of Duke or the North Carolinians of NC State all ask me this out loud so often. The question everyone asked me (and asks me) over and over is: "What are you doing here?"

This sounds like a creation story for a philosopher. But this is absolutely seductive. It spins a lot of emotional pain that I have had. I've had a lot of joy, too.

This is the paramount existential question(with an operational definition for me simply being the question of existence) for obvious reasons.

At its worst it racks my brain. In other words, I have been asked out loud what people go through internally or at least through their own volition.

It would not be a problem if I knew what I was doing here. I mean, besides what I am ostensibly doing here, as in college.

What am I doing here?
I'd give a bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
Bullshit answer.
What am I doing here?
I don't know. (is this a breakthrough?)

They wanted to know why here instead of any where else in this country.

People are interested in purpose, but in strange ways, and they aren't willing to look too much into it if it gets boring (which the question's answer does and does often).

That's like all of us, except that we have different tolerances and interests. (Note: where is the difference between innate intelligence and personality? re: if a person's personality loves studying or studying enough to become a genius, isn't that an innate intelligence? aren't we sort of double dipping?)

People wanted to know why I was at Hamilton College partying. I never got bothered when I studied at the Library. What are you doing here?

People wanted to know why I was at North Carolina Central University because it is an all black school (I was one of 5 or six white kids; three of which I can name: red haired gang leader white kid, white girl with last name brown which I won't name here, and no comment on the irony, and a kid named Josh who was there studying music).
And I would tell them that I was there for the law school, which was-is true and for my friend James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was there for law school? Sort of?

People wanted to know why I was at Duke University and not doing other stuff, and then they would find out that I was hanging out with James. Was it bullshit when I told them I was hanging out with James? Sort of?
But that answer satisfied for those people asking.

There was one time when a beautiful black woman went into a fit (she was a friend of Makeda's, who's last name I won't write here) and she started shouting at me as in why I was there. I told her that I was just getting lunch, which is true at the time.

People ask me this all the time at NC State University, but it's not as much as when I attended NCCU and visiting Duke University.

This third round of people are wondering why NC State versus upstate New York colleges.

One of the most emotional incidents in the past year have been when I was in Israel and my friend Kenneth asked me over and over. I gave him bullshit about John Edwards, and Law School, and my friend James Ray.

Another one was I was out to eat with some friends and my friend's Dad was Irish. If you don't know, the Irish sense of humor is sarcastic, dry, and mocking. The Irish sense of humor is a gallows humor and also can be sort of brutal-spiteful. But always in jest and for laughs. Example of Irish humor: my friend Jim R. said, "Don't you look like Ben Stiller?" or "Do you know who Jerry Seinfeld is?" speaking to my average, long nose Jewish looks. In other words, making you feel bad helps others laugh at you but also helps you laugh at yourself.

At a dinner this particular Irish-American friend (different from Jim R.), brought up all of the great upstate New York schools (he himself attended the upstate New York Yale Sister Vassar College). He talked about SUNY Geneseo, and SUNY Binghamton, and SUNY Buffalo, and SUNY Potsdam, and all I could say was, "Yeah, those are great schools." What could I say?

Another one was where I talked to my friend Tom and the kid had a shift in his face. Later I thought of:

Sometimes I think freedom is like when you have freedom to be in the act. I define this as kinetic freedom and I think it's beautiful.

The greatest example of kinetic freedom is when you are free falling during a sky dive. There is nothing to do except fall. People talk about this as freeing and feeling alive. That's what I mean.

I thought of all the ways that people feel like they are being forced to attend college, and all of the lectures Tom might have gotten from his parents about money and being close to his parents.

I think of folklore: the Jewish Diaspora (which I originally learned the word from the blacks: they talk about the African Diaspora; it means spreading or disbursement; it has connotations of watering down and losing potency and strength through dilution; there are large bodies of literature dealing with Diaspora studies; what a Diaspora is). Jacob in the Bible is a representative of Jewish Diaspora.

I think of brute specific causality: my parents supported a digression that I made; they were sick of me being close to home, they wanted me to grow up, I had support from James, I was able to get into NCCU because of my minority status and despite my poor grades.

I think of general causality: The North Carolina Triangle is one of the fastest growing parts of the United States and there is a large immigration of North Easterners coming from the Rust Belt; places that look like Flint, Michigan; Midland city, Ohio; and my city Utica, New York. Imagery: these cities have big brick warehouses with broken windows.
This isn't my reasoning, but it allies me with the people around here. My friends Brian C. and Danielle K. and Katie A., were born in California, and my friend Audrey B. is from Ohio.

That is, there is a more general move of this country toward North Carolina because of various reasons. I immediately met up with two family friends when I came down here (they were part of our congregation up north).
Imagine how I felt coming down here and finding out where everyone who left Utica went. This is a more general (I daresay metaphysical) move of a population.

I think of superstition: The Sagittarius is known as a happy traveller; an inside outsider and an outside insider. Sagittarius rules travel, high culture, fringe culture, and foreign interactions. It also rules luck.

I'm thinking to myself: where am I going with this? Answer: I do know and I don't know. Why am I so embarrassed sometimes? Answer: I do know and I don't know.

Why am I here? I do know and I don't know. And I don't know.

What I've been saying here is that I've been giving a short answer and there are times when that short answer is not good enough at the time or in retrospect. The operational definitions don't work for that time or any time. Creation of reality indeed!

Portfolio 20: Diversify your Classes article

2009-10-28T17:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/diversify-your-classes-1.2040400

Diversify your classes

By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article

Published: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, October 28, 2009

In choosing classes for spring semester, try something different. I'm speaking to everyone here, but especially students.

Choose classes that happen three or more days a week or late in the day. Choose classes your friends told you are great or those that are ultra-specialized. That is, you should specialize your classes.

We're not running out of space, and it's not OK to cram into classes with 250 or more students. The only occasion where it should be OK is when it's mass-engineered food for thought.

We might consider an analogy to food: it's OK to eat fast food once a month or once a week but it’s unhealthy to eat the stuff every day. It is not OK to be in large, packed, classes for four years in a row. These classes are watered down with little professor interaction. They do not have any checks and balances.

For these courses, professors absolve themselves from responsibility in the same way students do. Someone else beside us is doing the work (hopefully).

Make sure you do not get caught in the cracks. You want your professors to know you and be able to talk with you, not awkward anonymity. Speak loud and often in class. Be able to complain. At least there is dignity in complaining. Anonymity has no dignity whatsoever; it's a farce and a sham we tell ourselves.

One way to slim down class sizes is to choose classes that are ultra-specialized. The reason for this is because everyone is different and there is a ton of intermingling that could be happening that fails to occur. Ask your professors, friends and teacher assistants what classes they think you would enjoy. There are half a dozen N.C. State class raters that can tell you good professors and classes on campus. My Pack provides students the opportunity to see past grade distributions.

Not all classes beneficial to your career have to be taken for credit. For a specific example, people looking into law school might consider the Logic-225 or -335 courses taken for audit only (where you simply go to the class without any grades) or pass-fail. Engineering and math students might consider taking a graduate level course on these subjects. Another elephant in the kitchen is that these prospective courses are fun in the way that careers are supposed to be fun.

