Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The Right to Naivety?
Some philosophers speak of "natural" rights as if they were imprinted upon the universe, or somehow codified in the essential nature of mankind (blech). How naive. Better to ask, "What will it take for us to work together?" Only then can one look at human nature (insofar as there is such a thing) and figure out what "rights" must be respected. A civilized society can only continue when a sufficient number of its citizens believe in and respect these rights. But believing in these rights does not require some sort of fairy tale about their objectivity. Rather, we should recognize and confront the terrifying truth, and purpose ourselves to be the true source and sustenance of these rights.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Life After Death?
Little children do not understand the finality of death. In this way, religious people are like little children.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Time is... so very precious...
... and I really must write everything down. To do otherwise would be such a waste. But it is so easy to get caught up in both the mundane and the fantastic; everyday life and fantasy. And I cannot leave it up to someone else, because no one else would think it. And no one could ever plagiarize what I have written so far, because they would come off as being completely mad. I've come to certain realizations that really must be shared, but I find it so hard... I don't know why.
There are two large projects, both of them related, and both of them encapsulating a world-view: one mostly a curiosity, and the other mostly practical. The first is more of a way of understanding our way of understanding the world (metacognition?), and the second a way of thinking about living a human existence in a world so understood (although reading and understanding the second would in no way require reading and understanding the first, which is, after all, a mere curiosity).
And neither of these can be written in cognitive leaps and bounds like this blog. Oh, how am I to accomplish this, when I can barely manage to write such abbreviated posts to this blog?
There are two large projects, both of them related, and both of them encapsulating a world-view: one mostly a curiosity, and the other mostly practical. The first is more of a way of understanding our way of understanding the world (metacognition?), and the second a way of thinking about living a human existence in a world so understood (although reading and understanding the second would in no way require reading and understanding the first, which is, after all, a mere curiosity).
And neither of these can be written in cognitive leaps and bounds like this blog. Oh, how am I to accomplish this, when I can barely manage to write such abbreviated posts to this blog?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
The Meaning, Purpose, and Value of Life
Nothing has intrinsic meaning, purpose, or value (is this supposed to be a substantive thesis?). Sounds nihilistic, but it's not. Meaning, purpose, and value are relational terms; x is meaningful to y, x's purpose is to y, x values y, etc. Now, in regard to one's own life, it is up to the individual to give meaning, purpose, and value to it. And that can be hard work, so I guess laziness about one's own life equates to a nihilistic attitude. It's your life, so make something of it.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
What is Philosophy?
Philosophy, broadly speaking, is the seeking of knowledge, in so much as people ask questions and expect answers. Indeed, all the sciences are the descendants of philosophy, and I do sometimes refer to scientists as "natural philosophers" when I feel the need to point this out.
Nevertheless, philosophy proper is not a science. Scientists ask empirical questions for which there exists a method for determining the answers to those questions. This is not to say, however, that a scientist cannot philosophize, or that philosophizing is unhelpful to science. On the contrary, Albert Einstein did quite a bit of philosophizing in order to come up with the basic tenets of Special Relativity. Nor am I saying that philosophers do not have their methods, for they do, but not anything so cut-and-dried as the scientific method. Science also tends to create fodder for philosophy. Philosophers philosophize about the meanings of certain scientific discoveries and the paradigms of science.
Neither is philosophy a religion, although religion deals with many of the same questions as philosophy. Religions tend to simply state answers to these types of questions, and a real philosopher would never do that. But like science, philosophy and religion are often intertwined, and many philosophers concern themselves with questions about religion, and many religions were built upon philosophical thought.
So philosophy is neither science nor religion. It lacks a method for obtaining answers, but neither does it pretend pull answers from thin air. Philosophers have been struggling with certain questions for millennia, and are no closer to having answers. Quite the opposite, as philosophizing about these questions has brought up innumerable other questions for which we have no answers. Nevertheless, what we gain from philosophy is far greater than mere answers to questions.
Now metaphysicians and analytic philosophers (among others) are quite sure to disagree with what I am saying. And that is just as well, for I have abandoned both. What is gained, really gained, from philosophy is a greater understanding, of how misguided our questions are sometimes, of how great our misconceptions are sometimes, of how awe-inspiring this world is sometimes, etc. And that is nothing short of wisdom, for philosophy truly is, or at least is motivated by, the "love of wisdom".
