Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Friday, August 29, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
A Series of Questions Regarding Love and Sex
What is romantic love?
What is the difference between romantic and platonic love?
Does love connect or separate us as individuals?
Is there really a single person with whom you are destined to share the closest bonds of both platonic and romantic love?
What is the difference between romantic and platonic love?
Does love connect or separate us as individuals?
Is there really a single person with whom you are destined to share the closest bonds of both platonic and romantic love?
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Criticality Continued
“I find it interesting that you have not discussed the [subject] of the critique. You argue that criticality is a tool; however, the tool is useless if that which it endeavors to act upon will not render itself to improvements. If not willing or desirous of improvement, pointing out flaws has the potential to harm rather than help.”
- Alex
You have anticipated the essential, sequential argument that I too had planned to address, although you summarized it more eloquently than I had been able to on my own. Truly you are correct in asserting the uselessness of a tool that is used without effect. Consider the basic example of a penknife being used to cut down a tree. Although the blade pierces the bark, it is hardly effective, and will break before it has had any noticeable effect.
One must then consider whether or not a critique may be grouped into categories based on intent. Surely there are those who engage in constructive criticism such as teachers, artists, and the like – these take advantage of criticism, applying it in order to be useful or creative. In contrast there are those who seek to tear down or destroy with their critique. These individuals are usually baser in intellect, and frequently do not possess the abilities that they so often find themselves criticizing. Still, our discussion of intent addresses only half of the issue.
As you have pointed out, we must paint into this picture the other half of the mask, that faceless void of reception. Understand that I feel that this is a murky place, lacking absolutes and ultimately lying in the realm of the indefinable. Nevertheless, the way one’s criticism is received is more important than the critique itself, at least in the context of so-called ‘usefulness.’ If the chisel cannot chip away at the rock, then the sculptor labors in vain.
What then are we to do? May we engage in criticism without bothering to test the waters first? Should we wholeheartedly jump in, or refrain entirely? Perhaps a well-intentioned preface or a warm smile may cause our subject to become more pliable - perhaps not. We can only control our actions; thus, we face a dilemma of epic proportions, one which must be determined according to context, one which lacks absolute definition, one that it is critical that we address lest we stub our toes in the dark.
If one is to be truly effective, knowledge of the subject and context is key. Blind painters are rare, as are deaf musicians – we can only know what we sense. If we do not open ourselves to learning, we may never teach others, and we will never know if our canvas is ready for paint to be applied. Therefore, train yourself to feel what others feel, to think what others think, to resonate with every human being you meet. If you do this thing with love and passion no-one will be able to ignore your impact.
- Alex
You have anticipated the essential, sequential argument that I too had planned to address, although you summarized it more eloquently than I had been able to on my own. Truly you are correct in asserting the uselessness of a tool that is used without effect. Consider the basic example of a penknife being used to cut down a tree. Although the blade pierces the bark, it is hardly effective, and will break before it has had any noticeable effect.
One must then consider whether or not a critique may be grouped into categories based on intent. Surely there are those who engage in constructive criticism such as teachers, artists, and the like – these take advantage of criticism, applying it in order to be useful or creative. In contrast there are those who seek to tear down or destroy with their critique. These individuals are usually baser in intellect, and frequently do not possess the abilities that they so often find themselves criticizing. Still, our discussion of intent addresses only half of the issue.
As you have pointed out, we must paint into this picture the other half of the mask, that faceless void of reception. Understand that I feel that this is a murky place, lacking absolutes and ultimately lying in the realm of the indefinable. Nevertheless, the way one’s criticism is received is more important than the critique itself, at least in the context of so-called ‘usefulness.’ If the chisel cannot chip away at the rock, then the sculptor labors in vain.
What then are we to do? May we engage in criticism without bothering to test the waters first? Should we wholeheartedly jump in, or refrain entirely? Perhaps a well-intentioned preface or a warm smile may cause our subject to become more pliable - perhaps not. We can only control our actions; thus, we face a dilemma of epic proportions, one which must be determined according to context, one which lacks absolute definition, one that it is critical that we address lest we stub our toes in the dark.
If one is to be truly effective, knowledge of the subject and context is key. Blind painters are rare, as are deaf musicians – we can only know what we sense. If we do not open ourselves to learning, we may never teach others, and we will never know if our canvas is ready for paint to be applied. Therefore, train yourself to feel what others feel, to think what others think, to resonate with every human being you meet. If you do this thing with love and passion no-one will be able to ignore your impact.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Criticality Analyzed
Caiphus: Is criticality inherently negative?
Moralam: Criticality is a tool. Consider the case of the artist; is not her critical eye a vehicle through which beauty is reached?
