"Crazy wisdom is the humbling knowledge of the immensity of the cosmos and the inevitable change and transformation that will ultimately wear away all our achievements. It is the grinning face of death, and the hollow sound of our question 'Why?' echoing back at us from the void." --Wes Nisker
"If you understand, things are just as they are. If you do not understand, thins are just as they are." --Zen Buddhist Saying
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Subjective Truth
"Some people think that in addition to objective truth with which we deal in science we should recognize subjective truth which is allegedly legitimate in other contexts. Subjective truth means that something is 'true for me.' Subjective truth is a fond nickname for self-deception." --Walter Kaufmann
Monday, November 20, 2006
Defining Religious Organizations
Paganism: A religious sect that worships mythical characters. Foundation predates written history. One of the earliest and most primal of the various religious sects.
Judaisim: A religious sect that worships a moral code derived from centuries of servitude and desert wonderings. Founded by sun ravaged Jew after witnessing the local flora spontaniously combust.
Christianity: A religious sect that combines Judaic morality with Pagan mythology. Founded by a poor Jewish carpenter who was eventually executed for his political extremism.
Islam: A religious sect derived from Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. Founded by an epileptic in a cave.
Buddhism: More an eastern nihilistic philosophy than a religious sect. Founded by a dissatisfied prince, it was later turned into a religion by hordes of fools.
When the urge beseeches you to look down upon someone else's religion as absurd or untrue, take a quick glance back at the all too humble origins of the religion you profess. The religious elitism dissolves.
Judaisim: A religious sect that worships a moral code derived from centuries of servitude and desert wonderings. Founded by sun ravaged Jew after witnessing the local flora spontaniously combust.
Christianity: A religious sect that combines Judaic morality with Pagan mythology. Founded by a poor Jewish carpenter who was eventually executed for his political extremism.
Islam: A religious sect derived from Paganism, Judaism, and Christianity. Founded by an epileptic in a cave.
Buddhism: More an eastern nihilistic philosophy than a religious sect. Founded by a dissatisfied prince, it was later turned into a religion by hordes of fools.
When the urge beseeches you to look down upon someone else's religion as absurd or untrue, take a quick glance back at the all too humble origins of the religion you profess. The religious elitism dissolves.
A Continuing Dialouge
As my esteemed friend has seen fit to leave a response to my response concerning her response (this will likely go on ad nuaseum--consider this a fair warning to those with better things to do with their time), and as she has left me an open invitation to argue about this to my heart's delight, I hereby offer my newest rebuttal.
Since so much of your response centered on the semantics of this discussion--that, too, then will be my focul point in this post. To speak a truth in the wrong words is to speak a falsehood (hehe...it's fun-time with pomposity).
You define "Deserve" as to merit, be qualified for, of have claim to something because of actions, qualities, or situation. I would agree with everything but the word "situation" being in there. (And Mr. Webster and I don't really give a damn what that old bastard Mr. Oxford has to say.) To add situation as a qualification of deserving is to relegate the entire concept to a mere synonym of cause and effect. This is sort of like the panthiests calling the universe god. Well there's really no point in calling the universe god, because the universe already has a name--we call it the universe. The only thing you can hope to accomplish by neglecting the subtle nuances of a word is to further confuse the already clueless. And let's face it, that's not much of an accomplishment.
Without its implicit connection to justice, and in turn morality, the entire concept of "deserving" dissapates into nothing.
Since so much of your response centered on the semantics of this discussion--that, too, then will be my focul point in this post. To speak a truth in the wrong words is to speak a falsehood (hehe...it's fun-time with pomposity).
You define "Deserve" as to merit, be qualified for, of have claim to something because of actions, qualities, or situation. I would agree with everything but the word "situation" being in there. (And Mr. Webster and I don't really give a damn what that old bastard Mr. Oxford has to say.) To add situation as a qualification of deserving is to relegate the entire concept to a mere synonym of cause and effect. This is sort of like the panthiests calling the universe god. Well there's really no point in calling the universe god, because the universe already has a name--we call it the universe. The only thing you can hope to accomplish by neglecting the subtle nuances of a word is to further confuse the already clueless. And let's face it, that's not much of an accomplishment.
Without its implicit connection to justice, and in turn morality, the entire concept of "deserving" dissapates into nothing.
Friday, November 17, 2006
A Response
A much revered fellow blogger/close friend left a response to an earlier post to which I feel the need to counter. So, without further ado...
You argue that we desrerve to suffer and feel joy because we wake up every morning and do what needs to be done rather than simply kill ourselves. My counter argument: That suffering and feeling joy is the natural consequence of daily living does not mean that we therefore "deserve" to suffer or feel joy. If a rock is dropped into a pond, cuasing a wave which tosses a small piece of debris out of the pond and onto the shore--did that piece of debris therefore deserve to be thrown onto the shore? Does such a word as "deserve" even make sense given the context? You are sure to answer that the debris did not make a choice and therefore is incapable of "deserving." And what makes you think that people really make any choices? As often as man acts against his own best interests despite knowing what his best interests are it seems difficult for me to accept as given that man actually chooses his actions. Or take for example the act of fidgetting. Often the person biting his nails or ripping apart his cigarette butt is completely unaware that he is doing so until he looks down and notices the action already done. Or take for another example what people are willing to do for sex. The extent to which some individuals are willing to degrade themselves in order to assure a momentary gratification seems absolutely absurd so long as we believe they have a choice in the matter and are not simply being driven by instinct. (Please do not be mistaken, I do not think sex is bad, it's just that people are willing to go to absurd lengths for it.) My point here is that what we call choice very often amounts to nothing more than habit and instinct.
