What do you guys say??

The Cosmological Argument:




If there was an infinite chain of causes of the universe then there would be no universe now.




But there is a universe now.




Therefore there must be a first cause of the universe.

The Argument from Design:

	Most organisms in the world act for a purpose.
	Most organisms are not aware of acting for a purpose.
	There must be a superior being directing their purpose.

The Ontological Argument:

	The concept of a supreme being is of a being with all perfections.
	Existence is a perfection.
	The supreme being must exist.

a handy dandy resource

--its a website that has a listing of "major" philosophers and condensed versions of their philosophy.

What is Art?

I have an idea and I'd like some feedback. This discussion came up with Alex when we were on a road trip a few months ago and he asked what I thought art was. I don't remember if any of us talked about it afterward. I was reminded of it because I've been reading a paper on Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality, which as a sidenote y'all should read.

I think we can safely agree that reality, or our experience of it, is fundamentally characterized by chaos and pattern. Each day is a new day, each moment is an entirely new moment, but also falls under the cyclical pattern we call time. Every circumstance is in reality an entirely unprecedented event (though our powers of inference tell us differently), but these events are governed by natural laws. The same thing happens differently over and over and over. This is true for probably almost anything: seasons, days, hours, waves, car manufacturing, the lives of suns, orbits, walking, sex, conversations... This same thing repeating itself in different ways is a fundamental part of our entire experience of reality. It is not that chaos and pattern take turns at governing the universe, but that they are actually inseparable-- their simultaneity is a basic characteristic of reality. The experience of this simultaneity is the experience of Quality, in Pirsig's terms, or in Oriental terms it is the experience of 'nothingness,' or in plain terms it is the experience of the present. And don't get stuck on the term simultaneity, because it implies only half of the truth: the other half is that Pattern and Chaos don't exist at all. 'Both' is still a dualistic answer to the question 'Which?.'

So the question was raised : What is art, and how do we know if it's good or not- or, to use Pirsig's language, how do we know if it has Quality? So here's my theory, briefly: Art's intent is to replicate the artists perception of reality, or balance in the work--whether it be music or drawing or making a collage--pattern and chaos. It does not follow from this that the better the art, in a painting for example, the more realistic. Realism may lean too much toward pattern. And in music: the pattern is in the beat, the chorus, and whatever other musical recurrences there are within the song, and the chaos is in the verse and melody. So the more balanced a piece of art is, the more Quality it has. The variation in artistic taste from person to person is accounted for in our different experiences of reality, and the different way we infer pattern (which is at the base of the whole subconcious logic thing). Each person experience pattern and especially chaos differently. Variation in artistic taste between cultures is even more apparent: much or our perception of reality is socially conditioned. The pattern/chaos duality is one of many. Transcendence of any of them brings us towards, or is an experience of, Dynamic Quality or 'Presence.' I've argued that the the Quality of art is singularly dependent on the pattern/chaos duality. But maybe it's not. Still need to think about that one.

Other questions that have come to mind as I've written:

1. Does the p/c duality hold equal status with other dualities, or is it more fundamental than that, are other dualities subsets or variant descriptions of it in the same way it is a subset--one description--of Dynamic Quality?

2. Determinism has always made a lot of sense to me though on principal I tend to dismiss it as unimportant and a dangerous philosophical black whole of overblown semantics and meaningless rhetoric and logic loops. That said, isn't chaos really impossible to prove? It's arrogant and more than a little stupid to assume we're capable of perceiving any pattern that exists. This is one of the mistakes of science (sorry Matt had to pull that out, ok, the Scientific Method). For example, here is a pattern

akjakjak

here is another less obvious pattern

hdsafjkldsjfjkal;sjf dl;kasfj oi;eaj;lkdf ife;ajdkf jkfdjf;aiwejf jkfdl;ahdsafjkldsjfjkal;sjf dl;kasfj oi;eaj;lkdf ife;ajdkf jkfdjf;aiwejf jkfdl;ahdsafjkldsjfjkal;sjf dl;kasfj oi;eaj;lkdf ife;ajdkf jkfdjf;aiwejf jkfdl;a

That one repeated three times too and is just as predictable as the first, but because of the limited capacity of our intellects appears more chaotic. Now here's some chaos:

asdfkjkl;adsjfdakjfdkjafewioajfkldsjlksjagioajwklngklfsjfdkjfdiwlkjaoigfrwejagkskjgs;adlirjfewiaofjlig;jlia;gfsdkalgjklsajfiujhgir;airjagk;sdfgijds;klfjkdsljfkdlsajflasdkjfdilsjflaidsjfdksajfilekjaijdsfksdjg kljgkljsdgijraigjliaerjgkfjgkljsf;alkfdjklgaskdfjgjg;irja;kfdjg kjgijalia glk

