Do or do not. There is no try.

Mar 28, 2015 //
0

Nerds seem to think that because he’s the wisest being in their made-up nerd universe, what scriptwriters had him say automatically makes Yoda genuinely full of deep, penetrating wisdom.

Now, suppose there is a man in prison. He continuously makes escape attempts, each time being thwarted by the prison guards. He is not escaping, but neither is he not-not escaping. He is trying to escape. To get rid of “trying” as a concept is to eliminate will and intention on one side of the scale, or to ignore the contingencies of everyday life that might impede a successful attempt on the other.

We do not have foreknowledge of the future, so unless you believe Yoda is implying a fatalistic universe wherein success and failure are already preordained, then the next time you feel the need to bring up your nerd bullshit when somebody quite properly uses the term “try”, you need to shut the fuck up when grown folks is talking.

Tags , ,
Categories Fun, Philosophy

The Necessity of Philosophy

Mar 27, 2015 //
1

Many people assume that philosophy is actually pretty useless. It can really only get you a job teaching philosophy, and its practical uses are pretty much nil. You can’t eat it; it can’t move you about on four wheels, or even two wheels, so why bother?

If Socrates was a real person, he might have said that “the unexamined life is not worth living”. It is better to critically analyse yourself and your surroundings as it will lead to a more fulfilling existence than not doing these things. John Stuart Mill, someone who is definitely a real person, said:

“It is indisputable that the being whose capacities of enjoyment are low, has the greatest chance of having them fully satisfied; and a highly endowed being will always feel that any happiness which he can look for, as the world is constituted, is imperfect. But he can learn to bear its imperfections, if they are at all bearable; and they will not make him envy the being who is indeed unconscious of the imperfections, but only because he feels not at all the good which those imperfections qualify.

It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question.”

Being able to think critically, not only about yourself but about the world, can have some practical effects as well, such as the ability to engage in political debate or understand social issues that might pertain to your community or yourself. But perhaps this is a little too pretentious. There are those who would argue that the simple life has its own merits, and that being able to enjoy a cold beer and a football game is the greater experience over fretting over the validity of escapism.

If one accepts that scientific pursuit is of value, such as finding out which elements make up a rock on the moon, then perhaps one might expect there to be value in questioning why there are rocks on the moon in the first place. Martin Heidegger’s question, “Why are there essents (translation: things that exist) rather than nothing?” is described as being the original philosophical question. Why even is there a universe wherein rocks and moons can exist? If curiosity in regards to the material universe is valid outside of the drive for profits, then it follows that curiosity in regards to other aspects of the universe is equally valid.

Maybe a materialist would argue that there cannot be anything other than an empirical universe and so to question why things are is meaningless, but Karl Jaspers raises an interesting counterpoint:

“If by “world” I mean the sum of all that cognitive orientation can reveal to me as cogently knowable for everyone, the question arises whether the being of the world is all there is.”

 It is a little naïve and narcissistic to think that only what we can experience with our heavily flawed sensory organs, or comprehend within the limits of our human intellect, is all that there can possibly be within this universe. Friedrich Nietzsche puts it even less politely:

“Would it not be rather probable that, conversely, precisely the most superficial and external aspect of existence—what is most apparent, its skin and sensualization—would be grasped first—and might even be the only thing that allowed itself to be grasped? A “scientific” interpretation of the world, as you understand it, might therefore still be one of the most stupid of all possible interpretations of the world, meaning that it be one of the poorest in meaning.”

 I do appreciate a man who flat out calls science stupid.

But maybe you reject metaphysics. Maybe this is all there is, or you subscribe to the belief that if we can’t experience it, or it doesn’t materially affect the universe in such a way that we can measure it, then it is, again, meaningless and pointless to discuss. Of course this doesn’t take into account that we could possibly experience it in some way outside of our sensory or intellectual selves (for example the accumulation of Karma, perhaps, which affects us but not in a way that we would ever be able to materially measure) but let’s just ignore that point for now. Let’s say this is all there is.