Taking the argument of choice in a different direction, you state that the child does "deserve" cancer because the child (or adult, it doesn't really matter) chooses to stay alive rather than simply die. This argument may carry some weight as far as the child "deserving" to sustain the cancer once he has it, but says nothing of the child "deserving" to get cancer. No choice made by the child led up to him getting cancer, that is something that is simply thrust upon him by outside sources.
One final point, and I believe it is here that we disagree (as it often happens that we disagree on the semantics more than anything else), the word "deserve" carries with it certain moral intonations--inherent in it is the concept of justice. To seperate justice from "deserving"--to minimalize it to a mere cause and effect--is to take all substance away from the word, leaving us with only an empty shell that use to house some meaning (however wrong headed that meaning may have been). To say that a man deserved to stub his toe because the movement of his foot, in conjunction with his proximity to the wall, caused him to do so is to say absolutely nothing at all. Without an inherent reference to the idea of justice the word "deserve" has no meaning at all.
Thank you for the comment, and feel free to leave as many as you like, as this actually gives me something to rant about.
You argue that we desrerve to suffer and feel joy because we wake up every morning and do what needs to be done rather than simply kill ourselves. My counter argument: That suffering and feeling joy is the natural consequence of daily living does not mean that we therefore "deserve" to suffer or feel joy. If a rock is dropped into a pond, cuasing a wave which tosses a small piece of debris out of the pond and onto the shore--did that piece of debris therefore deserve to be thrown onto the shore? Does such a word as "deserve" even make sense given the context? You are sure to answer that the debris did not make a choice and therefore is incapable of "deserving." And what makes you think that people really make any choices? As often as man acts against his own best interests despite knowing what his best interests are it seems difficult for me to accept as given that man actually chooses his actions. Or take for example the act of fidgetting. Often the person biting his nails or ripping apart his cigarette butt is completely unaware that he is doing so until he looks down and notices the action already done. Or take for another example what people are willing to do for sex. The extent to which some individuals are willing to degrade themselves in order to assure a momentary gratification seems absolutely absurd so long as we believe they have a choice in the matter and are not simply being driven by instinct. (Please do not be mistaken, I do not think sex is bad, it's just that people are willing to go to absurd lengths for it.) My point here is that what we call choice very often amounts to nothing more than habit and instinct.
Taking the argument of choice in a different direction, you state that the child does "deserve" cancer because the child (or adult, it doesn't really matter) chooses to stay alive rather than simply die. This argument may carry some weight as far as the child "deserving" to sustain the cancer once he has it, but says nothing of the child "deserving" to get cancer. No choice made by the child led up to him getting cancer, that is something that is simply thrust upon him by outside sources.
One final point, and I believe it is here that we disagree (as it often happens that we disagree on the semantics more than anything else), the word "deserve" carries with it certain moral intonations--inherent in it is the concept of justice. To seperate justice from "deserving"--to minimalize it to a mere cause and effect--is to take all substance away from the word, leaving us with only an empty shell that use to house some meaning (however wrong headed that meaning may have been). To say that a man deserved to stub his toe because the movement of his foot, in conjunction with his proximity to the wall, caused him to do so is to say absolutely nothing at all. Without an inherent reference to the idea of justice the word "deserve" has no meaning at all.
Thank you for the comment, and feel free to leave as many as you like, as this actually gives me something to rant about.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Moments of Newness
There are moments in which I am overcome by a feeling of newness to the world. Not of rejuvination or exuberance necessarily, but a feeling as though I am once again experiencing life for the first time. It is during these brief moments that I find myself again believing in God. It is during these moments that I am again overcome by a childlike sense of awe and the realization that everything really is good.
Rather Perish
"Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared."
--Nietzsche; The Wanderer and His Shadow
--Nietzsche; The Wanderer and His Shadow
Thursday, November 02, 2006
Justice and Afterlife
There is no such thing as justice. People get what they get--it doesn't matter what they "deserve." Does any child deserve to get cancer? No. Does that stop some children from getting it? No. Nobody, and I mean nobody, however terrible they may be, deserves to suffer. Nobody, and once again I mean nobody, deserves greatness. Sometimes life provides one or the other, sometimes it doesn't. In either case you don't deserve it. You get what you get and that's it.
I have heard it argued that the lack of justice in this life proves that there must be an after life where justice does exist. Does this mean that the lack of unicorns and pixies in this life proves that there must be an afterlife in which unicorns and pixies exist? Could a person making such a claim as this possibly be taken seriously? The only thing that a lack of justice in this world proves is that there is a lack of justice in this world.
I have heard it argued that the lack of justice in this life proves that there must be an after life where justice does exist. Does this mean that the lack of unicorns and pixies in this life proves that there must be an afterlife in which unicorns and pixies exist? Could a person making such a claim as this possibly be taken seriously? The only thing that a lack of justice in this world proves is that there is a lack of justice in this world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)