Uncategorized
The Problematic Dangers in Philosophy
Does Philosophy have a PR problem?
In today’s society, civilizations have become distracted/consumed with their own beliefs and opinions. This ultimately discourages civilians from asking questions or even from learning new/differing viewpoints. “Real philosophers must be willing to give up disproven beliefs and embrace the truth” (“Introduction” 4). As the introduction points out, holding on to your individual truth because of, “a right to my opinion” (“Introduction” 4) has caused people to become disconnected with being enlightened/gaining knowledge and consumed with their own “truthiness” (Colbert 4).
Society today tends to misconstrue the definition of philosophy however with words like “opinion and theory” according to the Introduction (3). “Philosophy means love of wisdom. Philosophers seek truth and wisdom above all else” (“Intro.” 3). Here is where the divide and PR problem begin, with the lack of knowledge regarding philosophy and its’ values.
Why might someone find Philosophy dangerous?
The term danger triggers one’s mind towards terms like pain, hurt, and anguish. According to Johnson, “… nothing hurts more than learning new ideas” (35). This is one reason an individual might misconstrue philosophy as dangerous. “Philosophers appetite for truth is insatiable” (“Intro.” 4). A primary technique used in philosophy to decipher truths is the method of questioning. Today, questioning may not appear to be categorized with the term danger, but think back to the time period of 427-327 B.C.E. when Socrates had to defend his life against two charges. He did so through the Socratic method of questioning and reasoning. This ultimately caused powerful Athenians to view him as “dangerous because his questioning and debate would undermine their basis of power” (Young 7). Thus, philosophy today is often misconstrued, it is viewed as dangerous because it challenges one’s perception and essentially pushes one to examine his/her life, not individually, but wholly.
According to Young, “… friendships help us to critically examine the lives we lead” (11). In order to break free from this “danger”, one must be willing to accept differing viewpoints as well as the fact of not-knowing. “Socrates is famous for saying “I know that I do not know” … philosophy was the love and pursuit of wisdom, and this required questioning others to find out what they do or do not know” (Young 7). In my opinion, the real danger in our society is ignorance. If people continue to not accept “not-knowing” society will continue living individualized without expression of differing/opposing viewpoints, or if these points are spoken, they would quickly be shut down defensively.
People view philosophy as dangerous because to most, it is unknown and misunderstood. It is our duty as philosophers to awaken/challenge those who think they know the “truth” through reasoning and questioning in hopes of inspiring those unfortunate souls to awaken to the power one can obtain only through philosophy.
Should unusual ideas, or ideas that disagree with conventional wisdom be censored?
Unusual ideas/ideas that disagree with conventional wisdom should not be censored if the societal aim is to progress with each new era of time. By progress I mean achieving finite knowledge, obtaining total equality, and the sense of internal/external examination. Censoring these ideas would ultimately lead to complacency in society, or even worse, a digression in our civilization.
According to Colbert, “Nothing endangers cherished beliefs like education and philosophy, and nothing hurts more than learning new ideas” (35). As a human, we are not seeking being hurt (i.e. new ideas) because the society we live in revolves around “truthiness and wikiality” (to use Colbert’s language). Think about your history classes throughout your middle and high school years, how brief was each lesson, how generalized were your assignments? Most students obsess about seeing an “A” on their papers, rather than wondering or asking WHY. Many a times, when a student does ask “why” or for more information on a topic, the teacher may reply with a “We don’t have time to cover that”. It is not fair to assume that the teacher’s goal is to give students a basic education, rather realize that they are imposed (by the state) to a set time frame and TEKS they must cover in order to stay on track with the calendar year. This, in my opinion, is not learning and is a leading causation of “truthiness”.
Censorship is packaged to the public as a form of protection and breeds individuals to remain mentally enclosed (i.e. truthiness). If no conversations are happening where people have varying opinions, or simply opt out of these conversations as Colbert provides an example, “I have a right to my opinion” (33), society will never discover universal truths as a whole. It will remain fragmented and individualized, it becomes, “your truth” (Johnson 28).
-TruthSeeker
Photo credit provided to: oddstuffmagazine.com
Works Cited:
Colbert and Young. Technology and Values, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA, 2010.