Maybe we're in the middle of it marveling at all the never-before-seen shapes and colours but really none of us have lived long enough or will live long enough (or don't have enough data capacity in our heads) to know that it's it's just one repetition among infinite repetitions. How do we know the chaos above isn't just a fragment of a much longer string that is repeated over and over just like the rest. Maybe chaos is just our name for patterns we're too small to grasp. I don't even know if this is relevant; in fact it's probably irrelevant for the same reasons I usually dismiss determinism: our experience of reality is what is pertinent (especially discussing Dynamic Quality), not our theories about it. What's the difference, for us, between chaos and patterns that we are too small to grasp? Or do some theories point to realities of our experience we've been numbed to- do they actually arise out of some subconscious knowing? That is potentially a really important question and the answer probably lies within the intention and consciousness with which we go about theorizing.

.a massive hard irony.

i think its funny that the blog is titled Philosofucked and a main point of its mission statement is to ensure that "This should not be a forum for egoizing." philosofucking is all about the ego--thats why its philosofucking. but its an ego in a good way.

philosophy jokes

Two behaviorists have sex. One turns to the other and says, "That was good for you: how was it for me?"

How do you get a philosophy major off your doorstep?
Pay for the pizza.

[student being handed his philosophy BA] 'Would you like any fries with that?'

Is everyone okay with adding dantes roomate derek to this blog? if one person doesn't want to we shouldn't do it

Thought on Evoultion

The topic of human evolution and capitalism has been manifesting itself in multiple discussions I've been involved with lately. Theory: Industrial Society - the product of the Industrial Revolution - has catalyzed a metamorphosis of human to consumer. As a part of becoming consumers and moving away from the natural, biological "human" state we have created a consumerist culture as an expression of the values of industrial society we live in. The lifestyles lived out within this culture, within this society serve to fuel corporate desires and perpetuate a cycle of earning money, spending money and simultaneously trying to gain wealth. The consumer therefore is stuck because in a consumerist culture more is always better and therefore there is never enough, there is never a standard one can reach where they can stop being "people who work jobs they hate to buy shit they don't need" (Tyler Durden, Fight Club).

Cultural knowledge dictates a need for money. We are told to go to school, to get a job for the purpose of making money. We are told we need to get married, live in a house and raise children to do the same things and thus we need to make money to pay for it all, to pay for our ticket to play this game refereed by some invisible force. There is no logic, no critical thought required in following this path laid out before us. Convenience and entertainment satiate and compensate for real living, real experiences of human connection and exploration.

So if consumerist culture is based in convenience and so called "progress" is only directed towards making things ever more convenient there is no need for adaptation, which if I am not mistaken is at the heart of evolution. Consumers of capitalism have stagnated and remain distracted, Black Friday for example: people are enticed to get out of their beds at 4:30 in the morning to buy cheap products from Walmart, Macys, etc. This is where consumerist values lie. Politics, Civil Rights, International Trade, Genocide, Sharing and Preservation of Global Resources, Sustainability, etc. - none of these things resonate on the same level as a holiday sale to a consumer. And it happens every year. There is no point where the consumerism plateaus, there is always something new to buy, there is never enough, there is no satisfaction and the cycle, as I said before perpetuates itself.

So by breaking out of the cycle or even examining its nature while still technically being involved in it is the first step towards adaptation. And a friend of mine was arguing that the inclination towards revolution is a human desire to speed evolution, but really this is us trying to control nature. This is what he said:

"Humans try to speed up evolution with revolution. it may work but its a heavy burden...evolution is dirty and violent, survival of the fittest. but we can't blame nature. with revolution we put blame on human shoulders. we claim to be able to control our own destinies. even though they are way bigger than we can ever comprehend. i'm not saying its bad, just that we are doing natures blind work with half an eye open."

I'm late for greek phil. class. I hope this was a complete enough analysis for group commentary - thoughts?

I don't want to clog up the blog (I rhymed...), but I walked Waking Life last night and was pretty impressed. Definitely a lot of good conversation starters. I can't imagine what would have happened to me if I watched it high. I think my head would have exploded. But I gleaned two quotes that I like:

"There are two kinds of sufferers in this world: those who suffer from a lack of life and those who suffer from an overabundance of life." Samsara as nirvana anyone? This is from the old guy in the cafe/bar/I can't quite remember what the setting was. I've been thinking about a distinction in types of suffering; one split I considered was between pain and suffering, but maybe calling it two kinds of suffering works best. It never sat right with me that suffering was necessarily negative. I interrupted myself writing this to check in with my friend Colin who studies Buddhism, and he led me to some interesting thoughts that I'll post on later.

