Waging War (Politics Aside)

Wage war on yourself,
Pull the temple down on your head,
Those who don't get dragged through the mud don't appreciate what they have,
Those who are born to a Christ never understand what it is to believe in a Christ,
Wage war on yourself,
Pull the temple down on your head,
Those who are self- sufficient and who are also selfish beget cancerous thoughts,
Those who are wicked are lost to their frenzy,
Wage war on yourself,
Pull the Temple down on your head,
Consider yourself absurd and ugly for just one moment,
and then make peace with it,
Believe in something that no one dares,
And that everyone despises,
make it work,
Love the ugly, cripple child that you are,
look at it and confess your undying devotion,
And then wage all out unceasing war on yourself,
that is what love for yourself is.
That is where you learn to sweat blood and be sick for your passions.
Only then does your life have meaning.

Fate, Responsibility,and Making Choices.

We live in a world where things are always changing. Sometimes we have control over these things and sometimes we don't.But I think in the end, regardless of weather something that comes into our lives is or isn't under our control it is without a doubt our own responsibility to handle these things. While the help of others is usually a welcome addition we nonetheless shoulder our own burdens. It is nobody's responsibility to get a person through a crisis or a difficulty but that person himself. In this aspect we are each completely and utterly alone. This should not be looked upon as a dismal or depressing way of life in which we flounder miserably alone being kicked along by fate and chewed up in the jaws of responsibility and spat to the ground bleeding. It should be an invigorating thought that gives us control over our lives and our ability to make our lives what we want.
The idea is this. We are not fated creatures. We are not on any path that can not be altered. We choose at anytime to do anything we wish. When we let life's happenings depict who we are, we are choosing weather consciously or unconsciously to resign ourselves to fate. But it is imperative that we realize that we made a choice to do this and must therefore accept the consequences of our actions. Every breath we take is a choice. We choose not to breath when we hold our breath. We choose to sit or stand or to hate or love. We choose to fall in love through a series of decisions that lead to the moment when you choose to tell a person "I love you." We have choices always.
There are however things that happen in the world that are out of our control. Nobody chooses cancer. Nobody chooses to be born unto an abusive parent. But it is I think important to notice that when we are dealt these cards or any other cards of so called fate, we have to understand that we have choices within those confines and responsibilities to handle these burdens. It may not be your fault but it is most assuredly your responsibility to bear scars and trials. We wear the results of our decisions like tattoos on our souls.
A great deal of our strife and grief and even guilt has to do largely with our reluctance to accept that our actions lead directly or indirectly to our "fates" no matter what the external circumstances were, was, or will be. When we shoot our mouths off without thinking, we look like fools ( which I am great at). When we don't watch where we are going we run into things (which many people I know are great at). It is simply causality. Its choices. Why even when you make no decision what so ever you have chosen to do just that. But that just leads to stagnation, boredom, and depression.
Do yourself a favor, The next time something annoys you or makes you angry or even something that comes along and really knocks your breath out, really dig down deep inside yourself and ask what choices you had in the matter. If you are honest with yourself,which is very hard to do, you will see that you could have either avoided the situation all together or maybe you could have lessened the blow. And then you find later that instead of looking back to see what you could have done you look forward to see what you can do in the future and prepare for things that might come. Presuppose your enemy,thus is the art of war, debate, and life itself.

