Read More »

As I've said before, I am not a philosopher. However, as someone interested in the subject, I thought I'd look for groups of like-minded individuals to further my philosophical studies. After all, the dialectic approach is an excellent way to broaden one's understanding of things. A Google search for "Philosophical Society" delivered a host of choices. Now, I wasn't surprised to find that some societies are a bit choosy when it comes to membership. Groups such as the American Philosophical Society are by invitation only and that's understandable. But, they do draw from every conceivable field of study, which is staying true to the spirit of philosophy. However, groups like the American Philosophical Association are a different story. Below are the requirements taken directly from their site:

Regular or International Associate membership is open to persons whose training in philosophy has been advanced and systematic enough to make them competent to teach the subject at the college or university level and/or to persons with special achievements in philosophy. To qualify for Student Associate membership, persons must be actively engaged in the study of philosophy at an accredited college or university.

So, basically you have to have a PhD in philosophy, or be enrolled in the organized study of philosophy at a university. So what about everyone else? Would this group tell people like Descartes to take a hike? What about good old Socrates? At what point did philosophy cease to be the love of wisdom and become a pretentious clique for ivory tower academics only? Are they saying that wisdom cannot be gained by the study of the arts and literature? What about history and human culture? What about the mathematics that was so dear to so many philosophers in the past?

There's another point I'd like to make. Considering that so much importance within philosophy is given to the ability to find new ways of thinking about issues, it makes sense that some of the best philosophers would come from outside philosophy departments. How can you expect a person to think originally when all they've studied is how their predecessors thought? Doesn't strict instruction in how to read and interpret philosophical writings extinguish the flame of free thought? The "love of wisdom" is reduced to writing what your professor wants to hear so that you can pass the class.

But, all is not lost. There are groups out there that endeavor to bring philosophy to the masses where it belongs. The Society for Philosophical Inquiry is one such group "devoted to supporting philosophical inquirers of all ages and walks of life." There is also the Dallas Philosopher's Forum, a group that organizes philosophical discussions that are designed to engage the academic and the Regular Joe - now, that's good shit.

In short, I say we all need to study a little philosophy - or a lot of philosophy. This is not some arcane and dead discipline that has no bearing on modern life. This is life. You engage in philosophy everyday, whether you know it or not. Don't let a bunch of effeminate elitists tell you that you don't have philosophical worth - you do. Philosophy is a living, breathing entity and it belongs to all of us, not just those that have had their creativity systematically squashed by chasing academic accolades.

« Hide Post

Read More »

I'm mainly thinking about this one guy I work with. He's a nice enough chap, but he annoys the piss out of everyone in a 30′ radius with his inane babblings that are supposed to convince us all that he's not really the stupidest person within 4 miles. He knows more about cars, computers, cell phones, travel, and weather (dear God, the weather) than anyone in the Great Plains. If you have the opportunity to refute his "facts" with a book or publication written by the most respected scholars in the Western world, he will tell you that your information is outdated. His information always comes from the Internet, TV, or "a friend" and is therefore much more accurate. And his ears are a marvel of evolution. He can hear a conversation that he wants to interject himself into from up to 100 feet away. The most amazing thing is his powers of hearing work across crowded rooms and through lead walls. And he won't waste the time to cross the room to correct - no, no - he'll shout across unfathomable distances the correct information that you so desperately needed. Eventually, everyone ends up wanting to start a mosh pit on the poor fool's testicles.

My point here, which I've tried to discuss with tonight's protagonist, is that there's nothing wrong with ignorance. Without ignorance, there is no learning. Without ignorance, all knowledge would be instinctual and humans would be no better than those fucking cats on my couch. But, ignorance is often seen as a weakness, an intellectual shortcoming. And it's perfectly human to want to hide or downplay weaknesses. We often hide weakness by overcompensating and that's how someone becomes an insufferable know-it-all. I used to be a frequent offender myself. However, the more I learn, the more I realize I don't know.

So, if someone brings up a topic that you're not well-versed in, don't pretend you are. You'll end up looking like a bigger douche than if you'd just said "I don't know." Or, if you have a little knowledge, by all means share it. When you reach the limits of what you know, say that you don't know anymore than that. After a while, those around you will respect your honesty. They may even think you're wise. They won't want to tee off on your nut sack.

« Hide Post

Read More »

As you may or may not know, Socrates was tried and sentenced to death for basically being an obnoxious old fart and habitually pointing out the ignorance of supposedly "wise men." On top of that, he influenced the children of Athens to question their elders and taught each of them to be a royal pain in the ass. How did he do this? All he did was ask for further explanation until he had stonewalled the so-called "expert." By doing so, Socrates was forcing people to face their own ignorance. This is but a single aspect of the examined life.

I think too many of us lead unexamined lives, especially in this fast-paced, high-tech world. We can set our coffee to begin brewing automatically in the morning. We can have our bills paid automatically online. Machines answer our phones for us. Cruise control, DVR, and sprinkler systems have all eliminated a little bit of thought from our lives. There are even cars that will parallel park themselves now. Is it any wonder that we end up living lives set on automatic pilot? Think about what you do during the work week. Most of us get up and get dressed, go to work, go to lunch, finish the work day, come home, eat dinner, watch some TV, go to bed, and then get up and go through the exact same routine with only the most minor variations. What are you getting from this a priori way of life? How is this helping you to grow as a human being? Think about it for a minute.

Now, I'm not throwing stones from a glass house. I'm the first to admit that I'm as likely as the next guy to dig myself into a happy little rut. Routine can be comforting - I understand. However, abject adherence to routine breeds personal stagnation. Instead of watching a rerun of Lost, I suggest taking a look at yourself. Ask yourself if there's anything you want to improve upon (there always is if you're looking hard enough). Is there something you want to know about, but have never taken the time to learn? Read a book or sign up for a class. Are you unhappy with where your career is headed? Seriously look at changing jobs or figure out a way to shake things up at the job you have. Personally, I've always wanted to play a musical instrument, so I'm in the process of learning to play the harmonica. Sure, it's not the guitar or the piano, but it's something.

Self-examination is never easy. If it were, everyone would do it. We never want to see ourselves as we actually are; we always gloss over our shortcomings. For instance, I tend to see myself as a fairly charming and well-educated person. My wife sees an insufferable jackass. So, I try to see why she would see me that way. It's not always easy for me to see it, but I'll admit that I can be a bit of a know-it-all at times. I tend to have just enough knowledge to back myself into a corner. I know a lot of arcane little facts about history and anthropology, but I'm no expert on anything. But, if people think you are, then it's a big letdown when the truth is revealed. This is why the Mrs. thinks I'm a jackass. In fact, she'll bitch about this post being too long. So on that note, I'll start wrapping up.

I think what Socrates was getting at was the importance of taking a long, hard look at yourself. Point out your own flaws before anyone else can. It's definitely better to know thyself more intimately than someone else knows you. When you see yourself from the outside, you can't help but be a little dissatisfied. This will drive you to become a better person and, while you'll never achieve perfection, the struggle will make you great.

« Hide Post

Read More »

I'd like to start by saying that I'm not a philosopher. I'm not really interested in coming up with the answers for any global problems or social ills. I'm not here to answer any eternal questions about God or the afterlife. Instead, I'm simply searching for a new way of looking at things. I want to see the world through my own eyes. I want to ask questions, even if the answer seems obvious. I don't want to take anyone's word for anything. I want to question reality. I want to figure out what really matters to me (not you). Above all, I want to hold the intellectual high ground when arguing with someone who is supposed to be "my superior."

I'm not really going to go into anything tonight, but I'd like to introduce myself from a philosophical standpoint. First of all, I didn't really study philosophy in college (I took two classes). However, anthropology does flow over the boundaries of philosophy in several places, so I'm not completely in the dark here. And I've read enough to be fairly certain about a few points. I don't really get into modern philosophy. I think Nietzsche is overrated (although he did have a bitchin' mustache) and existentialism is a term that gets thrown around a bit too lightly. And even though I do agree with a lot of existential views, I've always been fond of the Cartesian credo of "Cogito ergo sum".

Nope, I'm a classical kind of guy. I love to read about bearded men in togas debating the nature of virtue and ethics. It seems to me that philosophy was pure then, unhindered by its own bullshit. And it seems that I can't get enough Stoicism. Stoicism was the philosophy of choice during the time of the Roman Empire and I think it still has a lot of merit today. Whenever we tell someone to "suck it up and take it," we are espousing the view of the Stoics, albeit in a less eloquent fashion. Despite the fact that I tend to bitch and whine more than a true Stoic it still appeals to me. I never said it was the guiding principle of my life.

So, that's it for now. Like a radio station undergoing a format change, I'm sure I'll be feeling my way through this for a while. But, if philosophical inquiry were easy and the outcome certain, there wouldn't be any point to it.

« Hide Post