At the end of this month I'm leaving York for a self-enforced sabbatical from academia. After four years university-life I feel that I need a break. Although I see my future in academia (to some extent) I've also found that the atmosphere can be quite poisonous at times. I feel that I need some fresh air and time to consider whether this really is the thing I want to be doing (basically, am I still motivated to write philosophy whilst away from the academic pressure?). I was going to delete the blog, but I've decided to just leave it gathering dust for a while. When I return I'll be able to say whether I'm going to be a farmer or a philosopher. It is only in the case of the latter that this blog will continue.
The primary reason for this blog was always as a motivation for writing. An online notebook if you like and for the most part it was this. The comments were nice (mostly) but I've been writing five times the stuff I publish, mainly because I don't want to upset, annoy or (honestly) have to deal with any feedback. If I'm tailoring what I'm publishing on my blog then it's not fulfilling its function. This is something that needs reconsidering.
I also think the internet is a very poor tool for communication. If I want to talk to someone, I want to do it face-to-face, I'm even quite suspicious of phones (luddite that I am). Posting an essay about something or other isn't quite the same as talking to someone. Being in academia I have had the option of entering into essay debates with professors, so I don't really need to argue with the sort of nutcases the internet seems to attract (present company accepted, natürlich). So, there will be a format change on my return.
Anyway, that's about it really, thanks for the thinks.
Cheerio for now.
Saturday, 27 June 2009
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Meaningful engagement
A chimpanzee who goes to the library everyday is not intelligent, he is just a chimpanzee in a library.
Art, books, education. None of these are edifying in and of themselves. It is up to the person engaging with them to engage with them 'meaningfully'.
What is meaningful engagement? An engagement that broadens or deepens one's conception of a particular topic or of one's wider understanding. However, this is the conclusion and not the activity itself. How can we describe the activity of meaningful engagement? Do we only understand an activity in retrospect? It would seem so. How do we know we are dreaming for example? Only once we wake up and say 'it was only a dream', at the time it seems real enough, can we say 'it is a dream' or 'it is a meaningful engagement' without breaking or suspending the activity? It seems not. When I am reading a book do I know that I am reading a book? In a sense, of course, but we do not need a constant background reminder, 'now I'm reading a book, and now I'm reading a book, and now...' to continue the activity, indeed, thinking 'I'm reading a book' seems an unnecessary statement. Who is it a statement for? However, the question 'is that activity meaningful?' is a direct question of judgement to another. So, when I ask whether the engagement another student made with a text was meaningful I am evaluating whether I believe they have understood the text 'properly', and if I ask them directly I am asking them to evaluate their own experience. Meaningful engagement it seems can only be discovered post-experience by analysis or introspection upon events. However, as right as this may seem (and I believe that evaluatively it is correct) does not seem to answer the question of HOW we can meaningfully engage with an activity. This description would seem to suggest we an only know what we have done once we have done it (perhaps only in dreaming does this description hold). I do not read a book by finding out that I've just read a book, I make the active choice to read the book in the first place. The same with meaningful engagement, either I choose to engage meaningfully or I choose not to, i.e. to engage superficially, I cannot find out afterwords whether I engaged meaningfully. I CAN discover how well I engaged and what the outcome of that engagement was, but it cannot be an accidental matter. Although it seems perfectly true to say that one's engagement can be less or more meaningful than one had intended.
Art, books, education. None of these are edifying in and of themselves. It is up to the person engaging with them to engage with them 'meaningfully'.
What is meaningful engagement? An engagement that broadens or deepens one's conception of a particular topic or of one's wider understanding. However, this is the conclusion and not the activity itself. How can we describe the activity of meaningful engagement? Do we only understand an activity in retrospect? It would seem so. How do we know we are dreaming for example? Only once we wake up and say 'it was only a dream', at the time it seems real enough, can we say 'it is a dream' or 'it is a meaningful engagement' without breaking or suspending the activity? It seems not. When I am reading a book do I know that I am reading a book? In a sense, of course, but we do not need a constant background reminder, 'now I'm reading a book, and now I'm reading a book, and now...' to continue the activity, indeed, thinking 'I'm reading a book' seems an unnecessary statement. Who is it a statement for? However, the question 'is that activity meaningful?' is a direct question of judgement to another. So, when I ask whether the engagement another student made with a text was meaningful I am evaluating whether I believe they have understood the text 'properly', and if I ask them directly I am asking them to evaluate their own experience. Meaningful engagement it seems can only be discovered post-experience by analysis or introspection upon events. However, as right as this may seem (and I believe that evaluatively it is correct) does not seem to answer the question of HOW we can meaningfully engage with an activity. This description would seem to suggest we an only know what we have done once we have done it (perhaps only in dreaming does this description hold). I do not read a book by finding out that I've just read a book, I make the active choice to read the book in the first place. The same with meaningful engagement, either I choose to engage meaningfully or I choose not to, i.e. to engage superficially, I cannot find out afterwords whether I engaged meaningfully. I CAN discover how well I engaged and what the outcome of that engagement was, but it cannot be an accidental matter. Although it seems perfectly true to say that one's engagement can be less or more meaningful than one had intended.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Plato - Kant
The two biggest names in philosophy, the two biggest influences upon philosophy, and the two biggest errors in doing philosophy.
