Beyond Thunderdome - Genu(re)flections

Yes, we kant. Pt. 2

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:38:51 GMT

"That the step to competence is held to be very dangerous by the far greater portion of mankind (and by the entire fair sex)* - quite apart from its being arduous is seen to by those guardians who have so kindly assumed superintendence over them. After the guardians have first made their domestic cattle dumb and have made sure that these placid creatures will not dare take a single step without the harness of the cart to which they are tethered, the guardians then show them the danger which threatens if they try to go alone. Actually, however, this danger is not so great, for by falling a few times they would finally learn to walk alone. But an example of this failure makes them timid and ordinarily frightens them away from all further trials."
- Immanuel Kant, "What is Enlightenment"

*shame on you, Kant.

Yes, we kant.

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:29:43 GMT

"Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction, nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay* - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me."

- Immanuel Kant, from "What is Enlightenment?"

*or, at least, if someone can pay

Unconditional Love an Oxymoron?

Sat, 24 Oct 2009 19:44:05 GMT

I read an exchange between a husband and wife in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. The wife originally loved the man for what she perceived was his heroism, courage, etc. Turns out he's a worthless coward, always blaming luck, other people, etc.

At a moment of revelation in which she discovers this about him, she asks him what he wants from her. He says simply, "To love me."

She responds that she had always told him why she had loved him, because of his courage, etc., and this had always angered him (because he was not courageous, etc.). So, for what was she to love him?

He said, "Not to love me for anything. But to love me simply for myself. Not for my mind, my body, my actions, my qualities, or anything like that. Just for myself."

She said, "But then what are you?"

Interpretation

Thu, 22 Oct 2009 19:58:55 GMT

I believe one of the main things a good society promotes is a situation in which no one need die for anything.

For a good portion of our history, one's life was in large part defined by how one died.

Perhaps Something to Remember

Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:56:11 GMT

"Forgetting is essential to action of any kind....it is altogether impossible to live at all without forgetting."
- Nietzsche (from Untimely Meditations)

The Offensive One

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:47:28 GMT

Theophrastus (a student of Aristotle) wrote the following:
"It is not difficult to define obnoxiousness: it is joking that is obvious and offensive. The obnoxious man is the sort who, when he meets respectable women, raises his cloak and exposes his genitals. In the theatre he claps after others have stopped, and hisses the actors when the others enjoy watching. When the audience is silent he rears back and belches, to make the spectators turn around. When the agora is crowded he goes to the stands for walnuts, myrtleberries, and fruits, and stands there nibbling on them while talking with the vendor. He calls out by name to someone in the crowd with whom he's not acquainted. When he sees people hurrying somewhere he tells them to wait. He goes upto a man who has lost an important case and is leaving the court, and congratulates him. He goes shopping for himself and hires flute girls, and he shows his purchases to anyone he meets and invites them to share. He stands by the barber shop or perfume seller and relates that he intends to get drunk."

If you don't agree, you're better than me.

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:43:59 GMT

I think it may be true that:

1) The unity of a society grows to the extent that there is agreement on what offends. Friendships seem to grow in the same way.

2) There is (almost?) nothing that is "naturally" offensive. I would suggest that God is never offended by anything (though He is saddened and angered by things).

What I mean by "to be offended": A negative reaction, that is not really moral, toward some act, and this reaction takes on a (pseudo-)moralistic sense. For example, someone is offended by someone's "sin" (might be a truly immoral act, but that doesn't much matter). The offense is the sense of being wronged by something that has no impact on you whatsoever. Someone uses foul language in front of me. I have not been wronged, but I'm offended. Or perhaps the act truly hurts you (someone kicks you in the shin), offense is the unnatural moralistic resentment (TM Nietzsche) that arises - the unadulterated reaction to being hurt would be anger or sadness. Offense carries this anger into the abstractness (infinity) of some morality that allows you to hold something against the injurer indefinitely, or until they are brought to humility before you (that is, admit that you are better than they are in some way). (I suppose this explanantion, mixed with #2, would have some annihilationist implications regarding hell...)