Caiphus: You are arguing then that the ends justify the means?
Moralam: Naturally not. Let us pursue this matter further. First, what is your definition of criticality?
Caiphus: To be critical is to notice what flaws make themselves apparent in a given context, is it not?
Moralam: Would you say that one must actively seek out those flaws before one may be considered "critical?"
Caiphus: No. All people notice those things which are incongruent to some extent. In this way, all people are critical; however, might I posit that the degree to which they seek out these discrepancies should have an effect on the way we perceive their analysis?
Moralam: Do not confuse criticality and analysis. Although the two words are functionally identical, it is criticality that we discuss, primarily for its negative connotations.
Caiphus: Nevertheless, is the search for flaws relevant, or merely incidental to the greater picture?
Moralam: If we postulate that searching for flaws in certain contexts is immoral or unwise, then we must assume not only that it is possible to deaden oneself to flaws, but that it is admirable to do so. I find this thought apalling on multiple levels.
Caiphus: Is it not admirable to examine oneself for flaws, but to ignore the flaws of others? Should we not seek to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck in our brother's?
Moralam: You have moved from the realm of the internal to the realm of the external far too hastily. What actions we take based on our critique should be the topic of another discussion.
Caiphus: Very well, we must then turn to intent - is motive relevant, or is it too simply an adjective tacked onto the greater subject?
Moralam: Intentions are the status of the heart quantified. A man scarcely has control of his actions if he does not reign over his intentions as he should. It is intentions that drive men to both evil and good, and it is immoral intentions that beget immoral behavior - the tools by which they accomplish this are incidental.
Caiphus: Critiques then should be reserved for the intellectual or the loving.
Moralam: If truly done for the sake of love, no action can be truly evil.
Moralam: Criticality is a tool. Consider the case of the artist; is not her critical eye a vehicle through which beauty is reached?
Caiphus: You are arguing then that the ends justify the means?
Moralam: Naturally not. Let us pursue this matter further. First, what is your definition of criticality?
Caiphus: To be critical is to notice what flaws make themselves apparent in a given context, is it not?
Moralam: Would you say that one must actively seek out those flaws before one may be considered "critical?"
Caiphus: No. All people notice those things which are incongruent to some extent. In this way, all people are critical; however, might I posit that the degree to which they seek out these discrepancies should have an effect on the way we perceive their analysis?
Moralam: Do not confuse criticality and analysis. Although the two words are functionally identical, it is criticality that we discuss, primarily for its negative connotations.
Caiphus: Nevertheless, is the search for flaws relevant, or merely incidental to the greater picture?
Moralam: If we postulate that searching for flaws in certain contexts is immoral or unwise, then we must assume not only that it is possible to deaden oneself to flaws, but that it is admirable to do so. I find this thought apalling on multiple levels.
Caiphus: Is it not admirable to examine oneself for flaws, but to ignore the flaws of others? Should we not seek to remove the plank from our own eye before removing the speck in our brother's?
Moralam: You have moved from the realm of the internal to the realm of the external far too hastily. What actions we take based on our critique should be the topic of another discussion.
Caiphus: Very well, we must then turn to intent - is motive relevant, or is it too simply an adjective tacked onto the greater subject?
Moralam: Intentions are the status of the heart quantified. A man scarcely has control of his actions if he does not reign over his intentions as he should. It is intentions that drive men to both evil and good, and it is immoral intentions that beget immoral behavior - the tools by which they accomplish this are incidental.
Caiphus: Critiques then should be reserved for the intellectual or the loving.
Moralam: If truly done for the sake of love, no action can be truly evil.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Caiphus: Logic is the epitome of humanity’s intellectual ability.
Moralam: That is incorrect. That which you refer to is faith.
Caiphus: This is impossible – logic and faith are polar opposites!
Moralam: Again, you are incorrect. Without faith, logic would not exist.
Caiphus: You will have to go to great lengths to convince me of the accuracy of this foolish statement.
Moralam: Reason is based off of an inherent faith in both the absoluteness of logic and the supremacy thereof; therefore, faith is the basis of logic.
Caiphus: But by your own reasoning your argument, and therefore your conclusion, could be flawed!
Moralam: This is the paradox of human existence. Nevertheless, I have faith in mankind.
Moralam: That is incorrect. That which you refer to is faith.
Caiphus: This is impossible – logic and faith are polar opposites!
Moralam: Again, you are incorrect. Without faith, logic would not exist.
Caiphus: You will have to go to great lengths to convince me of the accuracy of this foolish statement.
