Letter to the og

Dear Mom and Dad,

     For starters I would like to apologize for my lack of effort and academic success during these previous four years. I don't really know why I stopped trying, I guess I just lost interest. I know that my attitude towards school caused you guys a lot of stress, which is the absolute last thing I wanted to do to you. You have enough on your plate as it is. I think one of the reasons I didn't do anything was because I didn't understand the pain I was putting you guys through. This is tough to admit, but I think I might've been a bit self centered, thinking that my grades only affected me, and not the people close to me.
     Despite the fact that I dicked around in school a bit too much, I think I was able to learn quite a lot with my time here at WY. Although I probably couldn't solve a geometry proof or calculate the amount of mols in some element or some shit, I can confidently say that I can shotgun a "soda" in under seven seconds, and I can even occasionally spit game if I feel so inclined. 
In all seriousness,  though, I think what I've learned here is more beneficial than any trigonomic function ever could be. Dad, you taught me political morals and how to do drugs responsibly. Your never-ending speeches about them damn republicans, monsanto, climate change, etc. were so passionate that I had no choice but to be inspired by them.

Mom, you taught me to "not take what your father says literally", and how to actually handle life as an individual. Like how to do laundry and take care of myself when you guys aren't around. That's pretty important because without some of the stuff you taught me I think I would absolutely fail at being a grown up.

I learned a ton being with my friends. Aside from dumb things, I learned what it was like to build meaningful relationships with people. I've come to love my friends as if I've known them my entire life, but that didn't come easy. As a bunch of hormonal, alcohol fueled teens, conflicts oftentimes arose. The fact that we had to find ways to solve issues in a semi- mature way forced us to mature as young adults.

More than anything I want you guys not to worry about me. Whatever I end up doing, whether I go get a college degree or hit the road and work at a hemp farm, I know that I'm gonna pursue the path that brings me happiness, and I'll be alright. 

Your loving son, 

Charlie

The Stranger

     I loved Camus' point of view on life. He looks at life from a real, practical, standpoint, and narrows us down to our animalistic properties. When you imagine yourself looking down on our race, and seeing us as tiny little ant sized creatures inhabiting this planet, you gain a sense of how small and unimpactful we really are. Eventually our race will die, and there will be no trace that we even existed. We do not matter whatsoever in the bigger picture. We are a colony of ants in a park waiting to die during the winter.
     That seems depressing, but to me it's comforting. It's nice to have an awareness of our place in the universe, and because of that we won't view of our issues as all that important because we, although it may seem crazy, are not the center of the universe. Now I'm not saying I want to live like Meursault, that guy's a douche, and he didn't get much enjoyment out of life. But he didn't see the enjoyment out of just being alive until he is about to die. There is lot's to love in this life of ours, and if I live a happy life, then die, then that's alright with me.

Thankful for a classmate

I am thankful for Nathan Taylor.
Being the class Buddhist, Nathan brings a lot of diversity to classroom discussions and arguments. I think in order to have a truly successful philosophical discussion that we all learn from, we need a wide array of opinions that come from all cultures and points of view, and I think we're very fortunate to have that here. We've got Gabby's really down to earth, moral perspectives, Piotr's republican death penalty opinions, Abbey's liberal hippie opinions, and we've got our Buddhist, Nathan, whom I am very thankful for because I've never known a Buddhist before and I learned a lot from him, and his dad dated my mom.

Into the Wild

It seems that I've procrastinated a bit in writing this blog entry, as I'm pretty sure we watched this movie about three months ago. Nonetheless, here is my philosophical take on the movie, after much pondering.
     Immediately after watching this movie and reading Siddhartha, my reaction was "Wow that's crazy! I gotta go live alone in the wild to find my inner self!" or "I need to narrow down everything I own to under a hundred things so I won't be defined by my physical purchases!". Now my take is a bit different. Those thoughts led me to think about this said "inner self" and what that actually is. I think it's safe to say that we can all agree that the "inner self" is one's own, true, personality and characteristics, unburdened and unaffected by one's surroundings, family, friends, or physical objects. It's who we are as a person, minus all the outside influences of the world that change us.
     So here's where I have a problem.
I don't think that there is a genuine "inner self". "Who we are" is another way of saying "what we have become". We are defined entirely on our outside influences. We develop political opinions based upon looking at the world, and wondering what is best for ourselves and the people we love, and the rest of the world around us. Martin Luther King was the great man he was because he looked at the world around him and saw the horror that had been put upon his race, and knew that he and those he loved were in constant danger, as well as all African Americans.
     But what drove him to become the most important civil rights activist in American history? Was it some deep inner nature that caused him to speak out? Definitely. He knew what was morally right and he wanted change so he decided to do something about it. Question is: did he have this moral characteristic since birth? Was he naturally like this? If he was born in a totally different situation, let's say, for the sake of the argument, one of wealth and high power. Let's say, he was spoiled as a child. Let's say, he was raised to believe that the world was fine the way it was, after all, he was rich he had nothing to worry about. Would Martin Luther King morally be the same man that he actually was? I think not.
     Anyways, to go back to Into the Wild. I don't think that Christopher McCandless found his inner self, as there is no such thing. What did happen, however, is that he lived a much freer life-style. He no longer that the burden and worry of all his first-world possessions. He became, not his true inner self, but a new man defined by the way he lived. Because he didn't have to worry about such petty affairs such as school and jobs, he could live a life happiness and freedom. When someone spends too much time thinking about inanimate things, they lose a lot that life has to offer.
   

