Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Bread and Butter
Even philosophers need to eat, so I took a job as a Child Welfare Specialist with the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (OKDHS). It's been a little over a month now, and I love it. You can read about what I do here (I work in Permanency Planning).
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that foster families are in short supply, so if you have what it takes to be a foster parent, please do! Click here for more info.
So why child welfare? Well, I did not choose it "because I love children". I have two children of my own, and I love them, but I have no special love for children in general. Rather, I took this job out of a general concern for the future well-being of mankind. And because I need to eat.
I would also like to take this opportunity to mention that foster families are in short supply, so if you have what it takes to be a foster parent, please do! Click here for more info.
So why child welfare? Well, I did not choose it "because I love children". I have two children of my own, and I love them, but I have no special love for children in general. Rather, I took this job out of a general concern for the future well-being of mankind. And because I need to eat.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Whither the Beginning?
Wittgenstein said: "It is so difficult to find the beginning. Or, better: it is difficult to begin at the beginning. And not try to go further back"
But where is the beginning? Language and behavior? Experience? The primordial world?
There cannot be language and behavior without experience. (is that supposed to be a substantive hypothesis?) There cannot be experience without a primordial world (i.e. a world that is mind-independent). But we cannot talk about (or describe) the world without taking the world as we experience it as a given. But then we are not talking about a primordial world at all...
Here we have found a philosopher's Gordian knot.
It might be best to begin with what we say and do. Nevertheless, it is tempting to take the world as we experience it to be the beginning for all we say and do. And yet there is something enlightening in going beyond that. Or further back.
But all the while we must not forget that the mind is part of the world (i.e. not independent of it). The world as we experience it is mind-dependent, and that is all we can describe. The primordial world is mind-independent, and cannot be described. But isn't the mind part of the primordial world? Mustn't it be? (This question contains a conceptual error, but there is something correct about it).
Yet all the while there is only one world, not two. There is no beginning — we cannot go "further back" because there is no logical way to order our conceptions here. We must jump right in, and wrestle with this Gordian knot.
But where is the beginning? Language and behavior? Experience? The primordial world?
There cannot be language and behavior without experience. (is that supposed to be a substantive hypothesis?) There cannot be experience without a primordial world (i.e. a world that is mind-independent). But we cannot talk about (or describe) the world without taking the world as we experience it as a given. But then we are not talking about a primordial world at all...
Here we have found a philosopher's Gordian knot.
It might be best to begin with what we say and do. Nevertheless, it is tempting to take the world as we experience it to be the beginning for all we say and do. And yet there is something enlightening in going beyond that. Or further back.
But all the while we must not forget that the mind is part of the world (i.e. not independent of it). The world as we experience it is mind-dependent, and that is all we can describe. The primordial world is mind-independent, and cannot be described. But isn't the mind part of the primordial world? Mustn't it be? (This question contains a conceptual error, but there is something correct about it).
Yet all the while there is only one world, not two. There is no beginning — we cannot go "further back" because there is no logical way to order our conceptions here. We must jump right in, and wrestle with this Gordian knot.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
This is Life
Trials and Tribulations: Life is a test to see if you are worthy of going to some sort of paradise, where you will live forever.
Reincarnation: You get to try over and over again until you finally get it right, and then you get to go to some sort of paradise, where you will live forever.
Atheism: You only get one life, and it is not a test. You will die. Live accordingly.
Reincarnation: You get to try over and over again until you finally get it right, and then you get to go to some sort of paradise, where you will live forever.
Atheism: You only get one life, and it is not a test. You will die. Live accordingly.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
What Russell did for Wittgenstein
You don't have to be stupid to be incapable of independent thinking — academia is awash with such people.
Those who are incapable of thinking independently are incapable of recognizing anything that is both novel and important. First they must be told, by someone whom they already deem to be of some importance, that such-and-such is important, and that they should pay attention. That is what Russell did for Wittgenstein.
Those who are incapable of thinking independently are incapable of recognizing anything that is both novel and important. First they must be told, by someone whom they already deem to be of some importance, that such-and-such is important, and that they should pay attention. That is what Russell did for Wittgenstein.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
The Problem with Analytic Philosophy
Explanations are meant to be understood — but by whom? Many scientific explanations can be readily grasped by the masses, at least intuitively (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). And even where this is not possible, at least science produces results. But what can be said about analytic philosophy? It neither makes any sense to the masses, nor does it produce any results. And while it may be understood by the analytic philosophers, they are so steeped in confusion that it can hardly be called an "explanation" of anything. What is it then? A game?
I like to think of analytic philosophy as being a lot like chess. And while I very much like chess, I am not here to play games.
I like to think of analytic philosophy as being a lot like chess. And while I very much like chess, I am not here to play games.
Random Thoughts and Word-Salad
Here I say whatever is currently on my mind, without ever supposing that I've got it quite right. Nevertheless, perhaps you can see what I'm aiming at...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)