"In hell you sink to the level of your lack of love; in heaven you rise to the level of your fullness of love." From a preacher guy on the television; a short clip. This caught my ear, not sure why. Does anyone have thoughts on this? Not quite sure what it means to me yet/what the implications are.

Selfish vs. Selfless

{ still not sure if a blog is the best format for us--it lacks organization--a blog layout is too linear--not permitting us to easily move from theme to theme, instead forcing us to push through everything in a time-line like manner }


anyways-- i just found a excerpt in a text book of mine that is relevant to the cultural shift of selfless to selfish:

"Our own men and our sons have joined the ranks of the stranger. They have joined his religion and they help to uphold his government.
If we should try to drive out the white men in Umuofia we should find it easy. There are only two of them. But what of our own people who are following their way and have been given power? They would go to Umuru and bring the soldiers... [The white man] says our customs are bad; and our own brothers who have taken up his religion also say that our customs are bad. How do you think we can fight when our own brothers have turned against us? The white man is very clever. He came quietly and peaceably with his religion. We were amused at his foolishness and allowed him to stay. Now he has won our brothers and our clan can no longer act like one. He has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart. " (Things Fall Apart)

...referred to as Westernization and are evident in attitudinal changes that shift towards greater secularism, individualism, and materialism.


i think i'm on the brink of being able to really put all of this together in a cohesive context--selfish versus selfless--humans versus mother earth--capitalism and democracy--cvilizations versus communities--sustainability versus exploitation--violence versus nonviolence--developed versus non-developed-- when i get back to college i'm excited to use all the bucher paper i have access to--thanks to hall council and being the "advertising coordinator"--and put together a huge mind map web thing of it all--nathan i need your help!!


it would be great if we could establish themes/subjects/topics and be able to click on them --thus opening them and leaving our ideas there...instead of this whole blog thing.


Michael i was curious to hear what you and your friends at whitman have been talking about -- you should be posting some of it here please!!!


ohhh and for refrence


Prisoner's Dilemma

Tradegy of the Commons

Just found this overview/summary of the Metaphysics of Quality by Robert Pirsig himself. Haven't had time to read the whole thing yet cause I'm going to bed, but if anyone is interested in reading it to understand what I've been blathering on about: http://robertpirsig.org/MOQSummary.htm

another great film that should be consumed

you can find the entire movie at Netflix as one of its watch instantly videos!!!

A conversation came up last night and want your guys imput.

Are we obligated to herald the more or less inevitable societal collapse/peak-oil/industrial collapse/global warming? If it truly is inevitable (debateable by some but its pretty fucking definate. What little changes that are being made are too small and there is not enough time for it to build momentum) then wouldn't we want to happen as soon as possible on our terms? The rich (the culprits) will probably not suffer if the collapse were gradual. There money would buy them food, water, a tasteful retitrement. While the poor, the majority, the proles are fucked for decisions that they had little to with.

The real question is do you follow the law or do what is right.

-COULD EVERYONE HELP-

Tevon--we worked on this briefly some time back: trying to assemble documentaries and host movie nights---we'll i would like for everyone to help build a collection of good documentaries that are socially, politically, spiritually insightful and relevant. with that collection i would like to start uploading a folder on DC++ of such movies!!

-so please help!

...in the end it would be a great resource

SOME ONE FIND THIS MOVIE

A wonderful Movie everyone should watch from the producer of the Corporation!!!

Thoughts on Self

I've been reflecting alot on meditations of the self. Growth and development of the self, the pursuit of truth and the nature of true happiness - what drives actions, what it is that people spend their lives seeking; motivations for the impulse of direction and the defining points of life for the individual. This type of reflection is always critical but I think now, this moment between what we know as youth and what is projected as adulthood is the only time where we will be able to reflect at the precipice of our future(s), before or as we jump into the river of everything and thus now is particularly critical. We - both this group of friends and the broader family or tribe if you will of friends from home as well as the peers of our generation - have so much to consider. The concept of control for example, I don't think we can ultimately decide who it is we want to be, or what our "self" will culminate to be, we can only craft or mold ourselves by constructing or fitting external factors to model what it is we aspire to be. By creating and manipulating an ideal environment for a particular kind of growth into existence. This holds only of course if you don't adhere to a belief of preordained identity. (This is part in particular is definitely up for discussion)

I got through the better half of Siddartha for the first time today and have been doing assigned Anicent Legacy of Greece class readings of Boethius's The Consultation of Philosophy. Siddartha's awakening when he realizes after all of his teachings as a Brahman, as an ascetic, as a brief student of Gotama that he has only really been deceiving and taking flight from him/(his)self is when he realizes he knows nothing. He has lost himself in learning and realizes that looking to external sources to understand the internal is mislead.