You could take an entire course seriously without wasting a grade and then take the class for the grade and get better scores.

Likewise, if you're going to have a professor you have not had previously, go audit one of his or her classes this semester; see what it is like. I recommend this in addition to asking other students about the course.

Specialize your classes. If you are in an obscure class, it will be a smaller class size because the course most likely limits students’ ability to take it.

A final word could be said to those of us in gigantic classes right now: don't let the professors or the teacher assistants off the hook. But most of all: don't let yourself off the hook.

Egads!-Begets-Vie Gehts?

2009-10-26T19:50:00.001-07:00

Brute fact empiricism trumps ethics, sometimes at least.

I mean, that's what we could get down to with regimented utilitarian analyses in at least some cases.

This is part of the reason that Socrates said that people who knew what was truly good would not choose wrong. He sees the choices between good and bad as just ignorant.

Flagging this objective world for a second, isn't it obvious what we would do if we had that kind of knowledge?

If we knew that helium causes brain damage, would you still breathe in a helium balloon?

This seems remarkably similar to drug education. (Which sometimes works? I mean, the D.A.R.E. programs have been wiped out; were these worthless? do kids not learn like we thought?)

So if we have these educated people, they avoid crime, right? It's all too good to be true.

But as always, the difference between a low quality life and a high quality life is EDUCATION.

I have 3 hours until I hand in the worst essay I have ever written. Here's to passing!

Determinism Objection

2009-10-26T19:44:00.000-07:00

Philosophy Professor: So you are a Determinist? Then why do you try?

Me: I don't know. Obviously I've got to do some furious hand-waving.

Some mindless self-indulgence

2009-10-26T19:06:00.000-07:00

When are you happiest? Do you have to realize when you are happiest? I mean, when you are in those feelings, do you have to recognize that you have them?

Memory is important to us; it helps us build our personalities. For practical purposes, it is our memories.

I say to myself, one of the lyrics from Cap 'n Jazz, they sing, "I can't stand, standing here like this, and I can't take taking any talk serious." And they repeat it over and over, and they have lyrics. The song ends, "We're trying so hard to forget who we are, We're trying so hard to forget who we are."

I have friends who are successful in the way that success can be obvious, in the way that skies can appear blue truly and obviously.

This we might call the Locke-Spinoza theories of knowledge 3rd kind, the third octane, where you don't have to do any sense recognition, or mathematical workouts, rather you just know knowledge. Spinoza talked about this as intuition, and knowledge of God. On this blog we also connected these three levels to Aristotle's levels of friendship: a) getting together for a group or partnered project, b) getting together because one of the partners wants to feel good, and c) being friends where both want what is virtuous in the other person.

I have friends who are successful and they are successful in ways that I am not. This is intentional: I like the sexiness of having these friends. I like having these people around because it makes conversation fluid, interesting, great. I like having these conversations and hearing about these ideas.

The converse of course hurts. The converse is where they talk about their achievements and I realize that I really don't have any sort of support for my own. What achievements do I have?

I read Bird by Bird by Anne Lamott. As a successful author, she had to write and write and write before having recognition. She has a small section about other author friends who are going great. She tells them, "gright, that's just gright." Finally, she simply says that she needs a break from the friendship.

I had something similar with a friend this semester, who is doing excellent. My grades are nothing like hers, and she is able to work and work and work and party and party and party and I had to say that I have to work these days and I can't hang out right now.

http://www.amazon.com/Bird-Some-Instructions-Writing-Life/dp/0385480016/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256609796&sr=8-1

That is, the very reason I hang out with these people is a reason to self-scorn, at times. I ride this fine line and I have to be careful.

Dr. Kasser, my philosophy adviser and a sampled essay for this blog, floored me one time. I asked him whether he believed in God, or Free Will. He said, "Why does it matter?" To which I did not have a reply. The point was that we were at an advising session and it was time to get back to advising.

When am I happiest?

I've written almost 200 blog entries, obviously some are shorter than others. I've been to more than enough parties, and coffee dates. My mom made fun of me in High School by calling them "play dates" when I was supposed to be working minimum wage.

My happiest times these days is usually across from a friend talking.

I've written over 500 letters to my sister Paige Saez. These are simply sculptures with words. That is, they are sculptures in that they serve no purpose except to keep writing and expressing. It's an open connection with my sister Paige.

That is, just because the Pyramids have no function or have a weird function (like harvesting or communicating with Aliens, or other countries) or are symbolic (like the Eiffel Tower or The Statue of Liberty) does not devalue them.

The truth is I don't think at this point I could help myself. Paige is essential because 1) She communicates with me on the phone about what I'm writing, 2) she does not communicate with me about what I am writing, 3) her universal audience is important: I'm telling all to a person I can tell all to, (it's also interesting: I end up deemphasizing some of my interactions and emphasizing others;) and 4) she's my sister she's encouraging and accepting.

2009-10-25T08:31:00.000-07:00

1) I wish professors would say, "Memorize this and exactly this."

I wish professors would space out classes, even liberal arts classes, monday through friday.

My grades are terrible and I wish they were better.

2) People have to stop eating so much. I wrote in this blog that I read David Kessler's new popular science medicine-biology-eating-fad book The End of Overeating this summer.

I haven't written this on the blog, but I also read Paul Theroux's commentary on the food fad business, Milroy the Magician. In it, a carnival magician becomes a food guru, hypnotizing people into eating healthier. People who are hypnotized end up having superpowers and (surprise) feeling better.

In the book, Milroy says, "Only in America are the poor people fat and the rich people are skinny."

It's a wild book, and it has parallels to the other Theroux I read, Mosquito Coast, which was made into a Harrison Ford movie of the same name. I also read a short story which appeared in the New Yorker magazine a couple of years back.

In the former book, Milroy goes to fast food restaurants in America and watches the people eat and eat. It's his way of recharging.

Kessler pointed out in the first chapter of his book that the reason that people are overweight has been in question for some time, and now we know that it is because people eat too much. (When I read this, I said to myself, "No, duh." But now, consider it for yourself: try talking to people about why they think people are generally too fat. They will tell you lack of exercise, metabolism, and nutrition gaps.)

People need to stop eating too much.

Do we need to tell ourselves this? Do we need to tell each other? Do we need to stop each other?

3) Drinking is pretty bad in College. Most of us know exactly how bad it is. I have friends who have flunked out, but it's blurry. I have at least as many friends who have made it through college, and probably a few (but obviously not too many) friends who have done exceptional in college and are still able to have a beer every now and then.

Some conclusions from these three ethical urgencies:

1) Some ideas on causation take:

We do know exact correlations-causations (sort of).

I think this is back to our causation versus correlation problems.

People get us on the causation versus correlation counterargument so often. (We've been talking about this constantly on this blog

Spinoza thought that every cause has a necessary effect. He thought that every cause came from every effect necessarily.

In this way, 2+2 = 4, things necessarily fall toward the earth, and if you're ugly you're going to have a hard time getting a date.

But this isn't always a good way to look at things. I think correlations stand here as a problem. James Vincent Ray said that correlations and probability are a good way to look at the world.