3) When someone is offended by something, the one who did the offensive actions is considered below the other person morally.

4) Therefore, having a reasonably united society involves a sense of collective moral superiority. (This is a basic postmodernist conclusion.)

5) Social clumsiness often involves the inability to know which things are supposed to be offensive, often acquired through a bit of honesty about oneself (i.e., realizing that you really aren't naturally offended by any of those things).

6) Those who are (self-consciously) socially clumsy (or outcast-like) are often offended by people who are offended (that is, those who are just a part of society).

7) Though #2 seems true (though there may be one thing that is naturally "offensive"...but I'm not sure), I think we are incapable of making sense of life without being offended.

Some quotes for fun

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 15:07:29 GMT

John Stuart Mill ends his "On Liberty" this way:
"The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it...a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital powr which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish."

The man from "Notes from Underground" (Dostoyevsky):
"My jokes, gentlemen, are certainly in bad taste, they are awkward, stumbling, full of self-distrust. But that, of course, is because I don't respect myself. Can a man of conscious intelligence have any self-respect to speak of?"

I knew it...

Sun, 17 May 2009 04:34:47 GMT

At least I have the survival guide...and a machete...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,952208-1,00.html

I don't even like to wear ties...they cut off blood to the brain

Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:57:19 GMT

Cool people walk slow. Especially if you have to wait on them.

Christians smile as they eagerly hear about one another's days. Or perhaps as they discuss their passage for the day.

Philosophers can only accept Christianity if it's modalistic.

Kierkegaard (or rather the character of his pseudonym) noted at the beginning of one of his books that avoiding being discussed was a blessing, lest he become a paragraph in "the system".

Confession and self-flagellation help you acquire not just your "sea legs" but also your "sea stomach" (it would be best if you didn't look out). When your legs and stomach have been properly adjusted, you may even be promoted to captain...with your own bathroom!

As we all know, being nice and being hateful are directly opposed. I hate people who are hateful. [Too obvious? How about this:] As we all know, being polite and being mean are directly opposed.

I once heard a story about a Nazi officer who, while walking, saw a young Jewish girl being dragged away and felt pity. He wrote later that he needed to strengthen his moral fortitude so that he would not be swayed by such deceptive emotions. I once, while walking, saw a minority girl who laughed happily, and I felt an overwhelming kind of joy with and for her. But I caught myself, because something seemed wrong with this empathy. You might think I'm making a comparison between myself and the Nazi officer. And that would make a lot of sense.

Note on faith, or why being smart makes you stupid

Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:59:23 GMT

There’s always a reason, a misunderstanding, a skewed perspective, a “righteous” anger, a frustration – always an argument for me to do what I will. Do I dare to confuse my will with my reasons? They are not the same thing. The best reasons do not make the best will. Goodness does not work up from reasons to will, but corruption does work it’s way down. The best reasons are corrupted by a bad will. For reasons are simply the tool of the will, seeking its own way. Reasons are helpless before the will.

So, what does it mean to be reasonable? Simply that you are better at bending the information at hand to your will. A particular conservative group puts out commercials exhorting us to “be logical” – as if that is the solution. This, rather, seems to be the perennial temptation, under the guise of either “reason” or “religion”. The latter is obvious to us modern enlightened ones. The former, though, keeps tempting us into ignorance – as if our will is made good by the application of logic and reason to the world around us. Obama declared, in allowing government support of stem cell research, that he was bringing science (that is, the most rational of human activities) back to its proper place. But this was an ethical question (whatever the answer may be) – something science can say nothing about. Reasons again. Behind this flimsy and lauded claim (that science was depreciated below it’s proper place under Bush), Obama declared his will to be properly in line with reason. But that doesn’t even make sense.

As long as the human will is bad, no reason(s) whatsoever can make us good. That was stated by Paul a long time ago in many ways, evidenced in the work of Jesus, and persistently ignored by a bunch of self-justifying humans throughout history.

Maybe this is why the most important truths are paradoxes, graspable only by faith. We can’t use reason to grab hold of them and bend them to our will. We just have to look at them in confusion, reason struggles vainly to take control, and eventually flees in exhaustion. Then our wills, having lost their hiding place behind reasons, are laid bare for all to see.