Moralam: Reason is based off of an inherent faith in both the absoluteness of logic and the supremacy thereof; therefore, faith is the basis of logic.
Caiphus: But by your own reasoning your argument, and therefore your conclusion, could be flawed!
Moralam: This is the paradox of human existence. Nevertheless, I have faith in mankind.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Moralam: Do you know who you are?
Caiphus: Yes.
Moralam: How?
Caiphus: I know myself by my deeds, for it is by deeds that men are measured.
Moralam: Then you know nothing.
Caiphus: How else are we to know ourselves?
Moralam: Who we are cannot be measured by our deeds, for deeds are fragile and mortal, changing and distorting with each day that passes. A yardstick is useless on soft ground, for where the measuring begins and ends changes each time. We must measure ourselves, not by the actions we take, for those actions may be misinterpreted, regretted, misused or forgotten, but by our intentions and desires, for therein lies our self.
Caiphus: But intentions are useless! If I do not help another shoulder their burden but instead desire to do so and refrain, I am foolish and cowardly.
Moralam: What you say is true, for intent without action is like rain that does not sink into the ground. If what we desire truly means something to us, our actions will coincide. It is the coupling of action and desire that we commonly refer to as character.
Caiphus: So you would say that a man of good character is one whose actions reflect his truest desires? What of men who lust for the great evils of the earth; power without repercussion, wealth without generosity, or fame without thoughtfulness?
Moralam: It is better to choose a path and follow it than to accomplish nothing while deciding.
Caiphus: Yes.
Moralam: How?
Caiphus: I know myself by my deeds, for it is by deeds that men are measured.
Moralam: Then you know nothing.
Caiphus: How else are we to know ourselves?
Moralam: Who we are cannot be measured by our deeds, for deeds are fragile and mortal, changing and distorting with each day that passes. A yardstick is useless on soft ground, for where the measuring begins and ends changes each time. We must measure ourselves, not by the actions we take, for those actions may be misinterpreted, regretted, misused or forgotten, but by our intentions and desires, for therein lies our self.
Caiphus: But intentions are useless! If I do not help another shoulder their burden but instead desire to do so and refrain, I am foolish and cowardly.
Moralam: What you say is true, for intent without action is like rain that does not sink into the ground. If what we desire truly means something to us, our actions will coincide. It is the coupling of action and desire that we commonly refer to as character.
Caiphus: So you would say that a man of good character is one whose actions reflect his truest desires? What of men who lust for the great evils of the earth; power without repercussion, wealth without generosity, or fame without thoughtfulness?
Moralam: It is better to choose a path and follow it than to accomplish nothing while deciding.
Monday, December 03, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Five Days Since His Aircraft Disappeared
BleedingHeartCommunist: The manner and substance of my peers' conversation is frequently cause for frustration.
Kabri: I would venture to guess that it also leads to loneliness.
BHC: Indeed, but loneliness is to be preferred over social compromise.
Kabri: Perhaps, at times.
BHC: That is my justification; what exception do you find?
Kabri: Well, I find that in forced social obligations I can be alone in the midst of a crowd. Likewise the opposite may be true in the company of one. So the real question is: which is preferable?
BHC: The companionship of the few to the isolation amongst many.
Kabri: I would venture to guess that it also leads to loneliness.
BHC: Indeed, but loneliness is to be preferred over social compromise.
Kabri: Perhaps, at times.
BHC: That is my justification; what exception do you find?
Kabri: Well, I find that in forced social obligations I can be alone in the midst of a crowd. Likewise the opposite may be true in the company of one. So the real question is: which is preferable?
BHC: The companionship of the few to the isolation amongst many.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The Facets Of Power
What is power?
The ability to invoke change, great or small, intentional or otherwise.
Where does power lie?
In emptiness,
For that which is empty longs to be filled.
In friction,
For it is friction that produces change.
In words,
For with words, we implicate that which we desire into being.
In atmosphere,
For therein lies the ability to manipulate emotions.
In reason,
For through reason we may convince even ourselves of some truth or untruth.
In love,
For love in its truest form cannot keep itself from changing all involved in a most spectacular fashion.
The ability to invoke change, great or small, intentional or otherwise.
Where does power lie?
In emptiness,
For that which is empty longs to be filled.
In friction,
For it is friction that produces change.
In words,
For with words, we implicate that which we desire into being.
In atmosphere,
For therein lies the ability to manipulate emotions.
In reason,
For through reason we may convince even ourselves of some truth or untruth.
In love,
For love in its truest form cannot keep itself from changing all involved in a most spectacular fashion.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Monday, September 24, 2007
Logic of the Soul Immortal
Moralam: I have followed in the footsteps of Plato and considered his words, and those of the philosopher Socrates, in that great discussion of the soul, the Phaedo. I was surprised to note that neither man pursued a certain facet of his argument any farther than he deemed necessary.