We do not know what number of beers equals terrible grades in a causative way. We do not know that beer causes bad grades in the way that 2+2=4.

2) The Paternalism Debate:

I've been thinking lately: if you accept rigid Determinism, as I do and I want to do, I feel that you'll end up with a strictly paternalist system.

Simplified Argument:

1) If people don't have the will to choose, then it does not matter if you give them a political "choice"
2) people don't have the will to choose
3) Conclusion: it does not matter if you do not give them a political "choice"

How does this plug in? Hopefully it's a little bit more obvious now. When I say that your will is determined, then it behooves us to try to stop you from hurting yourself. We know you're going to mess up, and that you cannot help yourself.

If you can't stop yourself, we have to stop you.

These three urgencies are problems of paternalism. We know that people have to help themselves. But where do we stop them? How can we stop them? Why do we have to stop them? How can we help them best?

Here's a Nine Inch Nails Song while you think all of this over:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz-m4oZLfYU

Poetry Portfolio 2: Life and Bethany

2009-10-23T21:05:00.001-07:00

Life and Bethany

Yes there is life after Beth
trying as one might to love her to Death
because trying so hard means you did your best
doesn't mean she'll ever say yes

Like ghosts you'll see each other again at the grocery mart
Like victimized villagers you'll both look up with a start
maybe before's hurt will again begin to smart
simply push along your shopping cart

There are fates worse than heaven or hell
like terrible car rides if that rings a bell
where talking is creeping upon egg shells
and your soul is absent as far as you can tell

so take it from me and don't wish for death
because you're here right now
and you're not there, yet

Poetry Portfolio 1: Machinations

2009-10-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

"Machinations"

Machines trust Love just like anything else
people used to have to smack their televisions
in order to get reception
a Buddhist monk wouldn't yell at
the cabbage in order to make it grow
but the machine's creator might yell
might tell it to create itself at 4:00AM
she doesn't care anymore (the inventor)
she might have yelled at her inventions

Machines don't care when you yell at them
when a person yells at something
no one blames a person who doesn't have a choice
no one blames a toaster oven, say
or a car for breaking down
saying you stupid car you stupid piece
of something you broke my heart
and I know the inner-workings
of this madness and I am still upset
you broke my heart you smacked my heart
for reception, to perceive
and my inventor has left the vicinity
to be with her other robots she designs
and I felt it!

Take your passion and make it happen

2009-10-23T08:02:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been saying to myself, "This self-fulfilling prophecy is pretty unfulfilling."

What I mean is: If we are going to write a self-fulfilling prophecy, it might as well be awesome.

One time I wondered why people (my friends) don't post names, *like mine*, to their blogs.

Clearly I would have the idea in discussion. I would lead them to the idea that they were blogging about. They would then blog the idea that we talked about without citing me.

One reason that they were doing this is-was obviously selfish. They were-are doing it because they want to look like they had all these ideas, just for you the reader, but they invented them and had them by themselves.

This might compound with the fact that during conversation, it is a little more difficult to tell the synthesis of ideas (who had the ideas first) and it's even harder in retrospect to consider who had the idea first.

Another reason why they might not put my name or your name in their blog is because of real shyness and perceived shyness.

One person might be shy, and the blogger would account for this by not putting her name in. Another time the blogger might perceive that the person with the idea was shy and not write the idea person in.

I have been talking about Love these days with my friends and family. Here's a citation, my friend Joe said, "You could talk for hours and hours about what love is." He did not say this ironically or cynically. It was a kind statement of fact.

Gandhi said that we should use soul force and nonviolence to change the world. he said that we do not notice soul force, when things are going right in the world, because we usually notice when things are going wrong. In psychology this is called the representativeness heuristic, or the convenience heuristic, or the availability heuristic.

Love is a force, and in philosophy it is ever-abundent because it is to some extent one of the Fundamentals.

One is meaning. Another one is purpose. Another one is skepticism.

But against God, I think we have a more concrete knowledge of what love is. God is a little bit more intangible.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

love
AC_FL_RunContent = 0;
var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://sp.ask.com/dictstatic/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fsp.ask.com%2Fdictstatic%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FL03%2FL0390900.mp3&clkLogProxyUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fwhatzup.html&t=a&d=d&s=di&c=a&ti=1&ai=51359&l=dir&o=0&sv=00000000&ip=9801bdcd&u=audio"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();
/lʌv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [luhv] Show IPA noun, verb, loved, lov⋅ing.
Use love in a Sentence
See web results for love
See images of love
–noun
1.
a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.
2.
a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.
3.
sexual passion or desire.
4.
a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.
5.
(used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?
6.
a love affair; an intensely amorous incident; amour.
7.
sexual intercourse; copulation.
8.
(initial capital letter) a personification of sexual affection, as Eros or Cupid.
9.
affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.
10.
strong predilection, enthusiasm, or liking for anything: her love of books.
11.
the object or thing so liked: The theater was her great love.
12.
the benevolent affection of God for His creatures, or the reverent affection due from them to God.
13.
Chiefly Tennis. a score of zero; nothing.
14.
a word formerly used in communications to represent the letter L.
–verb (used with object)
15.
to have love or affection for: All her pupils love her.
16.
to have a profoundly tender, passionate affection for (another person).
17.
to have a strong liking for; take great pleasure in: to love music.
18.
to need or require; benefit greatly from: Plants love sunlight.
19.
to embrace and kiss (someone), as a lover.
20.
to have sexual intercourse with.
–verb (used without object)
21.
to have love or affection for another person; be in love.—Verb phrase
22.
love up, to hug and cuddle: She loves him up every chance she gets. —Idioms
23.
for love,
a.
out of affection or liking; for pleasure.
b.
without compensation; gratuitously: He took care of the poor for love.
24.
for the love of, in consideration of; for the sake of: For the love of mercy, stop that noise.
25.
in love, infused with or feeling deep affection or passion: a youth always in love.
26.
in love with, feeling deep affection or passion for (a person, idea, occupation, etc.); enamored of: in love with the girl next door; in love with one's work.
27.
make love,
a.
to embrace and kiss as lovers.
b.
to engage in sexual activity.
28.
no love lost, dislike; animosity: There was no love lost between the two brothers.
Origin: bef. 900; (n.) ME; OE lufu, c. OFris luve, OHG luba, Goth lubō; (v.) ME lov(i)en, OE lufian; c. OFris luvia, OHG lubōn to love, L lubēre (later libēre) to be pleasing; akin to lief
Synonyms:1. tenderness, fondness, predilection, warmth, passion, adoration. 1, 2. Love, affection, devotion all mean a deep and enduring emotional regard, usually for another person. Love may apply to various kinds of regard: the charity of the Creator, reverent adoration toward God or toward a person, the relation of parent and child, the regard of friends for each other, romantic feelings for another person, etc. Affection is a fondness for others that is enduring and tender, but calm. Devotion is an intense love and steadfast, enduring loyalty to a person; it may also imply consecration to a cause. 2. liking, inclination, regard, friendliness. 15. like. 16. adore, adulate, worship.
Antonyms:1, 2. hatred, dislike. 15, 16. detest, hate.