Good Vs. Evil

Here is another idea that I have struggled with throughout my life. The Idea of good vs evil.
When one thinks about good and evil the first thing that comes to mind is good guys and evil villains, dark forces being held at bay by the forces of justice and virtue. Of course the evil forces are gaining in strength and will soon be dispersed to run free over all that which was decent, and innocent until that is, the forces of nature regain its hold and defeat evil and return it to its restraints, once again up holding the morals and values of all good people, good triumphing over evil.
I think we all know that this is a bit of hyperbole but it is nonetheless true. We get told this all of our lives. Good wins over evil. We will catch the bad guys. In the bible Jesus comes back to reek serious havoc on this planet thus restoring nature and peace.
What is good and evil, really?
What are the rules that govern weather or not something we do is good or evil? Or better yet, What is it that which gets judged and adds up to be the end all be all objective truth that one is or is not good or evil.
One could say that one that does evil things is an evil person. this is a valid perspective but I think it is important to bear in mind the fact that evil people do good things and I think it is even more apparent that good people do evil things.
Lets take for example a man who has come to climax in his life, he's lost his fortune to the hands of greedy business men, when he turns to the government they are of no assistance to him, his wife just left him for another man and he's simply had more than he can handle. He melts down he goes to his house and gets a couple of guns and walks slowly downtown thinking about what has happened to him. When he reaches a busy downtown city block he pulls out the guns and and in a fit of rage he kills several adults, some carrying briefcases, some people just shopping. But even in his fit of rage he has the consciousness of mind to not shoot any children. In fact lets say he even spares the life of one of the randomly targeted adults on account that a child ran past trying to get to safety. Now the question here is this. Is this man an evil man?
And is he eternally evil? Can you find your way back to innocence or good after that? I wonder if any amount of prayer or repentance could heal such a wound.
He may argue that he did the right thing. He may feel forever and to his grave that the rest of us owe him an apology for thinking that he had done us a misdeed. Or he may repent and find Christ in prison perhaps ,but what about his status inclined to good or evil?
If he feels guilty about what he has done is he good?I don't think any of the family members of the people killed would say he is good. But does that make him evil?
It seems to me that the only solution here is that evil and good are just words. There is no value to the words at all. It is the values and morals that we hang upon these words that are significant, however this certainly does not solve the problem of good versus evil it gives a little understanding to the problem and that understanding is that what one values as evil others may value good. Different cultures and different people place different values on the meaningless vehicles we call words and send them out into the world to be heard and seen by others and inescapably scrutinized and judged by others as a result. This makes a tough argument against world ethics, knowing that different people people and different places have different morals and values we have to be prepared at all times to reexamine our beliefs. This does not mean we have to change our beliefs, although in a lot of occasions if we are truly honest with ourselves we would find at least some small way of making our lives better by altering our beliefs to a certain degree. But change of belief is not what is important here, it is the virtue of self reflection which gives you the freedom to examine your life and your deeds and decide for yourself what is good and evil and weather or not you are one or the other.
It is also true that there is a degree of truth to what others see. What millions of news watchers would see thanks to television and internet is a mad man walking the streets and killing innocent people, and rightly so, that is exactly what he is, at least for that moment and I guess at any moment from then on when someone sees news footage and declares him evil as a result. For each person who believes him evil, he is. Kierkagaard's subjective truth is totally at work here.
So in the end it comes down to essentially this. We are good and evil as we do good and evil and when we do good or evil it is up to us to judge ourselves although others will judge as well and that, in a sense, is part of the truth about a person. Authenticity is great. but it comes at a price. It means a person has to be the things that a person doesn't like about being a person in order to truly be what it is that a person loves about being a person. but that is what makes one real.That is what authenticates an individual. The beauty of this is that when a person takes control by examining his ideas and beliefs he realizes the ultimate ability to sculpt in his mind and in the minds of others weather or not he is good or evil. Examine yourself and what you do and how you do it. You find then that you worry very little about weather or not someone else is good or evil but rather was there anything good or evil about your own actions.
Thanks for reading.
Not done yet....thee are a lot of books out there.

Phenomenology: An opinion piece.