Socrates also made it the goal of his life to understand and held the seeking of this understanding of the self above learning anything else. Because why would one bypass the change to perceive the epitome of one's being to study the external? To him, this contradicted reason and this is why Socrates is always accredited with incessantly questioning those around him and provoking thought. In the end, he was executed for it. I don't think he found what he was looking for in the external before he was killed though and maybe he never would have.*

This seeking of truth and understanding in the external is also explored in Boethius's text. Boethius is a philosopher who becomes a wealthy politician and hopes to bring his conclusions about philosophy to higher office. Eventually he is persecuted and brought down by his political enemies. Prior to being executed he spends a short time in jail where he falls into depression. He then has a vision of his "nurse" Philosophy appearing and speaking to him. The dialogue that follows is how Boethius is healed and brought to enlightenment by Philosophy before he is executed. Among many motifs explored in the dialogue is true happiness. Before Boethius's downfall he was wealthy and Fortune was on his side and he believed himself to be truly happy. But what Philosophy imparts on the despairing philosopher is that if wealth, etc. can be lost it can never truly be had and thus, all the external things man seeks - wealth, fame, power, pleasure, love, possessions - are only false roads to true happiness. True happiness being defined as a state of perfect self sufficiency, lacking nothing. So based on the Bothetian logic for true happiness to be had it must come from a place internally where nothing can be lost or taken away.

I think subconsciously this is similar to what Siddartha realizes in terms of how he must learn from himself and be his own pupil to solve the riddle of himself. I'm still working through all these concepts and forgive me if this first post is unorganized or lacking in genuine conclusions but I feel like a lot of literature has been converging with my own thoughts on how I want to develop and grow as a person, as an intellectual, as a philosopher and then at the same time I'm being voluntarily subjected to external forces of familial and societal expectations. I think because discovering the truth of the self is so complex yet weighs so heavily on who we are is why people graduate from college utterly confused, because for four years they've been studying only the external and teaching themselves nothing of the internal and they become lost. I think there must be a balance that can be struck in which a harmony can exist between the two but I think to be most effective, for me anyway, an understanding of these realms and harmony between them must begin in its process now rather than later.

*Maybe Socrates represents a sort of self-discovery continuum in which questions are incessantly presented because knowledge of the self is never ending?

Old Face Book Chats

deos any one have any of the old face book discussions we used to have--mainly pertaining to oil/resources and life without money---any of those websites or references???

just saying

i'm really curious how the penis has become the working man's drawing--how it has completely proliferated the visual world--the drawing it self seems to have reached a point that transcends all age groups-- has the penis reached its apogee or will it further flourish in new directions-- i swear the stick man is loosing its cool, the shaft may be taking over as the routine drawing un-"artistic" kids are comfortable with--is this a signifier that collectively our artistic abilities have been highted--our ability to depict detailed drawings of only a small portion of the human body--i can't wait for the vag drawings


hoenstly
the iconic sign for this century could easily be the penis

honestly
what does this say about our culture

hoenstly
the winged nose penis flying into derek's forehead vagina is pretty cool



pictured provide by
delta--without derek's consent

just watching it now

Dangerous Knowledge

-The Subconscious Logic is the Ultimate Expression of a Culture-

sorry i had to post the picture....it was in some way fitting...

Mission Statement

This should be amended and respected by all

Philosofucked will serve as a forum for the exchange of ideas. The goal of the forum differs from the mission of the blog, The West Sound Bros, as its purpose has not to do with the temporal lives of our friends but instead focuses on the mental growth of those same individuals.
This should not be a forum for egoizing. Contributors should not face persecution for unpopular or differing ideas, opinions. Differences in opinion should be examined and synthesised, not degraded or picked apart in a malicious manner.
Let Philosfucked be the harbringer of mental stimulation and pure focus.

"Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." - Ayn Rand

The Hawker Cries, Tis Time, Tis Time!

Alright so made a new blog takes 20 seconds for future reference

To start us off;

A theme addressed frequently in Lila is a protest against the objectivism in academic fields, specifically anthropology. How can you study a culture from an unbiased perspective when you are a product of your own culture? How could that study be anything other then a comparision between two cultures?
The problem of objectivity isn't specific to anthropology. How can you learn anything other then from the lense of your own perspective? Not just learning as in academics, but the way all of your experiences are processed.
So what I am really asking; is all of our experience completely original because of how anything we do is interpreted by our whole lives? And if this is true, can anyway relate communicate anything to anyone on a pure level?