Technician Portfolio 19: Successful studying

2009-10-23T07:57:00.000-07:00

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/three-takes-on-successful-studying-1.2025890#

Three takes on successful studying
By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Published: Sunday, October 18, 2009
Updated: Sunday, October 18, 2009

© 2009 NCSU Student Media
There are courses and books available at the library that can help us work toward successful studying.
One of Richard Palmer's tips from “Studying for Success” is to study in 35-minute blocks with five or ten minute breaks in between. This will keep your focus up. If you can focus for longer than that, you can and should. But forcing yourself to focus when your brain cannot is counterproductive.
Another tip from the same author is to have fun. If you dig into a project, dig into studying; what makes it easy is what makes it fun. This is difficult to break into because it is almost taboo to say that people have fun with what they’re doing, what their majors are. I suspect this is because people get jealous of each other.
The text “Introduction to Industrial/Organizational Psychology” by Ronald Riggio gives six relevant motivation techniques. The book is the course text for the self-titled class taught by Professor Adam Meade. The techniques are Reinforcement Theory, Goal-Setting Theory, Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, the Job Characteristics Model, Equity Theory and Expectancy Theory.
Some very abbreviated definitions: Reinforcement Theory states humans need to recognize rewards and consequences for their work. Goal-Setting Theory states that people will work toward goals that they set for themselves, but the goals cannot be too hard or too easy.
Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory recommends getting things that bring satisfaction (motivators) and having things that make work unappetizing by their absence (hygienes). I think in this case a motivator would be a good grade, whereas a hygiene would be the absence of reward criteria. My relevant advice about the Job Characteristics Model is to set up courses to meet your needs for motivating yourself. For example, if your professor does not offer feedback, consider going to the tutoring centers to get reliable feedback.
Equity Theory states people are motivated by circumstances. If something does not have equity, it is unequal. People are motivated to maintain feelings of equity. For example, if you view school as an incredible gift, you might work harder to show that you are worth such a gift.
Expectancy is the “perceived relationship between the individual's effort and performance of a behavior.” Riggio then writes, “Given what you know about your own abilities, study habits, and effort, what is the probability that you will actually be able to achieve the required grades? Here you might consider your willingness to sacrifice some of your social life to study more, as well as considering your past academic performance... individuals unwilling to expend the time and energy, motivation will be much less.”
For a last text,” Keys to College Studying” by Carol Carter, Joyce Bishop and Sarah Lyman Kravits, recommend these tips to get motivated for studying: spend time reflecting on why your goal is meaningful to you; make a decision to take one step toward your goal; examine and deal with your obstacles; and begin or begin again.
I understand these last authors as stating that simply starting to study and being in the act of studying are self-motivating. Forming mental maxims, what these authors call “commitments,” establishes rules to mind, which minds then follow. In other words, setting up the mindset to do work welcomes the task of doing work.
These last authors also point out that one Chinese word for “chaos” is the same as “opportunity.” The authors wrote that the “character communicates the belief that every challenging, chaotic, and demanding situation in life also presents an opportunity.” This word reminds us that we need to challenge ourselves in order to face opportunities, and that in fact, they might be one in the same.

Comic Book Stories 2: The Hobgoblin, and a Discussion of Ugly Truth

2009-10-16T00:10:00.000-07:00

Okay, so the main villains of the Spiderman series are not as well known as Batman or Superman villains, but they are just as compelling.

Facadesaside has talked about the nature of comic book supervillains as they are created parallel, opposites of their corresponding superheroes.

In literature, we call these characters foils, which are defined as characters who reveal the main character.

So for example, when a main character gets a glass of water from a servant, the interaction shows the protagonist's characteristic of getting water from a servant.

We just learned some Hegelian dialectic in class about the master-servant relationship, which in turn would have ramifications in Nietzche and Karl Marx, and Hegelian dialectic is looking sort of familiar with this particular example. I've wondered about the dual nature of supervillain-superhero relationships. Actually, as do they. There is a cliche scene where the hero and the villain look at each other and tell each other about how similar they are (2 come to mind very very easily: Austin Powers, where Mike Myers was satirizing the cliche scene by playing both the hero and the villain; and also Green Lantern's Burning in Effigy Comicbook arc, way way back when it was written by Ron Marz). In this way, the superhero is the master and the supervillain is the servant. But let's get back to the master-servant relationship when I understand it better, and I have more to say on it.

One of Spiderman's greatest villains is the Green Goblin, immortalized by like 4 or 5 generations of different alias characters (like Norman Osbourne, and then his son, and so on), including a short lived comic book series about a superhero version of the Green Goblin.

Q: How does the Facadesaside villain formula work for the Green Goblin (Parallel and Opposite to the Superhero)?

A: Green Goblin's most well-known alter ego is Norman Osbourne. He is a mad scientist, where Peter Parker (Spiderman) is a sane scientist. Goblin is a materialist and wants to be rich, Parker is poor and wants to get through college. Goblin-Osbourne has a frustrated and sadistic humor where Parker has a light hearted and pragmatic sense of humor. Spiderman uses simple tools (webbing) and simple reasoning where Goblin uses complex tools (goblin glider: a machine, and bombs) and convoluted reasoning.

One of the fascinating incarnations of the Green Goblin is the Hobgoblin, which is obviously just a variation on the Green Goblin character and his aliases. In fact, I think in the comics there was actually a plot where the illusion-revealed at the end of the story arc was that instead of the Green Goblin, it was the Hobgoblin who was to blame. (works cited: I of course got most of my information from the television series, and not the comic books).

So as I was foreshadowing-implying, I argue that Hobgoblin's major character traits are negligible. Instead of a mad military scientist like Norman Osborne, Hobgoblin is a computer scientist.

The relevance to the blog is that Hobgoblin varies from Norman Osborne in one respect: Hobgoblin is not wearing a mask where Norman Osborne is. The ugly mask he wears is his face, a victim of acid or whatever plot twist they put in there.

This seems like a twist on the Abraham Lincoln joke. The Lincoln joke is, "If I had two faces, why would I be wearing this one?"

I hypothesize, and again I haven't read a lot of the spiderman comics, but I think that this would make the character's actions in the comic books to be more crazy. Writers would write the character necessarily as having less to lose than the Green Goblin character. There is no alias, here.

It's a commentary on ugly truth.

Bonus Facadesaside: Smurf story and the Problem with Beautiful Truth

There's an episode of the smurfs where they are trying to imitate Papa Smurf all day.

When they were trying to cure one of the sick smurfs, who had the flu, they feed him some nasty onion-and-gross-foods soup. They said, "It smells so bad, it must be healthy."

And Keats wrote, "truth is beauty, beauty is truth."

The Hobgoblin character represents when truth is ugly, and there's enough of a mystery revealed problem that we can acknowledge it as a common mistake.

I have the problem of, after finding out that the uglier thing is true, romanticizing the ugly thing. For example, I like spiders, and although they are ugly to most people (perhaps they are objectively ugly?), I have conditioned myself to like them better by romanticizing how victimized and misunderstood they are.