I don't know about you. But I know that every time try to grasp the idea of Phenomenology I always get lost in the idea of consciousness. I think of it like this. We view objects in the world as concepts. When we look at a tree we see the concept of a tree. The tree is there and so is the world around it. There is grass there but we don't see it. You see a tree.
Then lets say that a bird comes and lands in the tree. Now you are thinking about the bird. Its as though you have transcended the tree. the tree suddenly isn't there or rather, the tree sort of just merges and blends into the idea of the bird. Much like the grass had done when the tree became significant.
Our entire lives are like this. Things come and go and slowly..or quickly for that matter, blend and meld together to make this thing we call a self. The very same concept continues over the span of the world to create history. History, and experience, the witnessing of people and events is what we do. We are the questioners of the universe. We are a function in the universe that allows it to somehow try to understand itself. I know that sounds crazy but I believe with everything I am that it is true.
We may or may not be created by god we may or may not be made in his image. there may or may not be miracles. But the fact that I can sit here and type this is testament to the fact that we are here to do something,either to fulfill a role or perhaps a duty. Life is not meant to be stagnated and without will. We have something to do here on earth. I think that weather or not a god or God himself exists is a completely irrelevant matter.Because if we are fully engaged in life's experiences and as we live life we do what we can to promote and preserve it. (Take care of ourselves and others and the planet,etc) then we have done what is right and if there is a "god" I think you are covered.
I think we have to transcend the idea of God all together. Now when we transcend an idea it is not that we destroy it. it blends and becomes a part something bigger, or more relevant or more real. it makes ourselves more real,more authentic. Is that not what we want? to understand how real we are and what is happening around us? To wonder weather or not there is a god for too long is to be stagnate. We must simply put it to rest. It is IMPERATIVE that we passionately explore ourselves and others and places and things. Because this might be all there is. It could all be over at any moment for any reason. So don't spend time making contingency plans for weather or not there is a god.
If you choose to believe in God don't let his wrath keep you from fulfilling your earthly role. And if you choose not to believe don't let the lack of his existence hollow you out and believe in nothing at all. Both of these things are nihilistic and it is unsatisfying, frustrating, and boring. And you are certain to be miserable. Live aesthetically, live ethically, and live religiously if you like,but be damn sure you live because the alternative is hell.

Nietzsche: A Man Whom Most Mistunderstood.

On a very different level of the ideas of existentialism. Or what would later become known as existentialism. We have a most colorful and exciting philosopher by name of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. Nietzsche was a very controversial philosopher. He was known for his pointed and some times vicious attacks on Christianity as well as many other philosophers from the past, including Socrates because all in all he felt that Socrates was the one that urged humanity to think in terms of other-worldliness. Nietzsche felt that not only was it a ridiculous idea that there be the watchful eye of God on us at all times but he lamented the idea that working dutifully to earn one's pass to heaven completely undermined what it meant to be in this life at this time. He even felt that ideas in politics that promised new ways of life in the future undermined the importance of the present. He felt that once you are dead, it was what one had done with his life that was to be the legacy for the those you leave behind.
In the book "The Gay Science" Nietzsche tells us at one point about a lunatic that walks into a market and announces aloud. "God is dead, and we have killed him!!" This is of course is met with the condescending stares and jokes from the people in the market place. But the fact implied therein is that God IS dead and it was indeed humans who had killed him with their immorality, and that the people are incapable of comprehending what they had done.
While Nietzsche was infamous for the use of "God is dead" he was not the first the first to use the term. Several early philosophers used the term to illustrate the moral state of the world. or to simply say that "God is dead" is to say that we don't believe in God anymore and that is why he is dead.
But was Nietzsche's style. He used a lot of exclamation points to help convey his passion for what he was saying. When he wrote he would often exaggerate to the point that his ideas could easily be lost or misunderstood.
Misunderstood is perhaps the best way to in one word sum up Nietzsche. A man with such passion and enthusiasm. And so many people think he was a man of doom and gloom and depressing nothingness of being. This is not true.
You don't have to agree that Nietzsche was right. But it is worth an attempt to look past Nietzsche's scathing criticisms and see what his ultimate point was.
The Ultimate thing that Nietzsche was trying to tell us is this. You are here now. If you want your life to have meaning and you want your life to be worth living it is up to you to adopt the values and rules and moral codes that you will live by that bring you aesthetic joy,and are ethical so that you don't tread on others. He wanted us to know that what makes us good or bad people is what we do. What we do is essentially what we are and it is up to us to "become who we are" as he would've put it.
Nietzsche was born into a luthern family. His father died when he was young and he was raised by is mother, and aunts and sister who were all devoutly Christian. As Nietzsche grew up in this environment he began to see essentially what Kierkagaard had seen in the idea that people weren't as religous as they claimed to be. That being a Christian had become something hollow and empty and blaze'. It was simply to go along with the herd to be a Christian. But as opposed to reinventing Christianity as Kierkagaard had wanted to do. Nietzsche would just have soon have seen it wiped away.
Nietzsche also believed that when philosophers do what they do which is to philosophize, They tend to cover the areas in their lives that give them trouble. This is true in both Kierkagaard and Nietzsche himself. And from what I have seen most any other philosopher in history.
Nietzsche felt that to be beautiful is mans greatest achievement,but, by beautiful he meant not in the sense of physical beauty but in the honing and sculpting of a person over time that makes them beautiful. Education and experience and thought and character are the important things to Nietzsche'. He simply despised the fact that people herded themselves to church with no idea of what it was they believed in.
Nietzsche's beliefs were those of deep, life altering acceptance of one's gifts and talents, as well as their flaws and limitations. He was a realist through and through. Though Not a pessimist as some might think.
I'm a fan of Nietzsche in the sense that he has a way of shocking you into seeing what it is that he's talking about. His vicious attacks on the herd mentality of Christianity was not to show his hatred for Christians so much as it was a vehicle for forcing others to consider what he was saying.
I suggest Nietzsche for anyone who wants to read a book with an intense perspective on life . He will take you for a wild ride. And you will most likely be changed by what you read weather you agree or not.
But this is basically the other perspective of existentialism in that we exist, and we are here for a limited time and to take action to make our lives what we want it to be.
I think Nietzsche was a rational man on the side of the atheists.
More to come
thanks for reading.