TGIF

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:04:00 GMT

Good Friday has passed and we're all saved!

Always thought it was a neat coincidence to have Good Friday only 2 days from that other holiday with the rabbits, etc.

More evidence of His concern for the people

Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:58:21 GMT

I've held back a bit on political notes lately, because frankly there's just too much (sorry if you guys like Obama) - stuff like his refusing banks that try to pay back the bailout money (and threatening them if they try to pay it back) - how else can wrest control of the economy from the private sector? - etc.

But I can't hold out too long. If only because the absurdity of the continual love and confidence in this man seems inversely proportional to his worthiness. True faith.

So, as part of the omnibus bill, part of Obama's strategy to save the U.S. economy, to get us back on track, he broke a trade treaty we had with Mexico since 1993 (Mexico = our 3rd largest trade partner). The result of breaking a trade treaty or creating tariffs, as all of history shows, is increased tariffs from the other country (that is, they respond in kind). The cost? Approximately 40,000 American jobs and increased cost in goods.

What do we get from breaking this treaty? We have managed, in order to protect American workers, to keep an average of 3 Mexican trucks off our roads (the max # of trucks would be, I believe, 96). This is a great boon, because it means that those trucks have to move cargo into American trucks at the border, and that creates American jobs. I'm guessing maybe 3 American jobs. Possibly more - heck, let's go crazy and say as much as 100 American jobs. 100 jobs saved - 40,000 jobs lost = -39,900 jobs. Obama can still say that he saved or created 100 American jobs (even if he axed 39,900).

Why did he do this? Sorry, my union friends, but he did it because the Teamsters pushed him to do it. And Obama, holding to his pledge to be concerned about the people, to avoid the political twisting that comes from lobbying, to be transparent, etc., did this because unions are big Demo supporters. 3 Mexican trucks vs. 39,900 American jobs.

Excellent work. And...who's reporting on this?

Well, found it in a couple editiorials that few will read (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=322355776985097). Our investigative media is doing an excellent job keeping the claims of our government in check (just like they did with Bush). I think they may have thrust some Freudian overtones into the phrase "penetrating reporting."

Inspiration (or why preach on Ecclesiastes?)

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 22:58:28 GMT

"...suddenly this thought crossed my mind: You must do something, but since with your limited capabilities it will be impossible to make anything easier than it has become, you must, with the same humanitarian enthusiasm as the others have, take it upon yourself to make something more difficult. This idea pleased me enormously; it also flattered me that for this effort I would be loved and respected, as much as anyone else, by the entire community. In other words, when all join together to make everything easier in every way, there remains only one possible danger, namely, the danger that the easiness would become so great that it would become all too easy. So only one lack remains, even though not yet felt, the lack of difficulty. Out of love of humankind, out of despair over my awkward predicament of having achieved nothing and of being unable to make anything easier than it had already been made, out of genuine interest in those who make everything easy, I comprehended that it was my task: to make difficulties everywhere."

-Johannes Climacus (character of Kierkegaard's in his Concluding Unscientific Postscript, Hong trans.) speaking primarily of "faith" (it's easiness)

Finally...

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 20:24:23 GMT

It's about time someone asked "the question" about all this nonsense: http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=4084409&referralPlaylistId=f909db77f0ad31bbfd35cb7e6a04f50204809c04

Of course, it had to come from a right-wing extremist.

(How did such a moron become an attorney general?)

Genius

Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:53:59 GMT

Written amidst the vulgarity and crudeness of a bathroom stall:

TOY STORY 2 WAS OK!!!

Thought Experiment (or maybe a puzzle)

Sat, 28 Mar 2009 19:52:43 GMT

(I believe this very thing happened in Texas recently) Suppose your society has had what may be the driest year on record (with all the negative consequences that relate). If it is dry until Jan. 1, it will be a new record. It is Dec. 31. Do you hope it rains today?

Perhaps your answer speaks to the impossibility of a(n?) utopia? Or (and?) our preference for that which is not embodied?