I think that we 1) have wishful thinking that what is true is beautiful, 2) have conditioning that says that what is beautiful is true, and 3) have a pragmatic standpoint of what is true is useful (to humans).

Further explanation of 3): so when we notice that something is true or beautiful to us, we do some existentialism where we create or created that truthfulness. Wild stuff!!!

What is the nature of this problem?
How can we avoid it?
How is this different from the book by its cover and iceberg facadesaside?

2009-10-12T19:36:00.000-07:00

No one's laughing at God

No one's laughing at God

No one's laughing at God

we're all laughing with God

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rov3pV9PsRI

Some Bible Stories about Jacob the Patriarch

2009-10-12T19:07:00.000-07:00

In Genesis (Bible Book: meaning Beginning), there's the third Father (Patriarch) of the Israelites, the guy's name is Jacob.

1. Jacob was born unto Isaac with his brother Esau. At the last second before their birth, Esau grabs Jacob by the heel and comes out first. Esau then has the birthright. The name Jacob in name books sometimes reads, "held by the heel."

Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain

2. Jacob is his mother's favorite son, while Esau is his father's favorite. One is a farmer and one is a herder, but I always forget who is who. The mother dresses Jacob in sheep's clothing in order to seem hairy like Esau, and on Isaac's dying day, he feels Jacob's clothed arms and blesses the boy. Therefore another meaning of Jacob is, "The supplanter," because he supplanted his brother. Another meaning of Jacob is, "the Trickster."

Me: Moral meaning of this story is uncertain

3. Jacob somehow gets exiled and has to sleep in the desert. He sleeps on a rock in the desert, and in some kind of pneumonia-and-peyote acid trip, dreams about angels in heaven climbing a ladder. He sees them move up and down the ladder, working in heaven and earth. I cannot remember if he went up there with him. One of the meanings of Jacob is not, however, break on through to the other side.

Me: Moral meaning of this story is that Jacob saw angels work on heaven and earth.

4. Jacob works for Laban the herder for a long time. Being blessed by God, Jacob works really hard. Jacob asks Laban to marry his daughter Rachel (ask.com says Hebrew meaning is Little lamb or purity). Laban says okay, but you got to work for 7 years for me. Jacob works for 7 whole years. At the wedding, Laban veils his other daughter Leah (Hebrew meaning: weary) and Jacob marries her by accident. Without getting frustrated in the least (because, hey) Jacob works another 7 years and marries Rachel.

Me: Moral meaning of this story is to keep working and not complain too much.

5. While on his journeys, Jacob wrestles with an Angel, and at the end of the night he has a new name, Israel. Everybody pretty much understands this to mean that Jacob wrestled with God, but some people say it wasn't Jacob who wrestles with God, but rather Israel who does.

Me: Moral meaning is that the wrestling match itself is good, because such a battle already posits the existence of a God to wrestle with.

Me on another possible meaning: This is part of the reason for the naming of Israel the country (formally Canaan, Palestine, and different names through time). There was a fierce transgression and people came out differently. In this case, however, the fierce wrestling match was more like the Holocaust. Obviously there's a whole lot more to write here that I'm not getting at.

6. After establishing a farm and a big, big family with all kinds of kids, the baby of the family, Joseph is kidnapped (sold by his older brothers?) to Egypt. Joseph becomes royalty in Egypt. Jacob moves the farm and the big, big family down to Egypt. Generations later, the Jews become slaves of Egypt, and the rest is in another blog post.

Me: Moral meaning is to have a good life.

Wikipedia says that where Abraham had a steady climb, and Isaac had a steady climb, Jacob has more of a rocky transgression, including an emigration from the Holy Land. In this way Jacob represents and foreshadows the Diaspora of the Jews. Diaspora means the spreading out of the Jews.

Facade Saccade

2009-10-12T18:49:00.000-07:00

The saccade in psychology is the break between fixation points for sight.

For example, for reading, we can only read about 7 letters at a time. This is different for different languages, for example, Hebrew reads left to right, and Chinese characters have more information per character.

Take a load off!

Take off your shoes and relax your socks!

So I read Margaret Gullan-Whur's Within Reason, the Life of Spinoza, and in it there's a group of scholars who say, "Nil Volentibus Arduum."

This phrase is Latin and it means, "Nothing is Difficult for those who Show Will." Broken down, for those who care, it's Nil = Nothing, Volentibus = those who show will, and Arduum = which I'm guessing is like Arduous.

Now, with our philosophical tool of application, wouldn't it be cool if we created the world?

When I was younger my Dad used to talk about Lucid Dreaming, before or around the time when he would tell me stories before bed. The coolest part about these stories was that he would make them up on the spot. There was a new one, every night.

The answer that my dad gave was this: In a dream, you can do anything. You can fly. That was the big one that he posited, that I remember. He must have said something.

The question is: What could you do if you knew you were dreaming?

Now, let's go from a conservative standpoint of reality (as in, not asking too much of reality. Reality here being universal, objective, the most acceptable definition of reality possible; the most agreed-upon between a whole bunch of people).

In this case, it is still powerful to ask what you could do if you had the ability to do what you would want.

That was a great justification when I was doing the baloney of Logic 335. It's not always the point to argue for the existence of flight so much as what would we do if we were able to fly.

You might remember that until recent times, people did not have the ability to fly. Mechanical, analogue miracles (conservative in the sense that they do not bend the laws of reality), happen. No one questions the miracles of flight, say, the miracles of the Civil Rights Movement, or the miracles of modern technology.

So that's our conservative standpoint. We could apply this to other situations. Kant believed it was possible and necessary to postulate God and Free Will. Free Will and God come in when a person looks like she has no other options.

Message to everyone: I think We could postulate Love if we were not sure of its existence.

I think this is one place where Fichte comes in, as a predecessor to Existentialism (the philosophy of radical freedom, and the individual's creation of her reality).

So here's some pocket philosophy: you're living the dream. You're creating reality. You can fly (in a plane), you can postulate your own rules.

Question: Now what? Now what? Now what?

Portfolio 19 or 20

2009-10-06T06:20:00.001-07:00

http://www.technicianonline.com/viewpoint/now-rally-for-integration-1.1940059

Now, rally for integration

By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article

Published: Monday, October 5, 2009

Updated: Monday, October 5, 2009

In a controversial opinion editorial in the April 26 edition of “The New York Times,” a Columbia University religion professor wrote, “End the University as We Know it.” The author said that graduate education is the Detroit of higher learning. It exclaimed the systematic abuse of graduate students and the corruption of tenured professors, but above all the lack of basic integration between departments, students and faculty.

Because I am a philosophy major, I look to our own philosophy department as both the symbol of lack of integration and a symbol of positive integration.

For example, the philosophy department has integrated a mathematics and computer science initiative based on argumentation and logic. In order to build and maintain this initiative, the department works with the math and computer science departments, as well as GlaxoSmithKline’s research department. Last year, the first graduate of the major, Melissa Schumacher, was accepted into the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s ultra-competitive language program.

In parallel, the philosophy department has integrated a class on biological ethics from the biology department. Two professors of the philosophy department are active in the Slow Food Club, an agricultural club devoted to healthier and ethically produced food for campus.