Kierkagaard's Subjective Truth

When talking about philosophy and religion and ways in which to live our lives it is perhaps the most important to realize the significance of subjectivity.
And when we speak of subjectivity one of the great philosophers that should come to mind is Soren Kierkagaard. Kierkagaard was a christian. He wasn't the type of christian that you might think of today. In fact he felt that Christianity had nothing to do with any group of people in particular and more precisely it had only to do with ones self. He felt that people who were born into Christianity felt that they were Christians by association..He felt that they never had to make the decision to "become" christian. In other words just because one is born into Christianity doesn't make them a christian..in fact even being baptized does not make one a christian simply because one is baptized. Keirkagaard felt that one can only become a christian through the idea that one makes a passionate commitment to believe in Christianity. This need not take the shape of any congregation. No singing of hymns. But rather it is all completely and wholly internal. your relationship with god is yours and yours alone. He also believed that the fact that other Christians even exist in the world should have to be only as a contingent by-product of people on their own accord making "the leap of faith" as he called it. He certainly felt that some if not all christian churches were merely benign social clubs. You can talk about your faith and you can hang around one another but in the end what has gone on between you and other Christians is completely benign in the christian sense. nothing of a christian nature has happened.
When it came to paradoxes of Christianity such as God being both eternal and on earth at the same time and the problem of evil which I will get into. He made it clear that religion is religion and that philosophy is philosophy and that never the tween shall meet.
I mentioned the problem of evil. this is an old problem that has been asked about for years and years and has no solution that we know of. It states basically that if God does exist and is all knowing and all powerful. Then why is there evil in the world.
We know there are evil things happening in the world. there a rapists, murderers, there is incest, kids being tortured and left in closets by their parents for years at a time. but God exists. so if he's all knowing he knows these things are going on. If he's all powerful he can do something about it. And because he is god and he cares. He WILL do something about it. Where does this leave our beliefs? We can say its simply god's will. But I think any one who has been raped, or molested, or has lost someone to senseless violence or cancer or AIDS might tell you that answer simply isn't good enough. I think anyone who thinks of this weather you are a christian or not has to struggle with the answer to this one.
But I think over all this leads us back to what Kierkagaard felt. and that is we study we learn and we decide what to believe. And just as with Christianity when we make a passionate decision to throw ourselves over the cliff and and rely on our beliefs to save us. We have made a leap of faith.
What does this mean for us then?
I think it means that everything is subjective. It is through our own subjective experience that we believe or don't believe in an idea. Kierkagaard never argued against objective truth. And he understood that objective truth did in fact exist. such as in science. but when it came to objective truth in philosophy and religion he said "All power to the sciences, but that is not what I am trying to do." He simply wanted objective and subjective truth to be kept seperate.
Kierkagaard felt that proving gods existence objectively was to undermine Christianity. When we try to show that God actually exists we take away from Christianity the most fundamental point of it. And that is to choose to believe in something that we have no chance of understanding.To choose to believe in something that is completely incomprehensible. Taking the leap of faith is what Christianity is for.
Kierkagaard was in fact so enthralled with what it actually took to be a true Christian that he turned down a job as a minister and broke off an engagement with his fiance citing that he could not properly serve a church or a marriage because he was not yet sure just what he was supposed to do within those institutions. I love Kierkagaard's ideas because he was very honest with himself about his beliefs. by all accounts he was a man filled with inner turmoil. perhaps even neurotic. His father had once when he was thirteen used the lord's name in vein and spent the rest of his life in utter guilt over the matter. So we can see where Kierkagaards philosophy takes us. It leads us to rationaly try to solve the problems of commitment of oneself, guilt, and responsibility.To me he simply was rational person on the side of a creator. And subjectively that makes sense to me.