Nevertheless, philosophy proper is not a science. Scientists ask empirical questions for which there exists a method for determining the answers to those questions. This is not to say, however, that a scientist cannot philosophize, or that philosophizing is unhelpful to science. On the contrary, Albert Einstein did quite a bit of philosophizing in order to come up with the basic tenets of Special Relativity. Nor am I saying that philosophers do not have their methods, for they do, but not anything so cut-and-dried as the scientific method. Science also tends to create fodder for philosophy. Philosophers philosophize about the meanings of certain scientific discoveries and the paradigms of science.
Neither is philosophy a religion, although religion deals with many of the same questions as philosophy. Religions tend to simply state answers to these types of questions, and a real philosopher would never do that. But like science, philosophy and religion are often intertwined, and many philosophers concern themselves with questions about religion, and many religions were built upon philosophical thought.
So philosophy is neither science nor religion. It lacks a method for obtaining answers, but neither does it pretend pull answers from thin air. Philosophers have been struggling with certain questions for millennia, and are no closer to having answers. Quite the opposite, as philosophizing about these questions has brought up innumerable other questions for which we have no answers. Nevertheless, what we gain from philosophy is far greater than mere answers to questions.
Now metaphysicians and analytic philosophers (among others) are quite sure to disagree with what I am saying. And that is just as well, for I have abandoned both. What is gained, really gained, from philosophy is a greater understanding, of how misguided our questions are sometimes, of how great our misconceptions are sometimes, of how awe-inspiring this world is sometimes, etc. And that is nothing short of wisdom, for philosophy truly is, or at least is motivated by, the "love of wisdom".
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Speech as Behavior
Speech acts are really just behaviors, like any other. Speech is just something we do, and as such does not have any sort of special significance that philosophers would impart unto it.
A great number of our behaviors are normally meant to be communicative. These include body language, sign language, stomping one's foot, typing, writing, drawing pictures, etc. But all these things can be done without any intention to communicate. Sometimes doing these things helps one's thinking processes, or could serve as a catharsis for something we are feeling (like writing in a diary).
But the vast majority of what we do is not normally meant to be communicative. We bathe, eat, sleep, walk, cough, scratch, build, etc. Usually these have a practical purpose but they can also be somewhat aimless. The thing is, though, even these behaviors can communicate something to others, because they can observe our behaviors. And because of this, these behaviors can be communicative on purpose as well. Sometimes we do these things to send a message to others.
So what's the difference between the former and latter types of behaviors? Nothing really. With either type there can be an intention to communicate, or that intention can be absent (or it can even be subconscious). With both types, other people can generally observe and understand our behaviors (although understanding is sometimes absent as well).
In the end there is nothing special about speech acts. And the patterns speech acts follow (language) aren't special either. It's all just behavior, and behavior communicates.
An interesting aside is that we can lie with all our behavior, not just speech. If I want you to think something about me, I just need to engage in suitable behaviors that will lead you to that conclusion. For example, if I want you to think that I am tired, I can yawn, droop my eyelids, and act listless. I might also say, "I'm tired."
A great number of our behaviors are normally meant to be communicative. These include body language, sign language, stomping one's foot, typing, writing, drawing pictures, etc. But all these things can be done without any intention to communicate. Sometimes doing these things helps one's thinking processes, or could serve as a catharsis for something we are feeling (like writing in a diary).
But the vast majority of what we do is not normally meant to be communicative. We bathe, eat, sleep, walk, cough, scratch, build, etc. Usually these have a practical purpose but they can also be somewhat aimless. The thing is, though, even these behaviors can communicate something to others, because they can observe our behaviors. And because of this, these behaviors can be communicative on purpose as well. Sometimes we do these things to send a message to others.
So what's the difference between the former and latter types of behaviors? Nothing really. With either type there can be an intention to communicate, or that intention can be absent (or it can even be subconscious). With both types, other people can generally observe and understand our behaviors (although understanding is sometimes absent as well).
In the end there is nothing special about speech acts. And the patterns speech acts follow (language) aren't special either. It's all just behavior, and behavior communicates.
An interesting aside is that we can lie with all our behavior, not just speech. If I want you to think something about me, I just need to engage in suitable behaviors that will lead you to that conclusion. For example, if I want you to think that I am tired, I can yawn, droop my eyelids, and act listless. I might also say, "I'm tired."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)