Comments (7)

By ZenMaintenance, 22 Oct 09 19:39

So, really, I believe that this country needs to get its epistemological roots back. There are people upon people upon people who get a free education and a home for the first eighteen years of their lives, and these people hate school.

I’m not saying that every person hates school, but that people need to learn that their education, while it may not be extremely important to them, expands the brain. It helps them to contemplate things which may be of a help to them; and even gives them better employment opportunities. So, why wouldn’t people just learn for the crapping of it, since they have to anyway? Boring stuff, maybe?

Hmmm… Interesting thought, ZenMaintenance. Very interesting, and I have to say that that is a problem among some.
So, let’s address another point: To those of you who have read the Aldous Huxley novel, Brave New World. I remember, form this novel, a specific point, in which the main characters are meeting with the World Controller, Mustafa Mond. In this meeting, the characters are told that modern humans are treated to have a predetermined intelligence for one reason: That if everybody were geniuses (Paraphrased, obviously), then there would be disaster.

I do not agree with this. I believe there would be arguments, but not disaster. Especially not if people were reasonable and logical enough to use the Socratic Method or to listen to each other reasonably, like humans begins should.

Ahhhhhhhhh……. Socrates. I knew nothing about him until last summer, when I was reading the nonfiction book Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig. He told us (The readers) that nobody had really tested the formerly accepted ideas of society and religion/metaphysical ideas before the Sophists. He said that these people were, basically, the first organized school of thought. Then, the Socratic and post-Socratic philosophers began to use thought. I really think that the most important influence on our government should be considered Socrates, not John Locke. Simply because of the Declaration of Independence. It states that we are all created equal, and he government is there to provide for use the freedoms we need and want, and that if the government becomes destructive to the aforesaid means, that we are to abolish it and start again. Socrates demonstrated this tenfold; he tried to have every person believe in equality, and, when persecuted for his beliefs, kept his stance, doing everything he could to change the government so that it wasn’t destructive to these means, and, when he failed, he accepted death. Although it is true that because he didn’t have a ridiculously large following, he wasn’t able to do a very large amount of persuasion, and he, being a peace monger, would not want to try and revolt.

Also by way of argument comes a piece of literature known as Catch 22, written by Joseph Heller. It’s a good book, according to most people, but some people don’t understand the humor, don’t like the humor, etc. I think people have to be able to understand the book more to be able to really enjoy it. The book, obviously anti war, was truly about the government’s conquest into different people, and the craziness of the subordination of some of those people, and the beliefs of those who, although they are not truly crazy, are labeled crazy by the government and treated as such. It uses humor (a lot of it pretty dark) in order to show the ridiculousness of the System. And, although it becomes gravely serious at different points, it really holds true to its comedy almost the entire time. But the reason it uses comedy is that the author is writing it so that he expresses the craziness not only in its characters and its form of logic, but also in the writing. The insanity of the whole situation is shown simply through the use of a cut storyline, jumping back and forth, with no real logical order to follow, until the storyline has been pieced together.

Another interesting work of political fiction is Orwell’s 1984. Very good. It’s a classic, well known piece about an oppressive government. It was written in 1948, and uses a very closed in mood and personality to achieve its main message: The impossibility of truly functioning in such a government. The governmental entity, known simply as Big Brother, is not even truly existing within the story. We never learn if he’s real. It’s a pretty good concept, though, the idea of only hearing the story through one point of view.

Solipsism- that’s one of the philosophies mentioned when the government is being explained. It is the idea that nothing exists outside the mind of every person. And it’s a very personal idea; if I can’t see you, you do not exist at the moment. This is close to subjective philosophy. It has the same basic idea, except that it was never developed metaphysically. It’s also close to existentialism; the study of the existence of man and his place within his universe. Most existentialists would argue that man is in charge of his own destiny and that the only thing he is sure to do on earth is to exist; whether it be one day or three hundred years. A good book on this is L’Etranger (The Stranger in English), about a man who commits a pointless murder and is condemned to death. The man believes throughout the novel that there is no force bringing humans together, and that it is absurd to even believe that. This branches out into absurdism; the very belief described in the last sentence through the idea of existentialism.

Another philosophy-Objectivism-was brought out through Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead. It shows the idea that things exist outside of the realm of thought.

Metaphysics. Can’t get enough.

So, if you were to ask me, people should remain to follow school, if only epistemologically, for the sake of learning,, through earlier years. I think that people should contemplate the metaphysics that they are aware of, in order to breach their understanding of the relam outside our own.

~ZM~

Comments (5)

By Malice, 11 May 09 7:15

All of which you are about to read is of my opinion.

In this modern world of humans who have little to no morals, and humans being annoying, the world is becoming/has become a place where people no longer take responsibility for their own actions, or keeping morals at a standard, people have become focused on things that should not be focused on at a later time. Some annoying qualities that people suffer from, and I remind you this is my opinion, are how an excuse can be found for it to not be their fault, no matter the situation, also, how some people always find a way to talk about themselves, and never tire from it. They can rant on about how “awesome” their weekend was, while you are dying of boredom, wondering how they don’t notice you are annoyed and don’t care, even though most of your responses are “Uh huh”, and you aren’t saying anything about it, not even commenting on it, or asking questions about it. People who talk about things as if they know what they are talking about, but have no idea what they are talking about are one of the worst things I’ve been around, in my opinion. Talking through ignorance is not okay. Not only is what you are talking about wrong, but the information that you are spreading around is also wrong. Next, promiscuity, especially in teenagers, is terrible. Even if it’s just with one person who they aren’t sure they are going to be with forever is wrong. It should not be with multitudes of people. It should be your job to make sure that the sexual organ you have acquired through being born is not shared among the populace. For females, in my opinion, it is gross for them to go around with multiple guys. I mean, sure you might like it at the time, but later in time, when you find someone that you want to be with, your vagina has been penetrated by hopefully you know how many other males, and is putrid and impure, and this isn’t even considering it might be loose, and you’ll know how experienced other people are, so then you may always be thinking about how “good” your life long partner is, compared to your one night stands or short term boyfriends or whatever they were. This isn’t fair to that person, or to you. For males, it isn’t as gross.. I mean your penis isn’t inside you, a place that’s hard to clean or anything, but still.. Getting vaginal liquids, or even just the thought, through a condom, is still gross if it’s from more than one female. I mean it’s not meant to made to go and loosen every girl you can, it’s meant to make children with the one you are going to be with forever. Think before you act, just because you can get a girl to, doesn’t mean you should. This is more antagonistic towards males though, it isn’t always their fault, girls do want it too, and some are willing to. Still, taking advantage isn’t right for males or females.

In the old world, things were better, in my opinion. People seemed more sincere to each other, and there were no divorces. People stuck together til the end, and everyone knew everyone else. When people would be married at a young age and never get divorced, and life was simple and nobody had a care in the world. It was easier to make a living and people helped each other out even though they were just neighbors or lived in the same neighborhood.