Do you think that it’s important to discuss what’s good and bad? Or even to come up with an idea as to what “good” even means? Heidegger agrees that there is no imminent practical use of philosophy, but says, “We cannot do anything with philosophy, [but] might not philosophy, if we concern ourselves with it, do something with us?” Adam Smith was a philosopher of economics, from whence we obtained capitalism which now dictates how our entire world is run. Karl Marx and John Maynard Keynes have offered their own views on the economy which have affected the world in their own significant ways as well. The philosophy of René Descartes dictates how we view our sense of self: as a discrete subject separate from the rest of the universe. Philosophy can change entire paradigms.

But maybe changing the world still isn’t good enough. You want a practical job that’s not a professor. Something with prestige. Plato argues that philosophy isn’t only practical, but it is the ideal for leadership. He advocates that any type of ruler should be a philosopher in its most literal sense, as a lover of knowledge. A lover of knowledge would endlessly pursue it, and in doing so would be able to apply any knowledge gained to the society underneath him or her. With knowledge as one’s passion, the love of power would not exist, and there would be a disdain for rule that the philosopher would possess: another quality for governance that Plato found necessary.

So start a revolution based off of The Republic, and then your philosophy major can finally net you a ballin’ career path… which, um… upon reflection, still doesn’t actually pay all that well.

Tags , , , , , , , , ,
Categories Philosophy

The Necessity of Religion

Mar 11, 2015 //
2

The necessity of religion can really be quite succinctly summed up in a single word: fuck. Now, this might confuse and even anger some people, but we’ll get back to it in a moment.

Let’s look at some of the issues most people discard as irrelevant when they think about religion: mythology, ritual, and symbols.

Why would we need mythology when we have scientific evidence for the way things are? Why would we need ritual when “just doing the damn thing” yields the same result as participating in the ritual? Why use symbols when a thing cannot exist outside the material universe, and so anything but a direct representation would be an unnecessary obfuscation?

But these things do tend to crop up in our secular world as well. We have rituals and symbols in our court of law. The judge, sitting higher than anyone else in the room, becomes a symbol of justice. Rising when he or she enters is a ritual giving further credibility to that symbol. The banging of the gavel, the call for order, both could be achieved by simply yelling, “Hey! Everybody shut the fuck up!” but there is authority and order that come from the ritual.

The doctor’s office is another example. First we sit and wait in the waiting area. Then we are brought in to another room to wait. This process gives airs of meeting someone important, as if for royalty. The mythology behind the doctor is that they are infallible, god-like beings that will be able to save us if we let them. However, a doctor making a diagnosis is just somebody making a guess based on whatever evidence they have. There is just as much art to it as actual science, but we need this mythology to trust them. Our lives are in their hands, and that trust is necessary in order for the doctor/patient relationship to function properly.

Which brings us back to “fuck.” There was a study done where participants would place their hand in a tub of ice water, and they would see how long they could last. It was a test of pain tolerance, basically. There were some who were told to swear, and there were some who were told to say random, non-swear words. The pain tolerance of those who swore was found to be greater than those who didn’t get to cuss.

So, fuck. All words are symbols, really, and fuck is a symbol of an abstract, negative concept. Sure it has sexual connotations too, but more often than not, fuck is a symbol of negativity. Fuck also has a mythology. As it is, in essence, nothing more than a harsh, guttural sound, any meaning behind it would be its mythos. There is also the ritual of cursing aloud when pain sharply makes itself known; a negative event associated with a negative word.

Interestingly, those who had embraced the mythology of this essentially meaningless sound, who had ritualized it to a greater degree, had a higher pain tolerance than those who swore more frequently, where meaning had become diluted through overuse.

It seems that symbols, myths, and rituals can have a distinct physiological effect on human beings. Huh.

Maybe that’s a little too crass for you, so let’s look at love. I will describe love by quoting an internet forum user nicknamed 666:

“Realize that falling in love with someone is just the results of a series of generic events that can occur between you and basically anyone who meets your standards of attractiveness. It’s just an emotional manifestation of a handfull of chemicals bouncing back and forth. It’s not the holy grail of living, it’s not your reason to exist and it’s definitely not something reserved for “that one person.” Accept that you are just an animal with a big brain that allows him to fret over what only amounts to a game of hormone pool. What you’re feeling is not your soul dying a gurgling, ugly death, but withdrawal. All the happy chemicals that saturated your body when you were with him are kicking out cold turkey, and your body is screaming bloody murder, where are my fucking endorphins? It’s just chocolate. Find a new bar.”