What should we have figured out by now?

              There are lot's of things that we should have figured out by now. We should have figured out how to harness the energy of the sun. Literally every electronic and mechanical device in the world should be run by solar energy. Cars, cell phones, Ipods, factories, machinery, airplanes, TV, computers, houses, lights in houses, lights outside of houses, refrigerators, microwaves, ovens, sports stadiums, cameras, stoplights, boats, rollercoasters, pagers, ATM's, grow ops, electric toothbrushes, remote-control cars, and, last but not least, remote-control helicopters. We, the inhabitants of Earth, are blessed with an infinite, free energy source. The fact that our foolish selves are quite literally destroying our planet and being at war to get a very limited amount of petroleum oil when we have the technology to power everything with the sun is just, pardon my french, balogna.

              We also should have figured out if there's life outside of earth. I mean, if I was running things, I'd be like, "let's go find aliens", and then the entire world would have put all their efforts towards gettin to aliens rather than fighting, so everything would be peaceful, and we'd find aliens and enhance our knowledge of the universe. Why create petty arguments on earth and put ourselves through suffering like war and poverty when all us humans can join as one and, no pun intended, reach for the stars. We could totally enhance the knowledge of the human race and eliminate tons of issues in our own personal lives if we had a better understanding of the big picture. Why we aren't constantly pursuing this is beyond me. Instead we choose to limit ourselves to what's happening here on earth and we are engulfed with things that we think are, no pun intended, the most important things in the world. Our human race and the society that we live in is like one big highschool. We've got a bunch of different cliques and groups and they fight, backstab eachother, spread gossip, create issues out of nothing, and in doing so we put ourselves through tons of drama and suffering. We're dumb. The smart ones are the people who watch from the outside in amusement as the world creates these petty issues, and moves on by themselves to create happiness, and focus on what is REALLY important in life. Us humans are so miniscule. We can't possibly imagine all the possibilities of whats happening in the entire universe, but we should be able to grasp the fact that we are a very, very, small, meaningless part, almost like a speck of dust in a whole galaxy. So with that said, why create trouble and hardship for ourselves. Let's just live life, do things right, and most importantly, be happy.

          We also should have figured out who banksy is. I mean c'mon there's gotta be a way right?

           Another thing we should have figured out is why the female praying mantis decapitates the male after intercourse. That is absolutely crazy. Could you imagine if humans did that? Chicks just naturally had an uncontrollable urge to rip a dudes head off after gettin frisky? We would become extinct! I don't know why the guy praying mantis buys into it. Maybe it's because they don't have hands, but still, doesn't seem worth it to me.
 

How do I know what I know?

             This question is tripping me out quite a bit. Is the question asking how have I come to learn everything that I know today? Or is it much deeper? Is the question asking how do I know that everything I know is true and real? I'm going to answer the first interpretation first, as my brain will still be intact by the time I've finished answering.

              I think that there are two different ways to know something: having it taught to you, and discovering whatever it is on your own. The latter, however, is the only true way of knowing something. I mean everything we're taught is probably true, like for example: the american revolution. Obviously we all know it happened but for sake of the argument let's just say there was no actual proof. We were taught that it happened, but because we weren't actually there, how can we be 100% positive that it actually even occurred? The only way to truly know something is to have it happen directly to you. For example, when I was little my mom told me not to put my hand on the grill because I would burn myself. Although she told me what would happen, I didn't really learn not to touch the grill until I touched it anyways and suffered the consequences.

             As for the deeper version of this question: how do I know that everything I know is true and real, I do not know. This goes back to the cave wall, because everything that I might think to be something might be something larger or completely different in the grand scheme of things. Maybe everything I see is an illusion. The only thing I really know and am aware of is my own consciousness, therefore maybe everyone else in the world are robots or figments of my own imagination. That's some crazy stuff right there.

The Garden State

               I know many perceive the garden state to be the "perfect" society, but I really don't see it that way. To me the garden state is one that requires constant aid and maintenance to ensure success. One needs to work in order to have a functional garden. If a garden is left neglected, the plants die. However even with maintenance and attention, sometimes the crop is just bad, and things in the garden will go wrong.

              Where am I going with this? It seems to me that this is the summary of Voltaire's response to Leibniz's philosophy. It's a perfect metaphor of society, both modern and ancient. In society not everything happens is for the best. Like a garden, a society can fail and die, and sometimes it's beyond human control. Sometimes it's via natural disasters, and sometimes it's because us humans screw it up. The best we humans can do to prevent our "garden" from failing is to not screw it up, and eliminate the chance of us causing our own demise. If we were to do that, then the only thing that could end us would be things beyond human control, like a garden.

                If a gardener does everything right, but a volcano explodes and the ash covers up the sun and the plants die then it's not his fault. Yet if he were to forget to water the garden then that's on him. This is what us humans have to acknowledge and focus on: just not screwing up.

              I also think Candide's garden state can also be interpreted on a smaller, more personal level; a level resembling the average human worker. In order to be happy and successful, one should have a good work ethic, and put in effort to have a "large crop yield". Some people may get lucky and not really try but have a big ass garden, others may be unlucky and try hard yet not get anything. It's kinda the way things work it seems.