Caiphus: What manner of logic is this, that ends before it has served all the meaning it can to the sophisticated palate?
Moralam: It is the argument for the immortality of the soul. I can agree with Socrates’ argument that, given the nature of magnitude and littleness, neither can exist within one another. In the same way heat and cold do not give to one another, but rather build upon themselves. With this in mind, it is obvious to me that indeed the soul must live on after the body, for in the soul is life, and there life remains.
Caiphus: This is the argument of the great philosopher?
Moralam: Indeed – but there is yet more that I feel should be considered!
Caiphus: Share with me, that I may understand that to which you refer.
Moralam: It is merely this: if heat and cold are relative to one another, as magnitude and littleness are polar, but only in regard to one another, are not life and death therefore relative? It seems then that it is equally possible for a soul to exist eternally in life as it may exist eternally in death. Not in death not existing, but in death, abstaining from that which is life.
Caiphus: Your words possess the façade of that which is logical, but I must consider them more before committing to your conclusion.
Caiphus: What manner of logic is this, that ends before it has served all the meaning it can to the sophisticated palate?
Moralam: It is the argument for the immortality of the soul. I can agree with Socrates’ argument that, given the nature of magnitude and littleness, neither can exist within one another. In the same way heat and cold do not give to one another, but rather build upon themselves. With this in mind, it is obvious to me that indeed the soul must live on after the body, for in the soul is life, and there life remains.
Caiphus: This is the argument of the great philosopher?
Moralam: Indeed – but there is yet more that I feel should be considered!
Caiphus: Share with me, that I may understand that to which you refer.
Moralam: It is merely this: if heat and cold are relative to one another, as magnitude and littleness are polar, but only in regard to one another, are not life and death therefore relative? It seems then that it is equally possible for a soul to exist eternally in life as it may exist eternally in death. Not in death not existing, but in death, abstaining from that which is life.
Caiphus: Your words possess the façade of that which is logical, but I must consider them more before committing to your conclusion.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Academically Speaking
A devout follower of Socrates, Plato taught even after the great philosopher's death in a grove called Academus, from which we derive the word academy. This was the first institutionalized school of philosophy, and a most interesting inscription was carved over the entrance:
"Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here."
What does geometry have to do with philosophy?
. . .
Consider that.
"Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here."
What does geometry have to do with philosophy?
. . .
Consider that.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A Series of Questions Regarding Neutrality
At what point does neutrality become a handicap?
How do you balance aggression and neutrality?
Are right and wrong a matter of perspective?
If all parties have benign intentions, how does conflict arise?
How do you balance aggression and neutrality?
Are right and wrong a matter of perspective?
If all parties have benign intentions, how does conflict arise?
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Foundations
Caiphus: What is the foundation of relation?
Moralam: Interaction.
Caiphus: What is the foundation of friendship?
Moralam: Love.
Caiphus: What is the foundation of love?
Moralam: Friction.
Caiphus: How does friction relate?
Moralam: It is relation at its core, an essential disturbance of difference, caressing and coursing and causing to flame. It is each one of us when we are laid bare and made whole by our incompleteness in one another.
Caiphus: How then do we love?
Moralam: It is an illusion – we do not love. Love, e’re so briefly, chooses to inhabit us. We do not control or command it, it controls us; we are at its mercy.
Caiphus: Mercy?
Moralam: Love overflows with it.
Moralam: Interaction.
Caiphus: What is the foundation of friendship?
Moralam: Love.
Caiphus: What is the foundation of love?
Moralam: Friction.
Caiphus: How does friction relate?
Moralam: It is relation at its core, an essential disturbance of difference, caressing and coursing and causing to flame. It is each one of us when we are laid bare and made whole by our incompleteness in one another.
Caiphus: How then do we love?
Moralam: It is an illusion – we do not love. Love, e’re so briefly, chooses to inhabit us. We do not control or command it, it controls us; we are at its mercy.
Caiphus: Mercy?
Moralam: Love overflows with it.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Subjectivity of Judgement pt. 2
Actions speak louder than words, but attitudes are more potent than either.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
A Series of Questions Regarding the Subjectivity of Judgement
Is not appearance a physical manifestation of behavior?
Why then does it not follow that appearance is criteria worthy of use when discerning people's intentions?
If interpretation is the issue, consider: are not actions also subject to this?
Are actions are less subjective?
Is this why the Bible recommends against judging people?
Why then does it not follow that appearance is criteria worthy of use when discerning people's intentions?