Archetypusaum
“One ought to be skeptical of the world today, for if all we do is glance and not see, humanity shall remain
forever BLIND!”-Truth Seeker
Photo Credit to MDE-ART.com
The “Kindness” of Your Heart
The human body has several body parts which instantaneously function like a symphony in spirit of sustaining what we call “life”. In this case, by “life” I am simply referring to the act of breathing, having the ability to wake up healthy each day. There are an uncountable amount of ways to view this term “life”, therefore I bare you my meaning to cease all basphomy. At this point, I will only speak of one instrument in the symphony, the human heart.
I am no scientist, nor do I even bother familiarizing myself with scientific-al rambles; I say rambles because I strongly view science as an empty opinion. It does nothing but states/studies the process, never will it conclude or inform one about the actuality of any beginning!
“This almost endless task the natural sciences make easier by means of abstractoions, drawing together what is general in order to separate what is particular.” – Schopenhauer
I will resist the urge to speak more about this matter and storage it for a latter moment.
Do not judge or falsely accuse me when I speak of the heart, for I am instilling this segment now to clear any misconceptualities. As I speak of the heart, I am stating and objectifying it through my will; I am open to discussions, not objections.
It shall cause no surprise to hear that your heart is one of the key instruments in sustaining life, what intrigues me ever more though, is what has not been contemplated or studied… your heart’s amount of “kindness”. Emotion is a precarious concept, it can be felt, faked, or faulted, nonetheless, it is an attribute that we, beings, posses. There exists a saying that I hear quite frequently, “Do it out of the kindness of your heart.” I would like you, fellow Truth Seeker, to re-examine this saying once more. This quote is imposing onto the heart a plurality–> being not only is it an organ which sustains life, but it is also capable of showing/creating acts of kindness.
Kindness is an emotion, an emotions is felt, not through touch… but through your mind. It is a finite misconception that a heart is what “produces” these emotions, this is not the case; it is in fact, your mind. Just as the mind produces pleasure, pain, complacency; this is not the heart’s duty. I do not blame thee though for possessing this idea vice-verse, we are unfortunately taught several fallacies in our young public educational career which we carry on throughout our time on Earth. If one ceases to push pass this “object” in search of true will, then one will unfortunately end up in a solitude of blindness ( i.e. Plato’s Cave; for those who I have lost in my writing). For one to claim that “an act of kindness” can come from your heart irks me, it sounds incoherent, we are placing onto an object a power that it does not posses! For arguments sake, I will quite briefly ponder this conception…. of an “act of kindness.”
How is such an act even measurable? How can one truly know infinitely if another being is acting out of kindness (remember fellow Truth Seeker, we are placing such an implausible idea on the stand for it’s sentencing; we must not shut out this conception completely without analyzing it for ourselves). It is simple for one to claim the attribute of kindness, partially for the reason being that kindness is also based off of perception. What I see as kind, you may see as greedy, there is a problem with words; they can be perceived falsely, and can go un repaired if not addressed. In sake of argumentation, “kind” is referencing towards doing something extra and unexpected for someone other than yourself; being selfless. “I got you this just because” or “Sure, you can have $20”, these words place a mask of kindness onto those who speak them, but one can not view into a soul –> a mind. It is a grief possibility that these beings have become too accustomed to flaunting this mask, they seem to be kind; when what lays behind this mask could in fact be an alternative motive.
Politics are the clearest paradigm where alternative motives can be observable. The politician promises, smiles, reassures, reiterates, all in hopes of being chosen. Once this goal is attained, the politician suddenly remains complacent with these issues where there was once a drive, a fire; only to ad hoc hominem “My hands are tied with this issue”. I pose another form of example; The mother and father pride in dropping their children off every day for school, they see perfect attendance as an honorable award; when in reality, the parents are using the school as as daycare while they handle what needs to be done. And another, a dog obeys and seizes to use the house as a toilet, only so when the owner arrives back home, a treat will be presented to said dog. I am willful that one of these archetypes allow my point to be understood.
On the contrary, a plant. A plant performs it’s daily duties for the planet, it gets pollinated, breathes in Carbon dioxide, produces for the humans oxygen. One of the major necessities humans need to live relies on the plant. Is this a clear form of the kindness of your heart? Is a plant capable of possessing such a kindness?
A plant does not have a heart.
WILL; It is mere will of a plant which drives it to truly dmonstrate an act that does not souley benefit itself.
My expectancy is for you, fellow Truth Seeker, to stop relying on fallacy, and start awakening to reality. We as beings must cease with the contamination and infectious spread of lies!
We must begin to awaken and spread the TRUTH.
-Truth Seeker
Photo Credit to moxymarketplace.com
Political Joint 