The department is less connected in any number of respects. But this seems counterintuitive considering that philosophy exists both as a system of existence in and of itself and as the further masterful consideration of any field. For example, there are certainly academic moral arguments to be made about last years’ water shortage or the impending shutdown of the Natural Resources Library.

Perhaps you have read any number of Paul McCauley’s scathing attacks of the University’s bureaucracy, or my attack on the Atrium. Any well-intended critic of the school or its parts is really encouraging the betterment of material and mental gains.

The first problem is that of facts and changes that we make in our lives. Rally4Tally is a perfect example of this. We know the exact cost of what we voted for or against yesterday.
We know approximately how much work we do, how much work we need to do, and how much work we should but are not doing. We notice when our football team wins or loses. We notice when our friends are working hard enough that they show that they are happy or depressed. People who have a general comfort about their lives, the people who are happy, are able to work harder than those who are depressed.

To the extent that this student body battles factual problems that are solved by hands-on means, columnists tell students again and again to physically build this school. Every column is an invitation to enrich this school: shacking up at Shack-a-Thon, doing your homework to the best of your ability, talking to Greek Life, talking to diversity programs, volunteering through clubs and organizations, meeting with professors outside of class and generally calming down the very human chemicals that make these processes difficult and exciting the passions that make these challenges easy.

The second problem is that of consciousness. If we do not know that the school is great, we cannot tell anyone how great the school is. If we do not know that some departments are isolated, we cannot think to integrate them.

Dumbo: wikipedia article, elaboration and discussion

2009-10-04T11:53:00.000-07:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumbo

Facadesaside: Life changing moments?

2009-10-04T11:45:00.000-07:00

This blog went over life changing moments as perhaps philosophically dubious or empirically dubious.

The case seems radically similar to the problem of contingent truths.

One only knows about change in her life because of difference between similarities.

We believe in contingent truths because everything looks the same.

So when you go into a forest and all of the trees look the same, you believe that you have a choice to cut down a tree between any tree in the forest.

If you went into a "forest" of one tree, you would of course be limited to that one tree.

Okay for option three, put all of your trees back. But this time, recognize the fact that they all look different. One is knotty and therefore impossible to use for chopping wood. One is just a baby tree and should not be cut down. Some wood is better for fire-building than others. It starts to look more and more like the second option more than the first. You are limited after all.

This is merely a thought experiment to show that contingency is a difficult concept.

Applied to our initial topic, this is even more difficult. At what point is something life changing? If your life is necessitated as opposed to contingent, every little thing counts.

Kant to Skeptics: Drop Dead

2009-10-04T09:27:00.000-07:00

I Kant on Knowledge

Kant to Skeptics: Drop Dead

The Kantian Copernican Revolution was that reality has to conform to minds, and minds do not have to conform to reality.

Kant also divides reality into phenomenal and noumenal. Phenomenal is experience and potential experience, noumenal is things in themselves.

He makes a move like time and space are transcendentally ideal. This means that time and space are objective and absolutely outside of minds, and so are objectively real. This also means that they are subjectively real, they exist in minds.

He makes a move from mathematical, without-experience truths, such as the physical laws of nature (e=mc squared, rules of logic, and rules of math) and with-experience truths, such as natural facts (anything from experience, like looking out the window or having an apple fall on your head).

He makes a move from what can be known from analysis of definitions (analytic truths) and what comes from our minds (what he calls synthesis).

He then states that the greatest information about our worlds is what we supply from our minds' without-experience knowledge. These is synthetic, a priori truth.

The synthesis comes from a simultaneously controversial (because its in our brains only) and modest (well, is the right to substance that big of a deal?) ownership of each mind of a series of Categories. To basically everyone, the Categories are very controversial because they come from our individual brains. To me, they seem pretty modest because they are stuff like the ability to differentiate one thing from a whole bunch of things.

Space and time introduce this argument because they are a premise to step on. All of this happens in our conceptions of space, which are subjective, but exist necessarily in the world.

II Morality

Kant then takes all of these important lessons and applies them to Morality.

The Categorical Imperative says that every means should be treated as an end in itself.

That is, the ends never justifies dubious means.

This is a swell answer to promised Utopias achieved from heinous means.

So the Holocaust is right out because the means do not justify the ends.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is not just above the (obvious) abolition of the Holocaust.

The CI is above all consequences!

But more on this later.

Tobias Wolff on Lying

2009-10-01T21:35:00.001-07:00

To read a collection of Wolff's work that spans the years is to realize that he is obsessed with the act of lying. Asked in an interview why so many of his characters lie, Wolff replied, "The world is not enough, maybe? … To lie is to say the thing that is not, so there's obviously an unhappiness with what is, a discontent." A recent outbreak of faked memoirs has set off a storm of outraged pontification about why people pass off false histories as their own, so it's satisfying to read about liars who lie for interesting reasons rather than the usual despicable ones. Wolff is, in fact, a genius at locating the truths revealed by lies—the ancient and holy tongues, you might say, the otherwise inexpressible inner realities that lies give voice.

From the slate article:

http://www.slate.com/id/2186951/

Which I found on the anthology page I posted before this.

Slate articles about Lies

2009-10-01T21:33:00.001-07:00

http://www.slate.com/id/2229120/

Wes Anderson, L. Frank Baum, and the American Humbug

2009-09-26T20:53:00.000-07:00

Cat Steven Songs, influence of Harold and Maude.
His films employ a similar visual style, primarily through the use of vivid primary colors. He is known for deliberate, methodical cinematography, using 90 degree camera angles, parallel and perpendicular arrangement of forms, frequent use of symmetry, close-ups, quick pans, and slow motion shots.
Wes Anderson is known for making independent-type stylistic films that mix poignancy and dry humor. Examples of his humor include malapropism and understatement.
All of Anderson's films utilize the font Futura Bold in either the opening credits, title sequences or closing credits and is also displayed in other printed materials used throughout his films. Each film also uses Futura Bold to display the main closing credits in a particular format where the first name is displayed in a title case and the last name is displayed in all caps (except The Darjeeling Limited which uses capitals for full names).
He often uses folk and early rock as the background music in scenes.
His often damaged characters are viewed in a compassionate light.
His main characters frequently come from families with money (Anthony "never worked a day in his life" in Bottle Rocket, Blume's multimillion dollar business in Rushmore, the elaborate townhouse in The Royal Tenenbaums and the family inheritance in The Darjeeling Limited).
By contrast, each movie has minor characters who are working class (such as the housekeeper Inez in Bottle Rocket and personal assistant Pagoda in The Royal Tenenbaums)
About his American Express commercial, Anderson states that his films, "point out the beauty in flaws and vice versa."
The depiction of escapism and companionship through chemicals seems to be one of his trademarks also. In each of his films, one or more of the main characters smokes cigarettes or marijuana, excessively drinks, takes pills, etc. To accompany the cigarettes in his films he also features Zippo lighters prominently; from Dignan in Bottle Rocket lighting firecrackers to Raleigh St. Clair in The Royal Tenenbaums. Additionally, his films often feature a heavy-smoking female character.
A recurring character in Anderson's films is a respected middle aged male who is essentially a fraud.
All of Anderson's films, with the exception of The Darjeeling Limited, end with slow motion sequences - although The Darjeeling Limited's antepenultimate shot is in slow motion.
A recurring plot point featured in his three latest films is the reunion of family members.
Furthermore, almost every Wes Anderson movie contains a shot of one or more characters under water.
A shot of a character's point of view is usually included, for example the opening to The Royal Tenenbaums or a person walking with their feet visible while reading a card, which can be seen in The Darjeeling Limited as the brothers examine their itinerary.