A political note inspired(?) by Nietzsche

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:41:43 GMT

The will to power becomes most powerful when present in the weak/decadent. After all, they have only their wits, no "normal" mode of power (say, money). And, of course, the one with cunning and knowledge will often bring down those with temporal power - for the possession of temporal power dulls the wits, bringing the possessors into a position of dependence upon those "normal" modes of power (like money).

The one with his wits will therefore appeal to some eternal principle to attack those with temporal power, for this is his only recourse. Of course, this would be some kind of morality. Whereas those with temporal power are only able to control in a limited way (for, by definition, their power is limited/temporal), the weak/decadent have an eternal principle and therefore seek to control in an unlimited way (for when does an eternal principle not apply?). (Note: unlimited moral power must relate to an entire way of being, rather than to a specific act. Thus, murder being illegal is, though a moral principle, not an unlimited moral principle. Rather, only a principle that categorizes certain groups of people as evil/inferior and others as good/superior is unlimited. Thus, slavery in the U.S. was defended by a principle that black people were somehow inferior to white people.)

Nietzsche claims that the nobles eventually bought into the morality of the weak, even championing it. Of course, the nice thing about this is that, because they championed an eternal idea, they could hold on to their temporal power without guilt. Just agree and give a nod to the morality, indeed even cheer it, and you are free. Like the drinking pastor, mentioned by Kierkegaard, who preached very efficaciously on behalf of prohibition, and received his payments in alcohol, the noble who hates nobility is welcomed by the weak, and even encouraged to retain his nobility.

But in this we find the danger of total slavery. For the noble who champions the hatred of nobility, not only retains his own nobility, but can bring down all other nobles (that is, those who might threaten his power). He has retained his limited power, but has also acquired the unlimited power of morality. He is not only king, but high priest. Limited slavery becomes unlimited slavery.

Surely, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but absolute power is never acquired through money or governmental office, but through the power of an eternal principle that stands on your side (thus, the First Amendment). When the general consensus is that one is defined as good by virtue of one's position/situation/race/class, and someone else is defined as bad by virtue of his/her position/situation/race/class, then we are beginning to confer unlimited (moral) power upon the "good" group (and, of course, every group needs a champion/leader). The door to unlimited slavery has opened.

Midas: "Lions must perpetually eat lambs"

Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:17:40 GMT

There are two poles, home and the exotic. Home hates the exotic, and the exotic flees before home. One can never be in both at the same time, no matter how much alcohol is in the cabinet.

What better way to avoid boredom than never to have a home?

But the exotic seeks its own demise (thanks Climacus). We are drawn to it, and the more we pursue it, the more it becomes home. And we must again flee or attack the newly acquired home in a rage. Not that these two options differ in any significant way, for a home is like a hug, which can only be escaped by breaking the arms embracing you.

What better way to avoid boredom than to cripple everything that touches you?

And, as we all know, meaningfulness is defined as lack of boredom.

Kierkegaard > that other K guy who is a phil. prof. at Baylor

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:00:58 GMT

(Shamelessly adapted from Philosophical Fragments, written by Kierkegaard)

Christian doctrine is not meant to be adhered to in itself. It is to be believed in only as a corollary to believing in a person (person here does not mean not-God, since God is a person...or rather, three persons), Jesus.

Belief is to be directed toward the truth. Truth is, you might say, the fulfillment of belief (it is what makes gives belief the ultimate sense of fulfillment). It is rather painful to find that something you believe in fully is false.

Our belief is to be directed toward Jesus.

So, Jesus is the fulfillment, the direction of, belief.

So, truth as the correspondence between a statement (e.g., "snow is white") and reality (e.g., snow actually is white) is secondary/derived from Jesus, the Truth. After all, who creates facts by simply speaking? Both by functional definition (the fulfillment of belief) and empirical definition, truth as correspondence is derivative from Jesus.

Hendiadys indeed.

Racy-ness and Racism

Sun, 22 Feb 2009 07:30:06 GMT

"The guardian women must strip for physical training, since they'll wear virtue or excellence instead of clothes."

- Socrates in Plato's Republic (Book V)

At least Plato got something right.

