who are we?

the question of identity is a very deep philosophical one; however it ought to be an easy one. shouldn't it?

i mean it is the thing that we are most acquainted with. we are never without ourselves. never apart from.

but this theory is identity is not what i want to put down here now. rather i'd like to speak to the theory of non-identity. the person we think we are or could be. how do you believe that you would be given a certain situation.

to state to yourself...'i believe that i am "x"; because i would do "y" in this situation.'

this notion of non-identity is fiction. why? because you don't know. you don't know that you'd do 'x' in any given situation. until that happens you have no knowledge about it. to project yourself into an unknown future is impossible. experience is the mother of invention. action makes the man, so judge him by his deeds. two old adages that work in this situation. also, i'm bringing in that mysterious philosopher from the last post.

maybe these two ideas, of the self and the non-self, are not too distant. the buddha said that all things are impermanent. however philosophers like aquinas, and maimonides spoke of the existence of god in negative terms, and maybe that's what we need to do to speak of our identity? how does this work? this will be reserved for another wave...

[shalom...]

i really...

hate to say this, but i'm too smart.

it's true. i am.

i spend my college career doing something i love, and enjoy; just following the advice that i've been given my education life...do something that you'll want to get up in the morning and do, because if you hate your job you will not want to go to work. thanks dad. look where i am now.

going back to college to get a skill. not an education. a skill. and i'm trying to find a 'job' while i'm doing this. to pay the bills. to be a little more flexable with life, and time. something i am able to do, and not think about when i get home. that is where teaching was hurting me. i was thinking about it all the time.

and now when people see on my resume that i've got my master's in philosophy they think i'm too smart for the job. well i know that, but i still have to pay the bills.

if i'm too smart, then sign me up to be the ceo of the company. i'll run on the platform that i'm going on when i run for presidency: "can't do any worst."

i have so much on my plate right now, but the problem is; is that my belly is only so big. well...time to eat what i've taken.

[shalom...]

i know...

i'm sometimes slow on the up take, but you need to check this out...man am i going to love this movie, if for no other reason because of the surfer.

also, paltrow will be joining downey in the zero eight release of iron man. mixed feelings about that one.

also, you need to check out the trailer for 300. a frank miller inspired movie about the battle of thermopylae; which to me is one of history's greatest and most inspirational battles.

shalom...

what does one...

own? what are we able to call ours?

getting past a material object, because are you really able to call that yours? name a material object. anything. that is able to be taken away from you; whether stolen or not, ownership is lost. a legal transgression has taken place; however i'm even moving past that.

what is yours? what do you own?

nietzsche once said that the only real truth is the lived truth.

we make a lot of decisions, or maybe a better word is choices in life. some we regret. some we do not regret. however the fact remains that they are our choices. nobody elses.

quick lesson on twentieth century existentialism...man is condemned to be free.

nobody else made that choice for you. so why not own it? make it yours. all your faults. all your accoplishments. subjectively or objectively perceived. make them yours.

i've know a couple of people in my life who have 'hidden' their choices. i've never fully understood that. friends that would sneak away from the group to go and smoke pot, and come back and not talk about it, or where they were for an hour. why? friends that were dating a girl whom they may not should have been dating; for one reason or another, and not telling anybody about it. these are some things that have puzzled me over the years.

if i'm going to screw up; little or small; i'm going to own it. it's going to be mine. and i'm going to be proud of the mistakes that i've made, because it is only from these mistakes am i able to become a better person. inside, and out.

popper once said that only through the correcting of our mistakes do we gain knowledge.

now what is knowledge? well, that's a whole other wave for a whole other ocean.

one post...three philosophers, but i only named two, can you guest who the third was?

[shalom...]

trying to get...

some king in the ghetto is a fun time.

i went to pick up my wife from work, and we wanted to get something for the ride home, because traffic was going to be a bitch. so we stopped at the nearest king. we were going to just run in, until we saw the sign that the dinner room closes at 'dusk.' not a specfic time, but 'dusk.' i thought maybe that they were afraid of vampires, but then i remembered where i was.

we placed our order, and then pulled up to pay, and then onto the second window. i received my drink, and was called 'honey' by the women behind the glass; which i love; howeve won't get into. so we are sitting there waiting for the rest of our order, when we were told to backup behind the 'blue pole.'

i had to ask him to repeat himself, because this was something i wasn't used to hearing. at lest not in whitieville. so i looked behind me, and backed up. we gave each other an odd look, and then realized why. we're in the ghetto. they don't want to be shot at. so we had to sit in between the two windows while we waited for our order. i really don't think the woman who gave us the drink cared, because she knew that a couple of whities in our car weren't going to do anything, but the young kid was just doing his job.