From the 9-26-09 reading of the wikipedia article on Wes Anderson, the director of The Royal Tenenbaums and Rushmore.

http://www.slate.com/id/2228592/

Here's a good bio-article about L. Frank Baum, the creator of the Wizard of Oz,

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is a traditional fairy tale to which Baum added a peculiarly American twist: the humbug. In addition to the usual talking animals, evil witches, scary forest, and challenges to be overcome, Oz has at its core a fraud. The Wizard is not a real wizard, but a lost American balloonist who uses stage tricks—hanging a disembodied head by a wire, for example—to fool people into thinking he is powerful. Deploying spectacle to impress his guests, he sends Dorothy and her companions to kill the Wicked Witch of the West (who has real magic powers). When they return, successful, they discover the truth: Toto, scared by Oz's roar, tips over a screen the Wizard hides behind. There stands "a little old man, with a bald head and a wrinkled face." He pleads, "… don't strike me—please don't. … I'll do anything you want me to. … I'm just a common man." "You're more than that," retorts the Scarecrow. "You're a humbug."

Humbug is bullshit.

The lovable fraud, according to the Slate article, and collated with evidence from my own experience, is an american fairytale.

Some implications and thoughts on this later.

Technician Portfolio 17: LSAT editorial

2009-09-24T20:02:00.000-07:00

Time to get testy with the LSAT

By Jake Goldbas, Staff Columnist

Print this article

Published: Thursday, September 24, 2009

Updated: Thursday, September 24, 2009

Saturday marks the end of a great labor of love for students like me who will take the Law School Admissions Test.

I first started preparing for the LSAT by accident. In Professor Barbara Levenbook's Philosophy of Ethics in Law class, the multiple-choice sections are similar to some of the questions on the LSAT. I also learned some fundamental concepts in the difficult Logic-Mathematics 335 course with Professor David Auerbach (engineering and computer science majors would recognize mathematical logic, as it is used in discreet math and basic computing programs).

Starting this past May, I have worked by myself, with an LSAT class, with friends, with my parents, after drinking coffee, after waking up early in the morning, late at night, after going to work for a full day, after going to school for a whole day, when I wanted to and when I did not want to.

This week, on Tuesday night, after working for many hours on my preparation, I dreamt about taking the test and getting a great score. It was a good dream, however, it still felt a little weird when I woke up the next morning and realized I had dreamt about the LSAT.

The test consists of six half-hour sections. Put those together, with directions read out loud and a ten-minute break, and the whole process is about five hours. The six sections are two argument sections, called logical reasoning; a mathematical logic-puzzle section, called logic games; a reading comprehension section; a writing sample; and a repeat of any of the three major categories. This last “experimental section” is not scored. I have, however, taken practice tests where I was so sure that the questions were too weird to be part of the ordinary test only to find out that in fact it was really part of the test, thus losing me points. The writing section is not part of the greater score of the test, but is sent out with the scores in order to show Law Schools that applicants can string cogent arguments together. The test is graded on a 120 to 180 point-scale.

The LSAT is, in many respects, similar to the Standardized Academics Test (SAT). The LSAT is similar to the SAT in that the two are long, multiple-choice based tests, which also have reading comprehension sections. The tests both have writing samples that are ranked outside of the test, and for entrance into higher-level academia. Obscure ivory-tower boards govern both: The College Board Governs the SAT and the Law School Admissions Council (LSAC) governs the LSAT. Because of their simultaneous grip on the fate of my life and their complete absence in any material sense except for tests on test-days, I get the eerie feeling that these are ghostly organizations that sort of haunt around and wait until they can judge me for something. When has anyone ever met these people? Why should these distant ghosts make any sort of legitimate calls about peoples' lives?

Distinctly contrasting with this ghost-fog is the Kaplan Test Preparation Company, from which I took an enjoyable class. Fortunately, I had a great instructor in Jenny St. Clair, a local attorney who works with Kaplan for LSAT preparation. The comprehensive course has showed me the ins and outs of the test and given me a big confidence boost that I will perform well.

If you are thinking about law school in the future, I urge you to look at an LSAT as soon as possible. They are available online, but better yet, I urge you to introduce yourself as soon as possible to Mary-Anne Tetro, director for pre-law services at N.C. State. I recommend taking Dr. Levenbook's Philosophy of Ethics in Law Class and taking the Logic 225 course.

For those of us taking the test on Saturday, good luck.

Annie Dillard's About Eskimos

2009-09-24T19:45:00.000-07:00

Eskimos, toothless,
on the move, practice
cruelty to animals;

mend traces; build
ice houses, warm,
where warm air rises.

On the move, it is hard.
Many Eskimos starve.
Those who live, move.

On clear days, large mammals
on the move, leave trails
floating, of mammal breath.

Watch the trails, watch
your step. Chew, if you must,
quietly. You can catch

an Eskimo: File your teeth.
Mark his path. If you see an
igloo, hold your breath.

Facade it until you want it

2009-09-23T20:10:00.000-07:00

Now you're out of time and then what?

I keep thinking in my head: and then what? And then what?

And then what?

Rainer Maria Rilke told me to

"Fling the nothing that you are grasping
out into the spaces we breathe.
Maybe the birds will feel in their flight
how the air has expanded."

One of Gretchen Rubin's tips is to act the way you want to feel, and let your body and mind pick up the slack, so to speak. So it follows that if you want to feel happy, act like you are happy. Obviously it's not always that simple. I agree with Rubin that sometimes in some instances it is.

The reason that people are able to placebo-affect themselves is because the placebo effect can work. This seems circular but maybe there's some synthetic a priori truth to the bit.

Trent Reznor has this one song called "1,000,000" where he says that he feels a million miles a way, he doesn't feel anything at all.

The answer is that quality of life depends on knowledge. Knowledge depends both on exploration and discovery by oneself, and also the connection with one's surroundings and environment.

Continue to be excited. Get other people excited. Somehow you have to excite yourself into exciting yourself even more. The joy that you have can create more joy, the work that you do can create better quality and quantity.

Fake it 'till you make it

2009-09-23T19:58:00.000-07:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxqBGUIjMFk

When she goes, shes gone.
If she stays, she stays here.
The girl does what she wants to do.
She knows what she wants to do.
And I know Im fakin it,
Im not really makin it.

Im such a dubious soul,
And a walk in the garden
Wears me down.
Tangled in the fallen vines,
Pickin up the punch lines,
Ive just been fakin it,
Not really makin it.

Is there any danger?
No, no, not really.
Just lean on me.
Takin time to treat
Your friendly neighbors honestly.
Ive just been fakin it,
Im not really makin it.
This feeling of fakin it--
I still havent shaken it.