If interpretation is the issue, consider: are not actions also subject to this?
Are actions are less subjective?
Is this why the Bible recommends against judging people?
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Human Understanding
Caiphus: How do I fully begin to understand?
Moralam: To understand anything you must first think, for thought is the foundation in which the pillars of knowledge are cemented. Knowledge without thought is hearsay; furthermore, it is a heresy.
Caiphus: So thought is the key to understanding?
Moralam: True understanding also requires experience. Experience is the crowning glory of knowledge, it is an impenetrable shield. What tribute to the gods is a temple with a leaky roof? Truly experience is that roof.
Caiphus: Then sensation and intellect are inextricably intertwined.
Moralam: Yes. There is another aspect of this relationship, which is the presence of feeling. Empathy is the beautiful story of life that is carved into the temple walls, it is the wonderful beautification of homely knowledge, transforming it into something aesthetically pleasing. Emotions are key to the truest understanding, for knowledge in and of itself is like a great fortress with no warriors. Without passion we are dead in life, loveless we bear our soul's coffin, and logic is but an effervescent machine - active, efficient, but without desire.
Moralam: To understand anything you must first think, for thought is the foundation in which the pillars of knowledge are cemented. Knowledge without thought is hearsay; furthermore, it is a heresy.
Caiphus: So thought is the key to understanding?
Moralam: True understanding also requires experience. Experience is the crowning glory of knowledge, it is an impenetrable shield. What tribute to the gods is a temple with a leaky roof? Truly experience is that roof.
Caiphus: Then sensation and intellect are inextricably intertwined.
Moralam: Yes. There is another aspect of this relationship, which is the presence of feeling. Empathy is the beautiful story of life that is carved into the temple walls, it is the wonderful beautification of homely knowledge, transforming it into something aesthetically pleasing. Emotions are key to the truest understanding, for knowledge in and of itself is like a great fortress with no warriors. Without passion we are dead in life, loveless we bear our soul's coffin, and logic is but an effervescent machine - active, efficient, but without desire.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Is (Two Voices)
I am.
Like a rock.
I am . . .
Ice,
Water.
I am.
Like earth.
I am . . .
Fire,
Electricity.
Who am I?
What am I not . . . ?
Like a rock.
I am . . .
Ice,
Water.
I am.
Like earth.
I am . . .
Fire,
Electricity.
Who am I?
What am I not . . . ?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Muzak Nation
It has become increasingly obvious to me that the musical tastes of the culture in which I am immersed have dramatically affected, or at the very least are an accurate representation of, the model of our national psyche. With greater and greater frequency we are becoming used to "hearing" sounds without actually consciously registering them. Background music has become a way of life, indeed even a metaphor for our daily activities. The fact is that there are very few who truly listen to music simply for the sake of listening to music. Two hundred years ago there was a barrier between the drudgery of daily life and the fantastic enterprise that was the music industry: now, no such barrier exists - any and all music can be transferred and transmogrified until it is unrecognizable.
Consider this: when was the last time that you ceased all activity and merely listened to a song? It is rare that this happens, for we are consumed with efficiency, and stopping all activity when we could be doing something seems ludicrous. Certainly there are levels of activity, but I have found that I tend to listen to music while doing both more and less - writing a paper, falling asleep, reading, exercising, driving, etc. These varied levels of activity still denote the presence of something which consciously or subconsciously occupies some part of our mind, thereby diluting the musical experience.
The point that I'm trying to make is that it is incredibly important that we do not adopt a philosophy of partial involvement. This manner of world-view will make even the most involving tasks apathy-inducing and dull, as there is always some corner of our mind that we reserve for . . . something else.
Listening to music.
Remember:
Sensation and intellect are meaningless without one another. Strive to keep them in balance, a pleasant duality, not a warring schism.
Consider this: when was the last time that you ceased all activity and merely listened to a song? It is rare that this happens, for we are consumed with efficiency, and stopping all activity when we could be doing something seems ludicrous. Certainly there are levels of activity, but I have found that I tend to listen to music while doing both more and less - writing a paper, falling asleep, reading, exercising, driving, etc. These varied levels of activity still denote the presence of something which consciously or subconsciously occupies some part of our mind, thereby diluting the musical experience.
The point that I'm trying to make is that it is incredibly important that we do not adopt a philosophy of partial involvement. This manner of world-view will make even the most involving tasks apathy-inducing and dull, as there is always some corner of our mind that we reserve for . . . something else.
Listening to music.
Remember:
Sensation and intellect are meaningless without one another. Strive to keep them in balance, a pleasant duality, not a warring schism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