This absurdly nerdy description is most likely given by someone who has never actually experienced love. However, in a strictly material universe, he would be absolutely correct. Love would necessarily be caused by a chemical reaction in our brain. I don’t know which chemicals; I’m not a doctor. Maybe you believe that love is a force that transcends the material universe that binds everything together, and that is totally fine, but in doing so you’re already believing in a form of god, so I don’t think I need to convince you about the necessity of religion anyway.

If love is only chemicals, then the person of our affection becomes a symbol. They represent the joy, the contentment, the solace and comfort associated with being in love. The stories of love, of eternity, of union, of partnership becomes mythologies. Holding hands, rubbing shoulders, dancing under the stars; these become rituals. I don’t mean to degrade the nature of love to lowly symbols and myths, but to illustrate the sacred nature that these allegedly “useless” ideals truly possess.

The most formal ritual of love, marriage, functions better when the ritual is emphasized. One study tells us that the more people who attend a wedding, the more likely that wedding will succeed. The greater the ritual, the greater the chance of success. The study also shows that the cheaper the expense, the greater the chance of success as well, and this tells us that an emphasis on spending is less genuine than an emphasis on the ritual itself: to create a spectacle is to ignore the purpose of the ritual in the first place.

Another study illustrates that the young and immature are less likely to have successful marriages than those who are older and wiser. I believe that with age and wisdom comes solemnity, and with that solemnity comes awareness. If we jump into a ritual without regard for its consequences, and do not truly take it seriously, it loses its power. Remember, if one swears with reckless abandon through childish immaturity, the pain tolerance is lessened.

So we’ve established that symbols, myths, and rituals are powerful structures in human consciousness. So why religion? Why not just content ourselves with them in secular realms?

Symbols speak to and reinforce ideals. Probably the most internationally recognized symbol today is the Golden Arches (Maybe it’s the Facebook F symbol, but I’ll use McDonalds as my example because it really doesn’t make a difference). Advertisers use symbols to not only market their business, but hopefully to associate their brand with the desire for that product. The Golden Arches doesn’t just represent McDonalds, it represents hunger. If the symbol is powerful enough, just seeing the big yellow M is enough to make a person’s stomach rumble.

Myths socialize us. They teach us the truths of our society and the way to behave. Movies and television are our myths today, and it is the characters we hear stories about that we emulate. However, our myths today are not created to socialize us, despite the unintended consequence, but to entertain us. This cheapens our myths, and offers poorer heroes than a myth created for the purpose of socialization.

Rituals create a connection between the participants and the act itself. I would think the most prevalent ritual in our contemporary culture is the exchange of money for goods. If you don’t believe in the importance of this ritual, try to leave a store with something and not pay for it.

What if there were symbols for hope? Would there be as many suicides? Or a ritual to give meaning to our lives? Would there be as many addicts seeking to fill the void in their lives with drugs? Or myths that socialized us into creative, compassionate people? Would there be as much bullying?

What we have today turns us into complacent consumers, built on myths of might-makes-right independence. We are creating empty values that perpetuate nihilistic attitudes. We need religion to counteract this tailspin of degradation; to bring valid meaning back into our culture; to establish a guiding light of hope for the future.

Of course, there are no religions out there today that actually offer a valid solution with this formula. Religion today is a broken concept, felled by many of the same issues that we need it to overcome. Its symbols have lost their potency through the commercialization of its ideals. Its myths have become “facts” to be proven, rather than listened to. And its rituals have become mere habit, repetitive and mindless.

I am not saying that we should all convert. I have just taken a good, hard look at the world and seen that it is damaged. I am merely pointing out what I believe needs to happen in order to create positive change in our society. It’s not my fault that that solution looks an awful lot like religion.

Tags ,
Categories Religion
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »