"As philosophers, we don't know the answer....We Learn what is Not..."

paradox_vampire @ 2009-11-11T17:13:00

2009-11-12T01:52:21Z

"What was odd about Ludwig was his vacant stare. He'd sometimes twiddle a pen. Least with his pen spinning one could reason to oneself that he was mauling something over. After 4 or 5 hours of blankly staring, eyes glazed, something snapped. He'd Grin to himself."

"Grin you say?"

"Ya, as if while his mind were at sea, he'd been hunting this whole time and finally got a bite"

"Then what"

"He'd get up, buy the newspaper and leave."

"What do you imagine he was hunting?"

"Philosophers many times over made that there pastime to hunt truth. Not him. He found something different. He imagines every event like a color on an rubix-cube and sorts them out for hours and hours each morning. Sometimes weeks at a time before I see his smirk."

"How do you know this?"

"Ever once in a while, after he grins I see some subtle occurrence. It be the swift change in a conversation or argument. A date goes sour. It got so bad, I thought it was actually all his doing, that he set something up."

"Did he?"

"If any strings were attached, it was pure abductive guessing. honed quite sheer."

Quote

2009-10-29T16:13:47Z

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

- Sherlock Holmes

*squee*

Oh Holmes

2009-10-27T16:20:02Z

You explain my madness well.

Voice Post

2009-10-25T04:27:05Z

paradox_vampire @ 2009-10-15T08:05:00

2009-10-15T15:07:37Z

Life

2009-09-22T16:13:33Z

I want to go away sometimes. Go into full seclusion for months and months till I feel better about certain qualities in myself.

Every once in a while someone can push the perfect button. When it happens I want people to stay away.

But then everyone will take it personal. As if its all about them. I'll just hate you more. but In general, I care far to deeply to depart in full.

Input

2009-09-18T16:29:59Z

I've been wanting to write a collection of the worst arguments. In my travels I'm encountered a vast number and I was wondering if anyone wanted to post a little of there own encounters.

I'm single

2009-08-25T18:35:12Z

it feels sorta liberating

Obama, your losing the game

2009-08-21T19:43:41Z

I honestly feel bad for you. Not just you, but your presenters. The public will never learn anything more than the Dramatic. And your to those that are. Honestly, logic will fail you, you need a new tactic. And fast.

A book review: On Bullshit

2009-08-16T16:58:42Z

On Bullshit. Like me, you might have walked by the philosophy section at the book store and saw its queer title, and immediately started to peruses. Its slim size, and its red with silver lettering title shimming at you. It's hard to simply walk away by curiosity standards. Its great marketing.

Reading over many of the Amazon.com reviews I can see that people saw this book as mix bag of good and bad. Many were drawn in by the title and had a large misconception what it entailed. A joke book, or Satire. Far from it! Its written as a academic, and philosophical paper. Thats the style, no humor, just analyst. For many including I, that's a bore. Lucky, its quaint size of 67 pages, and large spacing and lettering make it less of a sludge to read. By the time you notice its drudgery your already ¾ done.

Harry Frankfurt, Our studious author starts off asking a simple and humoring question (The only humor allowed), why so much bullshit? The world is just bursting on the scene from bullshit! This required a TV show to be created to expose the tsunami of bullshit, e.g., “The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart” (Love you Jon). And in fact a second was needed, “The Colbert Report”!

You might feel I'm making more out of this book then is needed; Witting tangents. But thats because if I continued, I'd bore myself. But some people actually care; Sodomy quicker and less painful. Lets continue.

Frankfurt, Our Stogy hero asks yet another question but less humoring, has anyone else noticed the bullshit and has also written a book. He laments, I imagine sighing to himself that very little has been done on the subject. HF does though find an essay called, “The Prevalence of Humbug” by Max Black. He, that is our stogy hero, begins to cross-examine between the rules and examples and activities we use to understand both bullshit and humbug and continues in this philosophical fashion for ¾ of the book.

I might have written a bit harsh, and indeed this is for humor sake and my own OCD problems. But its conclusion is really quite interesting and perhaps this is the spoiler of the book. If you dare to consult the evil communist regime that is, Wikipedia, you'll find it also hasn't much to say except its conclusion after the ¾ mind slogging. As HF finally sees it, "bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are."

In summary of this statement. HF find that while lies try to lead you away from the truth, It also presupposes some knowledgeable account of what the truth actually is to draw you from. In the case of bullshit, its indifferent to both. It's not a necessary condition within BS to care about truth or falsity of a claim. BS primarily looks to impress and gain the adherence of an audience unannounced to them for the purpose of advancing their own agendas. After reading this book a quote came to mind.

“When it comes to BULLSHIT...BIG-TIME, MAJOR LEAGUE BULLSHIT... you have to stand IN AWE, IN AWE of the all time champion of false promises and exaggerated claims, religion. Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you. ...And he needs money! He's all powerful, all perfect, all knowing, just can't handle money!”

k thx,
Preliminary Absurdist

One hard distinction is

2009-07-17T18:36:58Z

When is someone arrogant or self-empowered? Rightly, Arrogance is a degree of unjustified prestige. Self-empowered is a motivational mantra given to the act of self-fulfillment or betterment. The problem is these rules criss-cross for the speakers purpose. A speaker can invoke a rule change on mere disagreement or style whenever they feel threaten. When a performer is bowing or a crowd ask for an encore, is he arrogant...In most cases, not! I've been called arrogant in what I call my most tactful way possible to present a level of difference. I'll drudge on, but I'll never understand people compliance to not listen because of ethos alone. Your attack on purely style isn't because its truly foreboding but because you cling to character traits of comfort. I appeal, the irony is your arrogant!

wedding plans fail!

2009-05-30T18:35:51Z

If someone were to ask me my greatest pet-peeve, it will be getting lost while driving. I'm no stranger to pulling over at a gas station and asking for directions. But when I get fucked by Google maps, yahoo maps, I'm livid! When I double check with the person I'm going to see and also have them check the proposed direction/location on the map I'll be using, their is simply no excuse to get it wrong. Aware of my troublesome road rage I take regards to limit this irritation by having a GPS guide me, yet I'm astounded by the assumption that the directions/location are sound, E.g. the address is the right one. Lamefully, the person I wish to meet has no cell-phone and I purpose they do not have my number; what a fucking shame! I could literally kill just for the purpose of extorting my rage for an exchange feeling of sympathy as the lifeless vessel lays dead for an unjust means!

In any case, I'm home; upset; dogmatic; looking for a justified means to kill something!

Second pet-peeve, driving city roads I like to describe like a "grid of death". Alot of one ways, ect... Unpleasant in all forms of the word and I happen to be driving with both irritations... SF, FUCK YOU!

I saw someone elses post and Decided to give my own

2009-05-06T18:24:44Z

Since I was little I could feel for a split second this strange matrix-like feeling around me, the old, perhaps the world isn't real. I'll be walking or perhaps aimlessly sitting thinking, musing and then at some point, nothing, I meditate and feel completely cut off from the world...and I interpret this as also being cut off from myself. For a second I think... am I really here -- boom I'm zipped back into feeling the world around me again. I've always wanted to stay in that feeling, its an odd one, similar to day dreaming, but in this case your thinking about nothing. I've been meditating for a while for various reasons (an experience, relaxation, interpretations of sensations), but I'd also like to feel that qualia, 'matrix-feeling' for longer than a 'second'; To no avail. The hardest thing for me, and perhaps meditation in general is not thinking of nothing! Normally they ask you to think of a calm place or considerate on your breathing, I think they ask you to do this because of how frustrating you'd become to try and think of nothing. In day dreaming your hardly aware of your surroundings and that's how one must feel, but also then, to thinking of nothing. I don't believe its just me who's experienced the feeling.I also think most people can't sit and not think of something...even concentration on your surroundings I think constitute as thinking. For me, I first day dream, musing about something, and then I stop and it seem to fall into it. I'm curious, I think other people have felt like this and I'm wondering how I describe it is how it perhaps happens to you?

To the tax payers, Thank you again for your contributions

2009-03-30T21:47:44Z

Tis another day of bargain and books!

Works of Love by Soren Kierkegaard

To my mind, no philosopher has effected my outcome on love more predominantly than Kierkegaard. It is an odd note that the front cover has a quote by Ludwig Wittgenstein - 'by far the most profound thinker of the nineteenth century.'
I sorta remember hearing this before but sorta forgot. Now I have a book to remind me always! Its a new book recently published on old shit because I'm such a whore for aesthetically new presentations of books. Arg, marketing :P

Philosophers: extraordinary people who altered the course of history

well I guess its out of print.... anyways, it's a bargain book. Particularly the only reason I got this is because its got a nice little time line of philosophers and the era's. Its just a nice reference book to have because I've always had a hard time remembering what timelines these thinkers were around so I can have a more contextual bases of the history of philosophy. It also one of the few philosopher reference books I've seen where the timeline goes up to Peter Singer as a modern thinker. en why not, $6.

The Ethics of what we Eat: why our food choices matter by Peter Singer

This was recommended to me by my most awesomest friend of philosophy DeeDee, who is a Vegan. The ethical discourse of vegetarianism has always interested me, And I do think it will be good of me to read over it to have some comparative analysis of how I eat...besides the index said something about wal-mart and that's just got to be funny!

The Stranger by Albert Camus

Alot of the works of Camus I don't actually own, and thats really just sad (being an absurdist). Most of his thoughts have been given to me by research, notes, and various other people and youtube talks. The stranger has always held a very strong sense in me while I was working, keeping my mind active from the drudgery I thought was trying to consume my mind, as it had already glutton itself on my soul. I remember very passionately working in the silicon crushing room wearing full gear and face mask, sweating from head to toe in what was a dirty silicon glass fragmented atmosphere being sucked out by jerryrigged room filters. Thinking of 'The Stranger' was my only solace, doing philosophy and small mathematical problems in my head to dull my souls descent to hell.

*note - Isn't Camus a sexy man, no wonder Sartre had a falling out with the man, the guy's steal'in all them hoes! (its a joke plz don't be upset because I said, 'hoes'.) :P

YAY BOOKS!

agnostic problem part 2

2009-03-26T19:35:48Z

This was posted on live journal awhile ago, although I have different views upon it now, I still think it's a somewhat decent exposure of the ambiguity in describing the usage of agnostic (and perhaps it might help to see how one learns the word). I still believe its an important distinction to say an agnostic in a general usage without limiting to the context of only religious discourse, is any variety of particular claims that he has notice, appealing to him as being unjustified in stating a proof as a complete whole to impose as a factual claim, or that any proof as a whole is unjustifiable. I believe as I have stated the above I actually have no quarrel with agnostics, insofar as, it says nothing other than stating the obvious. That is that any claim isn't a 'justified whole' i.e., an ultimate answer, suffering from one might say, needing a scalpel and using a hammer. For me this is simply using an overreaching wording to describe so much with so little that the profound 'awe' one might see is merely a chimera, a product of an over reaching, saying its vastness can only be attributed to 'something', and this is worth keeping your doubt in harbor; This, rather than sailing towards a sun you so much as do not doubt!

If I could I'd like to step back and look at the statement of, 'appealing to him as being unjustified in stating a proof as a complete whole to impose as a factual claim'. First we know this is impossible as a 'complete whole' is not a whole but an association of parts, evidence, and perhaps reasons through an apriori methodology as a starting point hypotheses. here we can see the imprecision as with validity of truth of a claim is a sub composition of its parts in which all parts need not be a whole to be true.

To state even more its superfluous nature of being such a spare, we can interchange 'whole' with 'all' for a logical proposition whereas all we need to do is state one simple claim that states a contradiction in saying 'all parts are accounted for'. But as shown above the truth of a claim is a sub composition of parts (not a whole) and any part does not have to be a whole in order to be true.

Now perhaps one might say, any particular part,evidence, and apriori evidence has always the chance of being wrong. With stating the obvious, yes of course, but stating the potential has not at all stated the actual, that is I am without merit. Also it is a bit over zealous to say you know how much needs to be wrong in order for the major theory to be false without setting out some criterion; to state again, a whole is not a whole but a composition of parts, so how many parts need to be wrong before we say a theory is dysfunctional. This is perhaps the beginning criterion of ANY debate! This part is left out so that language walks aimlessly, or to quote Wittgenstein, 'when language goes on vacation'.

It is now apparent as I finish up that the most important question is still un-asked. the most important question for any agnostic, theist, atheist or any person is....when is it ok to doubt and not too. This is important and I believe the Achilles heel of the problem while the above is a chimera, an illusion. I will say very little so one might feel a disheartening feeling or perhaps an 'ahha' I pounce upon my question as a problem and reveal to you that you are still safe. perhaps one might start where I did, asking one self, 'why is it I look both ways before crossing the street if it were true I had doubt of the world being real? This could have a variety of reasons, but than I perhaps ask, what is the criteria in which to justify the claim, that is, I know the world is real, not as a whole, but by its parts? And then ask, is it here I have enough to doubt in the parts to doubt me crossing the street, to perhaps not look both ways? One might start here and ask another question, why wouldn't the same criteria to judge my actions in what I believe is a real world, and than be enchanted with doubt when one is thinking beyond? One might see it perhaps no more than what Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein did, as a way of life, not proofs of God because God is absurd, as much as life is, but, it never stopped us from getting up and walking across the street.

Below is the post from livejournal awhile ago.

first post on the problem.I used to be agnostic. It was an interesting time for me....but now I've gotten confused.

Agnostics seems like a disposition statement.

agnostics simply means - I do not feel obligated to give an answer I feel is unjustified or unjustifiable. An agnostic could given any number of answers... e.g - the cow is God. But, has determined that these claims are unsatisfactory.

Most people don't feel that agnostic is a disposition. Most wouldn't say, 'I feel athiest today'. Or, 'I feel Thiest today'. But agnostics, as I've worded it above seems like a disposition; I do not feel obligated to give an answer I feel is unjustified or unjustifiable.

This changes the question, It now sounds more like an epistemological one of self-reference. That is, I don't know because I feel I don't know. If I ask, why don't you...you could give reasons...but that isn't quit the same as, 'I don't know', because you do know something... but thus feel unjustified in giving an answer, thus, 'feel' is a disposition. And even more interesting is that you find it justified insofar as you self-validate, that is, I know I don't know because I feel I don't know (that your valid insofar as your valid). If it is a disposition, then yes, it might be that your valid insofar as your valid. If not, it raises a bit more problems.

I might have to cast agnostics out of the religion category because I don't 'feel' atheist.

MY WORD!

2009-03-24T18:18:31Z

Feminist Interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein A must to have within my huge collection of books on the man.

If God, I too, Am man, to who?

2009-03-21T22:28:06Z

If anything is to be said, I liken a writing style similar to the above title, provided some time ellipses I might find a luxury in that style. Elegant riddles pour over pages and pages of my readings, what I describe in my mind as pure play. The riddle is a biblical one.

Chapter 1 of the book of genesis

Genesis Chapter 1 verse 26

" Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth'. "

new books

2009-03-14T07:55:32Z

The unemployment check ye tax paying worker provide me went to good use my drunken friends!

The Complete Works of Plato

I had planned a post upon love after reading 'apology' today, decided that while my mind seems to understand, my written dialog did not fair so well !! Perhaps one day when my day dreams and musement catch up with my hand they may be at peace once again.

Women, Fire, and Dangerious Things : What categories Reveal about the Mind by George Lakoff

I became rather enthralled with this book after I saw Deedee last Saturday where she presented me this book and I proceeded to go on a philosophical cruise within its pages for a brief moment. She is hoping to do a thesis upon the book for her linguistics major. With any luck I hope to provide her with some insight.

If I were to write

2009-03-14T07:23:35Z

~~I'd need my eyes closed, never to look upon my words again. I'd surely condemn them if I had seen what I wrote.... damn~~

how depressing

2009-02-28T23:22:12Z

simply deplorable!!!!

So, paradox_vampire, your LiveJournal reveals...

You are... 1% unique and 19% herdlike (partly because you, like everyone else, enjoy writing). When it comes to friends you are popular. In terms of the way you relate to people, you are keen to please. Your writing style (based on a recent public entry) is simplistic.

Your overall weirdness is: 7

(The average level of weirdness is: 29.
You are weirder than 8% of other LJers.)

Find out what your weirdness level is!

This is what I spend my days doing

2009-02-28T04:09:04Z

arg...

For the love of books.....if you enjoy reading plz join and be a friend

2009-02-15T08:55:02Z

www.shelfari.com/o1517822941/shelf

fixed my computer

2009-02-09T08:26:18Z

onward towards tara's

A

2009-01-24T21:25:51Z

~~Post~~

So it is decided!

2009-01-02T01:27:40Z

Anyone who has seen my bookshelf (a philosopher wet dream) would understand that few of those philosophical books are actually read from front to back. I know, I know, what kind of book nerd is that! Bare with me, reading my dense work (I dare you to read both, 'Principia Mathematca' and 'The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus' without saying, 'I want something else to read', most of my books are like that.) is quit a work load. I tend to work from one subject to the next satisfying any and all whims as they come to pass. With my basic understanding of most of the books I will skim through many chapters looking for 'musement' to tinker with while I deal with a particular matter of interest. Its a nasty habit, and Provide I can muster up a few Adderall, I'd like to change the habit. The idea is to do something month to month and engross myself in one particular subject or area of study. As was hinted before in the last post, Logic is this months quota.

Book listed to read as follows:

Concise introduction to Logic - Hurley

The Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - Ludwig Wittgenstein

Clear Thinking - Hy Ruchlis

And will debate with myself any other books(metalogic/foundational mathematics)

The cube, The cube 2, and Cube Zero. CLASSIC GEEKERY!