My attempt at posting to a blog, my opinions and observations. Musings and ruminations apply.
Tabula Rasa & the Relation between Reasoning (inductive,deductive) and Cognitive theory; Or something like that, yo. Pt 1
So I’ve been reading into philosophy , an act incited by watching “Waking Life” for the nth time (Which I recommend if you haven’t seen it.) And I like to try to organize the most profound concepts in a synchronized system, that is, one with clear distinctions of origin and similarly purpose.
So we have; Metaphysics, Epistemology, Value Theory(ethics, aesethics, law, political), Science, Logic & Mathematics.
Now the problem I find, is that much of this has many ideas based in one another. Logic for instance can be understood as a causal creator or concept of reasoning in order to understand the rest. So the question I ask, is which comes first? I would say that the biggest influence upon our empirical/rational reasoning is the concept of self, ego, or I. Ultimately what we consider to be “us” in a conscious state.
If all reasoning comes from self, and is then perpetuated by sense and correlated back to self, at what point does truth cross between modes of subjectivity vs objectivity?
All systems of function or non function are equally grounded in their basis of self-counsciousness, correct?
Bah. I can’t organize my thoughts enough to think this through.
(via stoweboyd)
Philosophy Modello
I wish that I could complete a degree in Philosophy. In reference to degree, I mean an entire 4-year venture.
But it seems this is somewhat problematic, as philosophy in itself does not provide the means of aquiring “currency”. I don’t believe this is substantial to say it lacks value, but rather material. It would seem anti pragmatic to major in Philosophy if I were unemployed and destitute, which I am.
But even then, is it not capable of being applied practically simply because no one has tried? Or am I simply afraid that I might fail and waste my time? Or could it be even deeper in that I fear not the success of obtaining a degree, but the inevitable adversity that is present in understanding a complex and often cryptic foreray of inaudible melodies.
I suppose that at the very least it serves a component to fortify a preexisting study, but what that of life itself, or an individuals living condition?
At other times, I wonder if my curiosity in simply existstent because of itself, maybe I find it an interesting subject that I admittedly do not whollley understand, and as such seek to know more, ever tempted by the sweet persuasion of obtaining an understanding of the vast unknown. Could then, a philosophy degree actually truncate my capability? Closing it off from the spontaneous influence of naivete and ignorance, that is present in many works of my self…
I dunno. Maybe I’m just lazy? XD
The air grew stiff as January touched its dry fingertips to the palm of my hand. Looking back, the year was secular and meta, all at once. I felt the growing pains of sycamores, the sting of sea salt, the heat from the burners put out on the stove. So much has changed and yet, here I am again,…
Love this. ;)
I’ve read some interesting information in regards to drawing… the passage reads that “art” is a means of communication. Which I believe is a factual statement, in literal discretion; a subjective mark of visual phenomenon. I also believe this is a somewhat universally understood characteristic within art, that it serves to show you a time, a place, and/or a thing within this. But beyond this inherently objective understanding I find the underlying interaction between the individual artist or the observer and art itself to be fascinating.
I draw to communicate an ideal, an abstraction, a mark of existence; within this, I create a thing that is a priori to my own cognitive flourish , but yet equally synchronized in perpetual meaning.
As pertaining to my own art skills, what can be said of myself as a person? As obvious as one can conclude based on an apparent presence, what can one conclude of the illusion of non presence? Can absence be an aggressor of some lost charm or underdeveloped non sequi tor? I dunno.
Oh yeah, I drew this picture above, its not finished fyi.
Playboy: Thanks to those special effects, 2001 is undoubtedly the most graphic depiction of space flight in the history of films — and yet you have admitted that you yourself refuse to fly, even in a commercial jet liner. Why?
Kubrick: I suppose it comes down to a rather awesome awareness of mortality. Our ability, unlike the other animals, to conceptualize our own end creates tremendous psychic strains within us; whether we like to admit it or not, in each man’s chest a tiny ferret of fear at this ultimate knowledge gnaws away at his ego and his sense of purpose. We’re fortunate, in a way, that our body, and the fulfillment of its needs and functions, plays such an imperative role in our lives; this physical shell creates a buffer between us and the mind-paralyzing realization that only a few years of existence separate birth from death. If man really sat back and thought about his impending termination, and his terrifying insignificance and aloneness in the cosmos, he would surely go mad, or succumb to a numbing sense of futility. Why, he might ask himself, should be bother to write a great symphony, or strive to make a living, or even to love another, when he is no more than a momentary microbe on a dust mote whirling through the unimaginable immensity of space?
Those of us who are forced by their own sensibilities to view their lives in this perspective — who recognize that there is no purpose they can comprehend and that amidst a countless myriad of stars their existence goes unknown and unchronicled — can fall prey all too easily to the ultimate anomie….But even for those who lack the sensitivity to more than vaguely comprehend their transience and their triviality, this inchoate awareness robs life of meaning and purpose; it’s why ‘the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation,’ why so many of us find our lives as absent of meaning as our deaths.
The world’s religions, for all their parochialism, did supply a kind of consolation for this great ache; but as clergymen now pronounce the death of God and, to quote Arnold again, ‘the sea of faith’ recedes around the world with a ‘melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,’ man has no crutch left on which to lean—and no hope, however irrational, to give purpose to his existence. This shattering recognition of our mortality is at the root of far more mental illness than I suspect even psychiatrists are aware.
Playboy: If life is so purposeless, do you feel it’s worth living?
Kubrick: The very meaninglessness of life forces man to create his own meaning. Children, of course, begin life with an untarnished sense of wonder, a capacity to experience total joy at something as simple as the greenness of a leaf; but as they grow older, the awareness of death and decay begins to impinge on their consciousness and subtly erode their joie de vivre, their idealism — and their assumption of immortality. As a child matures, he sees death and pain everywhere about him, and begins to lose faith in the ultimate goodness of man. But, if he’s reasonably strong — and lucky — he can emerge from this twilight of the soul into a rebirth of life’s elan. Both because of and in spite of his awareness of the meaninglessness of life, he can forge a fresh sense of purpose and affirmation. He may not recapture the same pure sense of wonder he was born with, but he can shape something far more enduring and sustaining. The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death — however mutable man may be able to make them — our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light.
source: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/07/26/stanley-kubrick-playboy-interview/