Washington Post cartoon "scandal"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/21/chimp.cartoon/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
"There is consensus that if the Post does not ... get rid of the journalists who are responsible for this bit of hate speech seeing the light of day, that we will move this from a local, regional issue to a very national issue," Jealous (NAACP guy) said.

"This was an invitation to assassination of the president of the United States and anyone who was not offended by it doesn't have any sensibilities."

"...Anyone who was not offended by it doesn't have any sensibilities." hahahahaha!!!!2

Some Rules for Having Racial Sensibilities:
Rule #1: If you see a primate in any cartoon, you must assume it's making reference to a black person. Otherwise, you have no sensibilities.

Rule #2: Don't consider yourself a complete retard for automatically thinking a primate is a black person, but rather assume that everyone who doesn't see this "doesn't have any sensibilities".

Rule #3: Do everything in your power to destroy those who would dare to use a primate to make reference to a black person. (Nevermind that you are actually the one who suggested that this particular primate was referring to a black person.)

Rule #4: McCarthy was right in his method, he just had the wrong kind of target.

Edit: I've got it! Bush was presented as a primate so often, that I think many cartoonists must've thought he was black. I don't know why the NAACP did not have those cartoonists fired for presenting Bush as black. That's clearly an insult to the black population. (I feel so enlightened now that I have sensibilities!)

Gross Productions

Sun, 15 Feb 2009 01:11:30 GMT

"As Churchill correctly noted, the horrors he listed [of World War I] were perpetrated by the 'might educated States'. Indeed, they were quite beyond the power of individuals, however evil. It is a commonplace that men are excessively ruthless and cruel not as a rule out of avowed malice but from outraged righteousness. How much more is this true of legally constituted states...The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands too...Moreover, history painfully demonstrates that collective righteousness is far more ungovernable than any individual pursuit of revenge...The effect fo the Great War [World War I] was enormously to increase the size, and therefore the destructive capacity and propensity to oppress, of the state. Before 1914, all state sectors were small...The area of actual state activity averaged between 5 and 10 percent of the Gross National Product." The highest percentages were in Russia and Germany in the West, and Japan in the east.
- Paul Johnson, Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties, p. 14

As a note: it's projected with the new spending (nevermind the later effects) we'll have a government sector that'll be around 25% of our GDP.

Gulp

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:36:21 GMT

"We frequently also find people who in their heart of hearts actually are good but do not have the courage to acknowledge it because it seems that they thereby fall into all too trivial categories [ie., they are unworthy of attention]...This is why many a person prefers to be a philosopher, not a Christian, because to be a philosopher takes talent, to be a Christian humility, and anyone who so wills can have that."

- Kierkegaard, Either/Or, part 2 (Hong translation, p. 227)

Obama, the French tickler?

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:13:02 GMT

It just makes sense, since the word "bureaucracy" finds its origins in French politics.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663

The last couple paragraphs are revealing. Our newest hero will have to multiply le pain and les poissons a lot. Or, he'll have to...erm...um....cut retirement benefits...uh...and the GDP will drop in a few years, and long term job creation probably won't happen, etc. etc., but don't worry about all that. The titillation...or, stimulus, rather...will continue. The government may intrude into your life, but Obama is like one of those "safe" toys you find in truck stop restrooms. He'll make it fun. After all, he has for us the biggest spending bill in American history - a huge...stimulus...package. And....oui, oui, we love it!

Since I'm on this political kick

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 19:24:13 GMT

"We begin this year and this administration in the midst of an unprecedented crisis that calls for unprecedented action," he said in his weekly radio and Internet address." (from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/24/obama.economy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)

So says Obama regarding the economy.

Unprecedented crisis? Someone give this guy a history book.

Unprecedented action? Good idea. After all, if you don't know history, every action is unprecedented. Someone also said something about a problem when people ignore/forget history. But I can't remember what they said. Oh, and I think someone said something about some kind of problem when we forget or ignore history, but I can't remember what they said. Also, I think there is some saying about what happens if we forget what happened in the past, but I can't quite think of the saying.