we were then waved to pull forward to receive our food, and then we were off. i recomend this experience to anyone who wants an adventure.

now this...

picture must upset p.e.t.a....

i mean just look at my cat. she seems so abused. neglected. being treated 'unethically.'

animals are not to be used for 'food, clothing, entertainment...'

you know it's funny. i tried looking in their 'annual review' section to see if i was able to find what they spend their money on, besides commercials; like how much they spend in euthanasiaing animals. yes, they do do this. however; i was unable to find out, but i sure found out where to send my money.

i was watching a special one day on one of the 'learning' channels [i forget which one], but it was on cats. by the end of the special they were talking about feline aids, and how their bodies react differently to the aids virus than ours. in researching this, it may help bring about a possible solution to the aids virus in humans. now is that a bad thing?

p.e.t.a....

is such a wonderful orgnization. i'm kidding. they're a bunch of idiots. the other day they protested a kfc because of their suppliers treatment of chickens.

what's wrong with this?

1. 'treatment' of the chickens. who cares? they are going to kill them anyway.
2. why are they naked? they never answered that one. poor girls that just want attention.
3. p.e.t.a. them selves. ethics for animals? what? who said that animals ought to be treated ethically? and if you look into their little orginzation they state that having animals as pets is unethical. i personally think that my cats would dis-agree with that one.

animals don't have rights. sorry for dropping that one on you, but they don't. the only 'rights' that are out there are the ones granted to you by this little document, and that is it. nothing else gives any rights. why? that's something for later.

the ontological argument...

as provided to us by Saint Anselm for the existence of God goes as such…

[in its syllogistic formulation:]
1) God is that, the greater than which cannot be conceived.

2) If the idea of God exists in our understand, but does not exist in reality, then something is conceivable as greater than God.

Therefore, if the idea of God exists in our understanding, then God exists in reality.

[symbolism of the ontological argument:]
1) G

2) (I • ~R) ⊃ ~G

∴ I ⊃ R

it begins from the idea of God as that which no greater can be conceived, i.e. absolutely perfect: that is what is meant by God. if such a being had only ideal reality, existed only in our subjective idea, we could still conceive a greater being, namely a being; which did not exist simply in our idea but in objective reality. it follows then, that the idea of God as absolute perfection is necessarily the idea of an existent Being, and you cannot at the same time have the idea of God and yet deny His existence. if you have the correct idea of what God is, i.e. absolute perfection, you could only deny God with your lips. yes, the idea of God. this is where the argument begins. as an idea of. so how does this argument work? it is only the ‘fool’ that would deny the existence of God. because the absolutely perfect Being is a Being the essence of which is to exist or which necessarily involves existence, since otherwise a more perfect being could be conceived; it is the necessary Being; and a necessary being which did not exist would be a contradiction in terms.

so how does this argument work, if it does? well by the lips of the ‘fool’, the ‘fool will say the opposite of what Anselm states; i.e. symbolically ~(I ⊃ R), or God does not exist in our understanding, then God does not exist in reality.

this type of argument is called an reductio ad absurdum proofs, or an indirect proof; where an assumption is ‘reduced to absurdity’ by showing a contradiction. if there is a contradiction or contradictory sentence within an argument it shows an inconsistency. this contradiction states that it cannot be true. a contradiction symbolized is as such p • ~p. It is obvious that this sentence is unable to be true, and thus false. logic alone guarantees the falsity of contradictions. given the definition of a valid argument, a false sentence cannot be validly inferred from true premises. indirect proof consists in assuming the negation of a statement form to be obtained. by using this assumption to derive a contradiction, and then concluding that the original assumption is false, and thus the original argument is valid. the contradiction comes in by conjoining G • ~G; God is that, the great than which cannot be conceived, and something is conceivable as great than God. so it is valid; symbolically.

in Anselm’s work, the Proslogion, Gaunilo replies that just because we have an idea of this thing, does not guarantee its existence. in the words of Anselm, we might as well say that the most beautiful island exist somewhere, because we can conceive them. Anselm’s reply is that the idea of God is the idea of an all-perfect Being and if absolute perfection involves existence, this idea is the idea of an existent, and necessarily existent Being, whereas the idea of even the most beautiful islands is not the idea of something which must exist: even in the purely logical order the two ideas are not on a par. if God is possible, i.e. the idea of the all-perfect and necessary Being contains no contradiction, God must exist, since it would be absurd to speak of a merely possible necessary Being. there is no contradiction in speaking of merely possible beautiful islands.

so what is the problem?