Existentialism and mind bending madness.

Ok. we've got a basic concept of what Philosophy is and with that out of the way I want say that in this blog that I want to sort of stick to some of the ideas that I and ,I think, many others feel are more relevant to today and you and I as people in a modern world. We could trace the origins of Philosophy back for a long time but I feel, And this is an opinion,that as long as people have been aware of themselves there has been some question of "who am I?". That is essentially what we want to know. But the history his vast and I want to start where it seems most logical. It will help me to get started and if we need to go back and take a look at something deeper in history in order to maintain perspective then we will cross those bridges as we come to them.
So I think the main area here to discuss is the philosophies of existentialism or postmodernism. These are I think the most relevant being the most recent recognized philosophies. I want to raise the questions of existentialism and look at what they lead me to think about.
I personally am always perplexed when I think of we humans and what we are exactly. What do we do? why do we do it? Are we in control? What is good and evil? What is moral and immoral? Right and wrong? What is consciousness? What is that sense of I? My head hurts already.
I guess I want to start with what we are.
Well, we are human beings, we have two arms, two legs and a torso and a head. We eat and reproduce. We are just animals, right. This is a valid argument to make. One could say we act on instinct and that would be true. One could say that we trace back our ancestors far back into caveman days when people literally were animals and that would be true. One could argue that we do the same things animals do and that by association it makes us animals. I think this is a valid argument. However it is not sound because one can return with the fact that we are civilized, we use tools, we are sentient. We have complex social structures and rules and laws that separate us from animals. We have art forms, these things surely separate us from animals don't they? Do they? Plenty of animals show that they have complex social structures. Elephants are highly social animals and are at the very least aware of others in what seems to be a personal way. Monkeys learn sign language and communicate hunger, and even affection if not some sense love. These things of course are subject completely to perspective. Where one sees love another sees a monkey slapping its lips against a humans face. But the fact is that there is not a whole lot that separates us at all except for a sense of self, and perhaps even its not that animals lack a sense of self so much as it is they lack the ability to consider that self.
Is that what mainly separates us from animals? Our ability to consider ourselves? I wonder if the ability to consider ourselves objectively makes us unique from animals or rather if it simply makes us "unique animals". Is that sense of "I" a special gift given to us by God? or is it simply just an evolution of mind that has allowed to us excel in multiplying on the planet. Biologically speaking it could easily appear to be that the sense of self is merely a highly evolved tool to make life in the sense of the lower end of the hierarchy of needs such as food, water, shelter, easier to obtain. But, what about the higher end on the hierarchy, such as self-esteem, self actualization, and the like. Does that somehow bring us above animals? The fact that one can aspire to be more than one is and the fact that one can make plans and put those plans to action and to feel sympathy and empathy for other people or even other animals for that matter seems to bring forth the thought that there is something more to what we are. We couldn't possibly be just animals with exceptional survival skills, could we?. One thinks not when we can write plays and operas. Well the two sides here then are this. On one side we have a creator or creators who has given the gift of "I" to humans. I wont go so far as to say that we were made in his image although assuming this side of the argument is true it would be a valid point to say just that, but the idea of a creator is a broad one and I want to encompass only the general idea of it. And on the other side we have an evolutionary result of what is basically millions of years of genetic passage and repeated application of the mind based on need.
There are valid arguments for both sides here and when you move through the existential arguments we are forced to consider them both. Keep in mind that existentialism is not a philosophy of "There is no God" although some existentialists were atheist many of them were also religious and even devoutly christian. My opinion of existentialism is that is puts into question what "God" is and part of that process is to consider at some point weather or not God even exists. It is inevitably part of the logical steps to move through the questions we have when we consider ourselves. And it is without a doubt the most obvious disagreement amongst atheistic and theistic existentialists.
So herein as I approach these ideas I want it to be understood that I am neither attempting to prove nor are my intentions to disprove the existence of God. I will leave that for the theologists and scientists. In fact, in the end I guess I really aim to prove nothing. And for those of you think I must be out to prove something? I say I am out to prove both. I am rather more simply trying to consider all the possibilities with no inherent preconceived notions about either view. I say this partly so you, the reader will understand my intent, but mostly so I, the writer, can be reminded of the very difficult task I have set before myself, and will hopefully remain vigilant in my efforts to do just what I've set out to do.
Thanks again for reading. More to come.