Prior to this lifetime
I surely was a tailor.
(good morning, mr. leitch.
Have you had a busy day? )
I own the tailors face and hands.
I am the tailors face and hands and
I know Im fakin it,
Im not really makin it.
This feeling of fakin it--
I still havent shaken it.

Some typed up Descartes - Discourse on Method Part 1

2009-09-23T19:38:00.000-07:00

[Author's Preface]

If this discourse seems too long to be read at one time, it may be divided into six parts. In the first part, you will find various considerations concerning the sciences' in the second part, the chief rules of the method which the author has sought' in the third part, some of the rules of morality which he has derived from this method;in the fourth part, the arguments by which he proves the existence of God and the human soul, which are the foundations of his metaphysics; in the fifth part, the order of the questions in physics that he has investigated, and particularly the explanation of the movement of the heart and of other difficulties that pertain to medicine., as well as the difference between our soul and that of beasts; and in the final part, what things the author believes are required in order to advance further in the investigation of nature than the author has done, and what reasons have made him write.

Part One

Good sense is the best distributed thing in the world, for everyone thinks himself to be so well endowed with it that even those who are the most difficulty to please in everything else are not at all wont to desire more of it than they have. It is not likely that everyone is mistaken in this. Rather, it provides evidence that the power of judging well and of distinguishing the true from the false (whcih is, proerly speaking, what people call "good sense" or "reason") is naturally equal in all men, and that the diversity of our opinions does not arise from the fact that some people are more reasonalbe than others, but solely from the fact that we lead our thougts along different paths and do not take the same thigns into consideration. For it is not enough to have a good mind; the main thing is to apply it well. The greatest souls are capable of the greatest vices as well as of the greatest virtues. And those who proceed only very slowly can make much greater progress, provided they always follow the right path, than do those who hurry and stray from it.

For myself, I have never presumed that my mind was in any respect more perfect than that of ordinary men. In fact, I ( have often desired to have as wuick a wit, or as keen and distinct an imagination, or as full and responsive a memory as some other people. And other than these I know of no qualities that serve in the perfecting of the mind, for as to reason or sense, inasmuch as it alone makes us men and distinguishes us form the beasts, I prefer to believe that it exists whole and entire in each of us, and in this to follow the opinion commonly held by philosophers, who say thtat there are differences of degree on ly between accidents, but not at all between forms or natures of individuals of the same species.

But I shall have no fear of saying that I htink I have been rather fortunate to have, since my youth, found myself on certain paths taht have led me to considerations and maxims from which I have formed a method by which, it seems to me, I have the means to increase my knowledge by degrees and to raise it little by little to the highest point which the mediocrity of my mind and the short duration of my life will be able to allow it to attain. For I have already reaped from it such a harvest that, although I try, in judgments I make of myself, always to lean more on the side of diffidence than of presumption, and although, looking with a philosopher's eye at the various actions and enterprises of all men, there is hardly one of them that does not seem to me vain and useless, I cannot but take immense satisfaction i nthe progress that I think I have already made in the search for truth, and I cannot but envisage such hopes for the future that if, among the occupations of men purely as men, there is one that is solidly good and imprtant, I dare to believe that it is the one I have chosen.

All the same, it could be that I am mistaken, and what i take for gold and diamonds is perhaps nothing but a bit of copper and glass. I know how much we are prone to err in what affects us, and also how much the judgemnts made by our friends should be distrusted when these judgments are in our favor. But I will be very happy to show in this discourse what paths I have followed and to represent my life in it as if in a picture, so that everyone may judge it ofr himself; and that, learning from the comon response the opinions one will have of it, this may be a new means of teaching myself, which I shall add to those that i am accustomed to using.

facadesaside

Facadesaside has moved

Be Free Now

Wikipedia tells you what truth is: will you listen?

Existentialism's Demon

Some Useful Tautologies

a(a b) b (a b)(b) a b((a) (b)) (a) (a b)(b c) (a c) (a b) ((b) (a)) a (b a) (a) (a b) (a b)((a) b) b (a b)(a (b)) (a) ab a abc bc

Discussing the Last Post's Article

Barack "False Choices" Obama

Pragmatism entails Traditionalism?

More on the Philosophy of the Zodiac (Round 2)

Hope and Change: The Placebo, the American Humbug and Lacks thereof

Philosophies of the Zodiac

Beginnings and the Cosmological Argument

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation

Comic Book Philosophy (Part 3)

It's impossible

German Idealists: Georg Hegel

David Denby's Past Shock

Thing about Baby Logic

The Law of Identity and the Law of Substitution

You look good to me by Oscar Peterson

Operational Definition of Philosophy, and some problems with Simplification

Slate: Rosenbaum on how we haven't solved 3 big mysteries yet

Some more Philosphical Musings

The Objective-Subjective Nexus Infects Us

See? I told you Sarah Palin was like Lady Gaga!

A moral question: happiness or maximized utility?

Habits, Consciousness, Poetry, and streaming consciousness between it all

Truth Musings

Lady Gaga, Sarah Palin, and the Lovable Exorcism of Postmodernism

In Groups and Out Groups

More on the Ascetic Life

Diogenes, various philosophers, and the Ascetic Life

Essay One for Hi 264

Feuerbach Paper 11-19

More Recapping!

Thinking about Thinking and Thinking Pleasant Thoughts

Things to think about

Goldschneider's Path for me

Portfolio 23: Use the Wolfprowl for the Technician Newspaper

Some notes on writing

The first outraged response (is really just lukewarm?)

"Pop's Most pretentious Starlet" Article from Slate

Wray Herbert's Why We Procrastinate and how to Stop

Wray Herbert

The Lure of Tomorrow

New research on why we procrastinate and what we can do to follow through on at least some of those plans for the new year.

GSYBE's Moya

Some thoughts on thought terminating cliche's

Thought Terminating Cliche

Critique Impure Reasoning

Some of the SKS speaker's pros and cons

Self-Knowledge Symposium meeting tonight

Portfolio 20 or 21: Sex and Individuality

Don't let sex crowd out individuality

Comments

Portfolio 23: The Story of DH Hill and Me

The story of D.H. Hill and me

Comments

Thoughts on purpose

Performative Contradiction

The Weakerthans song: "Aside"

Is this an existential Presidency?

"Poverty Porn" and Some thoughts; especially in light of some previous discussions

Some morning routine

Portfolio 22: Studying for Life Purpose

Studying for a life purpose

Comments

Against Pretense = Facadesaside

pre⋅tense

Some Aretha Franklin: Don't play that song for me (You Lied)

4 Brand Spanking new fields for Philosophy

Some Concrete Definitions of Philosophy

Some correspondence with Rick

Notes on Scandal 3, "Deserving it" 2

Some more postmodernism

Notes on a Scandal Part 2

Notes on a scandal

When you do something for a while and then it turns out to be fun

a(a b) b

(a b)(b) a

b((a) (b)) (a)

(a b)(b c) (a c)

(a b) ((b) (a))

a (b a)

(a) (a b)

(a b)((a) b) b

(a b)(a (b)) (a)

ab a

abc bc