The 'systematising' god-heads. [But there are]No monistic universals, only a pluralistic diversity - the Heideggerean 'makeshift'. [Which leads to the]Removal of Kant's 'grid'.
The 'systematising' god-heads. [But there are]No monistic universals, only a pluralistic diversity - the Heideggerean 'makeshift'. [Which leads to the]Removal of Kant's 'grid'.
Modest Pessimism
I would describe myself and most likely be described by most people as a pessimist. However, I think both terms, pessimist and optimist; have been coerced by the idea of extremes, i.e. that if one is an optimist then this means that the person is almost unaware of the world and paints a happy if unrealistic picture of events and people they meet. The pessimist is normally depicted in the opposite manner, still unrealistic in their reactions but strongly negative (if not entirely negative) as compared to the optimist’s positive view of the World. Although it is tempting to render the positions in entirely black or white terms, ‘is the glass half-empty or half-full?’, as we see if we investigate any apparently final duality, there are numerous crossings and similarities that make simplistic distinctions much more complicated.
Although I have hope in regard to my own life and for people, in general, to do the ‘right thing’, i.e. that all people are basically ‘good’, I also believe that it is our reliance and trust in overarching ‘theories’ to explain things for us that is forever confusing and hindering (Not that we are on our way anywhere in particular. I do not believe in the destiny of mankind or the purposive goal of evolution.) humanity, that we are likely to except the most brutal and inhumane things done to others to allow us (Whether ‘us’ is the individual self, one’s immediate loved ones, a small community of like-minds, or a wider grouping of peoples.) to live a peaceful life. This is the pessimistic belief I hold, like Hume, that there is at the ‘heart’ of humanity this honestly made (one could even say ‘naturally’ made) mistake that forever perpetuates our ongoing struggles. “Hell is paved with good intentions,” is perhaps the best summary of my beliefs.
Does this seem entirely pessimistic? Perhaps and perhaps the division between optimism and pessimism is simply this, that the optimist has faith in a final goal that ‘all things happen for a reason’ and that the pessimist has faith in the open ongoing experience of mankind. Or to put it another way, it seems that the ability to believe a narrative explanation for a course of events (whether self-made or given) marks one as an optimist, whereas believing in the (what we can call now) Postmodern narrative of chaos marks the pessimist. My modest pessimism is that we can create hopeful, helpful and ‘true’ narrative explanations of events, mini-narratives, and stitch these together in a makeshift manner to create a wider Worldview, but that this is not and cannot be ‘complete’ or a ‘whole’. That it is the gullible, albeit natural and understandable, swallowing of the flawed meta-narrative as a simplistic Worldview that has led and will lead to our ongoing conflict and potentially our ultimate downfall (I laugh here at my use of ultimate!).
Why then do I insist on calling it ‘modest’ pessimism? It is modest because the pessimist falls back (as I have shown) into the idea of a general wholeness of existence and this is characteristic of our attempt to describe the World to each other in an understandable manner. How else do we hope to comprehend the enormity of life and the finality of death except with wide sweeping narratives that give us a reason for living?
P.S. The quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," is often attributed to Samuel Johnson (that lamentable detractor of the Scottish) but he didn't coin the phrase.
Although I have hope in regard to my own life and for people, in general, to do the ‘right thing’, i.e. that all people are basically ‘good’, I also believe that it is our reliance and trust in overarching ‘theories’ to explain things for us that is forever confusing and hindering (Not that we are on our way anywhere in particular. I do not believe in the destiny of mankind or the purposive goal of evolution.) humanity, that we are likely to except the most brutal and inhumane things done to others to allow us (Whether ‘us’ is the individual self, one’s immediate loved ones, a small community of like-minds, or a wider grouping of peoples.) to live a peaceful life. This is the pessimistic belief I hold, like Hume, that there is at the ‘heart’ of humanity this honestly made (one could even say ‘naturally’ made) mistake that forever perpetuates our ongoing struggles. “Hell is paved with good intentions,” is perhaps the best summary of my beliefs.