What is Philosophy?

While I would love to dive right in and just start asking all kinds of questions that no man can answer, I feel as though I have to start somewhere and and I think that the best place is to get a broad definition of Philosophy and what it is.
Soo...Just what is Philosophy?
"Philosophy" itself as a word is of course a Greek word meaning Love-Philo and Wisdom-Sophy or "love of wisdom". I think on the surface this is great definition. But in order to understand what it is we are playing with when we get into the actual act of philosophizing we need to understand rational thought. The word rational comes from the Greek word ratio which means reason and computation.
What is it to be rational?
Rational thought is the ability to come to a conclusion or solve a problem through the means of that which is known to us to be true. So rational thought is the logical process through which we come to conclusions and solve problems. It is how we decide to believe or not believe that something is true. If we follow the process of logical thought and it leads to reasonable conclusion we can more or less assume this to be true at least until more logical evidence in another direction is shown. It means essintialy it is reasonable to think or act on a certain concept or piece of information. for example if you are sitting at your desk in your office and the window is open and your papers are blowing every where. Your sense of logic tells you that you need to close the window to keep the papers from blowing away. This is a rational thought. "My papers are blowing everywhere. How do I stop it? I'll close the window." This is a conclusion you came to through rational logical thought. Congratulations you are now an "armchair philospher"8).
We make rational decisions all day long everyday, but then why do we run into trouble? Why do we sometimes realize that we closed the window but the papers are still blowing about? This is a matter of validity and soundness.
logical thoughts are funny because something can be logicaly valid and not be logicaly sound. For example lets say we close the window to your office and the papers, as mentioned above are still blowing around the room, why is this? You know your thought to close the window was reasonable. you could feel the wind blowing in through the open window. Your thought was valid. But was it sound? The Fan on your desk which is set on high seems to undermine the thought of closing the window. This is when you realize that the thought "let me close the window." was completely valid but it was not quite sound. it made perfect sense but it did not solve the problem. you were left to form a more sound thought in order to solve the problem.This is on a very basic level the ideas of logical validity and soundness of logic. I think it is important to understand the difference between the two as we move ahead.
So lets take Philosophy as such for the sake of our purposes in this blog to be a search for wisdom that is justifiable on the sound basis of reason.
This attitude towards logic and reason is the very basis for what we call the scientific method. Scientists use logic and reason in order to form, test, and prove a hypothesis. Of course as time has gone on and science has became more rigid we understand that science is contained within a certain domain of logic. These are Laws of science and are so sound that they will more than likely remain unchanged forever; e.g. Newton's Law of Gravity. Philosophy,on the other hand, though being based on logic and reason is also subject to perspective. This is where we run into objectivity and subjectivity.
When we talk of truth and things that are concrete...things we know, such as...Grass is green. The sky is blue....Jim is tall.....I am short. we are relying on an objective truth that everyone can understand...You know what it is to be tall so when I say "Jim is tall." You know exactly what I mean... This is an objective truth of Jim. I can point to Jim and say "tall" and you understand what I mean. You know that objectively, Jim is tall.
Subjectivity is a tougher concept to grasp. It is a matter of individual perception. Each of us are subjective in our own lives. We are all subjective in every aspect of our own awareness. For example. I can tell you that grass is green and you would agree,But, You can not describe to me what it is that you see that you call green. Subjectively speaking you could be seeing my blue and we would never know the difference. Because your perception of green is subjective.
I think I am going to wrap up here because I think we have a very basic and broad overview of the types of things I will be discussing. We can narrow it down to a finer point as we go. We have Philosophy as a search for wisdom that is justifiable on the sound basis of reason.
We understand that thoughts and arguments can be valid and yet lack in soundness.
And we understand that unlike science, philosophy involves an understanding of objective and subjective perception.
If you have any comments or questions let me know. I am highly interested.