Does this seem entirely pessimistic? Perhaps and perhaps the division between optimism and pessimism is simply this, that the optimist has faith in a final goal that ‘all things happen for a reason’ and that the pessimist has faith in the open ongoing experience of mankind. Or to put it another way, it seems that the ability to believe a narrative explanation for a course of events (whether self-made or given) marks one as an optimist, whereas believing in the (what we can call now) Postmodern narrative of chaos marks the pessimist. My modest pessimism is that we can create hopeful, helpful and ‘true’ narrative explanations of events, mini-narratives, and stitch these together in a makeshift manner to create a wider Worldview, but that this is not and cannot be ‘complete’ or a ‘whole’. That it is the gullible, albeit natural and understandable, swallowing of the flawed meta-narrative as a simplistic Worldview that has led and will lead to our ongoing conflict and potentially our ultimate downfall (I laugh here at my use of ultimate!).
Why then do I insist on calling it ‘modest’ pessimism? It is modest because the pessimist falls back (as I have shown) into the idea of a general wholeness of existence and this is characteristic of our attempt to describe the World to each other in an understandable manner. How else do we hope to comprehend the enormity of life and the finality of death except with wide sweeping narratives that give us a reason for living?
P.S. The quote "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," is often attributed to Samuel Johnson (that lamentable detractor of the Scottish) but he didn't coin the phrase.
Saturday, 20 June 2009
Are you a person that needs people?
I certainly am. Although for a long time I believed that the paradigm existence was away from people, living like a Nietzschean hermit, standing above those that would otherwise destroy me. I now see this as youthful cowardice (or, at best, paranoia), an attempt to deny what made me by distancing myself into a cold realm of dream-like thoughts. An obvious fantasy of the sort that is very attractive to the quiet withdrawn boy I was, but still its attraction was no mistake or flaw and although I called it cowardice a moment ago, it might be seen as a necessary step for the type of person that I am.
I've come to the realisation now that what I desire is not the absence of all people, but the inclusion of the 'right' people. I both need and want a small friendly community in which to live, a dedicated group of close friends, and, perhaps most of all, someone with whom I can share all of this, or perhaps this is simply my new fantasy. The dream of the ideal partner and the perfect life. If it is (and it may be) it is still a greater more detailed and richer outlook than the dream of the hermit.
Of course, the last 'clause' need not be realised (at least not right away, it is the hardest to get right after all). I think I could manage to live 'alone' as long as I did not 'live alone'.
Aristotle once called friendship one of the most valuable and important aspects of human existence. Who am I to disagree?
I've come to the realisation now that what I desire is not the absence of all people, but the inclusion of the 'right' people. I both need and want a small friendly community in which to live, a dedicated group of close friends, and, perhaps most of all, someone with whom I can share all of this, or perhaps this is simply my new fantasy. The dream of the ideal partner and the perfect life. If it is (and it may be) it is still a greater more detailed and richer outlook than the dream of the hermit.
Of course, the last 'clause' need not be realised (at least not right away, it is the hardest to get right after all). I think I could manage to live 'alone' as long as I did not 'live alone'.
Aristotle once called friendship one of the most valuable and important aspects of human existence. Who am I to disagree?
Thursday, 18 June 2009
recent aphorisms
There should be a world were time was more flexible, for then it would match our descriptions.
-
What marks a writer beyond any other is a supreme arrogance and selfishness.
-
A record of history is a record of a moral judgement upon law.
-
Love is not real unless expressed. Thought is no different.
-
Do I desire peace or power? And which do I deserve?
-
Narrativity is not a theory, but it is a more commited World view.
-
How does the 'stimulation of the senses' result in a theory of the world? These basic scientific terms and descriptions of light rays and so forth give nothing like the experience of seeing.
-
Just as there is no Science, only a motley of sciences, there is also no Philosophy.
-
What marks a writer beyond any other is a supreme arrogance and selfishness.
-
A record of history is a record of a moral judgement upon law.
-
Love is not real unless expressed. Thought is no different.
-
Do I desire peace or power? And which do I deserve?
-
Narrativity is not a theory, but it is a more commited World view.
-
How does the 'stimulation of the senses' result in a theory of the world? These basic scientific terms and descriptions of light rays and so forth give nothing like the experience of seeing.
-
Just as there is no Science, only a motley of sciences, there is also no Philosophy.
Monday, 15 June 2009
Historical Justification
We take an interest in the facts of the past partially to enliven our view of the present, indeed, it is also completely normal to use historical 'fact' as a justification for our current actions. Take for example the historical 'fact' that I heard on the train the other day and have heard variations thereupon repeated many times before, that in 1850 people lived 8 to a house with none of the modern comforts we enjoy and take for granted. Thus, from this, we can in addition to the usual "we don't know how lucky we are these days", take that we have a right as a 21st century citizen to aspire for these better things, i.e. look what great things were achieved by the Empire and that its ongoing capitalist structure have given us. So, we should be thankful and continue to work to expand this system. Paradoxically the amateur historian places this sentiment alongside the facts of the present, such as, "we have no manufacturing industry anymore, it is all outsourced foreign labour." Any irony in this is normally lost.
History seen in this way achieves little more than a covering story for whatever moral or political motivations the speaker wishes to pronounce. Any set of historical facts can be moved into a differing order or with differing emphasis to give a different account or outcome. If historical truth rests on objectivity then this seems to be an objectivity that is beyond most. If a historian listed dates and factual events then this would give very little information of the past, instead the historian must craft an historical 'narrative'. A story that links events temporally, but also in a progressive fashion so that the historical outcome is one that is seen as 'correct'.
History seen in this way achieves little more than a covering story for whatever moral or political motivations the speaker wishes to pronounce. Any set of historical facts can be moved into a differing order or with differing emphasis to give a different account or outcome. If historical truth rests on objectivity then this seems to be an objectivity that is beyond most. If a historian listed dates and factual events then this would give very little information of the past, instead the historian must craft an historical 'narrative'. A story that links events temporally, but also in a progressive fashion so that the historical outcome is one that is seen as 'correct'.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
How to (not) argue (with idiots).
Dear Sir/Madame,
You might be right.
Sincerly yours,
C. Godfree-Morrell.
(With humble thanks to H.L. Mencken)
You might be right.
Sincerly yours,
C. Godfree-Morrell.
(With humble thanks to H.L. Mencken)
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Thinking about Leonard.
"Poetry is a verdict not a choice."
I've been thinking about a post by Doubtful Egg and have come to the conclusion that my 'musical upbringing' was both banal and rather late. There are the obvious anecdotes where an adult exclaims 'you call this music!' or something similar, and my juvenile heart-felt swearing that I would never make the same accusations upon music when I grew older. Something that I've already failed in, as I detest most chart pop and radio1 dance music, but this was never really in doubt. Any experimental music that I've listened to has only been as part of my own search, as such it's never been massively outwith my own expectations and not particularly shocking enough to prompt The Question as Egg calls it. So, although I can't really speak of music that has shocked with me with its oddness, its non-musicality and thus prompting what music is, thinking about this subject has made me think of the music that has the most profound effect upon me. Although Jazz is the simple answer here, an accidental discovery of Charlie Parker led me through the history of Jazz which ended with a love of free-jazz, it is rather the music (specifically the lyrics, the poetry, and the voice) of Leonard Cohen that has effected me in the deepest manner. For me, poetry is always first a kind of song and no one embodies this spirit more than L. Cohen.
Below is an interview from 1966 in which Cohen talks about his writing and other things. It's quite a lovely interview with a palpable tension between interviewer and interviewee. Shame that it's only an excerpt and that the full interview isn't to be found anywhere.
Additional: In case the link in the comments section is missed. There is another interview made even earlier (and thankfully complete) from the CBC archive. Find it here.
I've been thinking about a post by Doubtful Egg and have come to the conclusion that my 'musical upbringing' was both banal and rather late. There are the obvious anecdotes where an adult exclaims 'you call this music!' or something similar, and my juvenile heart-felt swearing that I would never make the same accusations upon music when I grew older. Something that I've already failed in, as I detest most chart pop and radio1 dance music, but this was never really in doubt. Any experimental music that I've listened to has only been as part of my own search, as such it's never been massively outwith my own expectations and not particularly shocking enough to prompt The Question as Egg calls it. So, although I can't really speak of music that has shocked with me with its oddness, its non-musicality and thus prompting what music is, thinking about this subject has made me think of the music that has the most profound effect upon me. Although Jazz is the simple answer here, an accidental discovery of Charlie Parker led me through the history of Jazz which ended with a love of free-jazz, it is rather the music (specifically the lyrics, the poetry, and the voice) of Leonard Cohen that has effected me in the deepest manner. For me, poetry is always first a kind of song and no one embodies this spirit more than L. Cohen.
Below is an interview from 1966 in which Cohen talks about his writing and other things. It's quite a lovely interview with a palpable tension between interviewer and interviewee. Shame that it's only an excerpt and that the full interview isn't to be found anywhere.
Additional: In case the link in the comments section is missed. There is another interview made even earlier (and thankfully complete) from the CBC archive. Find it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