A Call to Armchairs!!

Hello. My name is Jay McPherson. I would like to thank you in advance for taking the time to read this blog. I've recently been doing some studying of Philosophy and feel compelled to write about it as a way to further understand what it is that I have learned but also for others to read and ponder the questions and problems that have been presented to me throughout life.
I want to take some time here at the beginning of all this to sort of set the stage for what I'll be discussing,The expectations I have of myself while writing this, and also what you as a reader should expect from the information I give.
Who I am: I'm a 29 year old man with lots of questions opinions and interests..I've had some college education..I took some Psych classes and the like. I like lectures. I like science. I like debate. I AM NOT A PHILOSOPHY EXPERT. I am simply seeking knowledge through books and experience and discussion. although I do pride myself on an ability to learn and consider. I love to read both fiction and nonfiction. I am by all accounts an "average joe" hence the the armchair admission.. I hope somehow that this is endearing to what I am trying to do.
My intention as a blogger: My entire purpose for creating this blog is to further my own insight into the study of philosophy. I aim to gain more and more perspective as I continue to write and to consider the world, other people,consciousness,and the like. The expectations I have of myself is to truly consider every point of view that I can while separating my own beliefs, and hang-ups from these things. In other words, nothing is right or wrong it is just simply is for the purposes of consideration and the seeking of knowledge, being looked at as true. If X is true than Y and Z are what follows. and this I think will help me and perhaps you in your own quest for knowledge and perspective.
I would also like to say that while I have every intention of being non-biased and forthright I do nonetheless have an opinion and I will from time to time give that opinion which you are more than welcome as the reader to disagree with. I will try my best to state clearly when I am giving an opinion and when I am simply presenting an actual idea that is fundamental to philosophy and not an opinion of mine that could likely be crackpot and based on lunacy.
As a reader I assume that you have some vested interest in the subject at hand and are a willing participant to sever your own beliefs long enough to look with me at the different positions and points of view that are addressed in Philosophy, And to understand that there is no intent to insult, demean, or hatefully undermine your particular beliefs no matter what they are,although, the undermining of ideas is inevitable as we discuss and the arguments move forward,these will not be malicious attempts to debunk a person.
I am excited to begin and am working hard to get the first edition out. We will do this together and see where it takes us. Be patient and if you have any Ideas I am all ears. Thanks again. and Happy Thinking.