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.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Do Candide's punishments fit the crime?
Candide's punishments do not fit his crime. First off, his first crime was gettin it on with Cunegonde, and because of that he got banished from the castle, which is totally unfair considering he was ignorant to what was wrong with the situation (gettin frisky with a cousin), and was taught everything he knew about "physics" by Pangloss. His second "crime" was deserting the battle with the Bulgarians. That wasn't really a crime in my opinion because he was recruited against his knowledge and will, and isn't even fighting for his own army. Then he get's in a big shipwreck and gets whipped by some Lisbons (which was totally uncalled for) and his mentor gets hanged.
His next crime was killing Don Isachaar and the Grand Inquisitor, which, although murder, was something that honestly should have been done I think. I mean the guy had been through a lot of stuff to get to Cunegonde, and the last thing he needed was to get killed as soon as he got her back. Everything would have been a disaster had he not killed the guys.
So far he hasn't really been punished since then, so things are lookin ok for ja boy Candide, even though he killed Cunegonde's brother, but that guy was kinda weird so I don't really mind.
His next crime was killing Don Isachaar and the Grand Inquisitor, which, although murder, was something that honestly should have been done I think. I mean the guy had been through a lot of stuff to get to Cunegonde, and the last thing he needed was to get killed as soon as he got her back. Everything would have been a disaster had he not killed the guys.
So far he hasn't really been punished since then, so things are lookin ok for ja boy Candide, even though he killed Cunegonde's brother, but that guy was kinda weird so I don't really mind.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Who is the modern day gadfly?
I think that there are many people who could be considered a "gadfly". I think really any political talk show host is technically a gadfly. One who is constantly questioning the morals of what is politically correct and in the best interest for the people is very gadfly-y. To name a few specifically I would say Rachel Maddow, Stephen Colbert, Jon Stewart, Stephanie Miller, Bill Press, Thom Hartmann, and Chris Hayes.
Not only talk show hosts are gadfly's. Many celebrities create charities and organizations for certain causes and spread their opinions around the world. I don't think that's quite as gadfly-y as the talk show hosts, but they still try and influence the world to help them understand whatever it is they're trying to prove/support.
Although it's easier to bring up famous people as gadfly's because they're people we actually listen to, I think that the real modern day gadfly's are seemingly "crazy" people. The crazy hobos sometimes seen on the street talking about the end of the world and such. Maybe we don't listen to them because they just seem insane, however they're the ones that are personally trying to make us understand something through an actual conversation. Maybe certain people saw Socrates the same way. Some random dude asking questions and stuff and people ignored him and walked away. The thing is, Socrates wasn't a celebrity back then, so it's not really accurate to say that all these celebrities are the same as Socrates.
I think that the real modern day gadfly closest to the "Socrates" type is one who is not well known, but just so happens to have a deeper philosophical understanding and questions, interrogates, and listens to others. Whether or not that person is crazy, or just smart, I don't think fame is a necessary factor.
Not only talk show hosts are gadfly's. Many celebrities create charities and organizations for certain causes and spread their opinions around the world. I don't think that's quite as gadfly-y as the talk show hosts, but they still try and influence the world to help them understand whatever it is they're trying to prove/support.
Although it's easier to bring up famous people as gadfly's because they're people we actually listen to, I think that the real modern day gadfly's are seemingly "crazy" people. The crazy hobos sometimes seen on the street talking about the end of the world and such. Maybe we don't listen to them because they just seem insane, however they're the ones that are personally trying to make us understand something through an actual conversation. Maybe certain people saw Socrates the same way. Some random dude asking questions and stuff and people ignored him and walked away. The thing is, Socrates wasn't a celebrity back then, so it's not really accurate to say that all these celebrities are the same as Socrates.
I think that the real modern day gadfly closest to the "Socrates" type is one who is not well known, but just so happens to have a deeper philosophical understanding and questions, interrogates, and listens to others. Whether or not that person is crazy, or just smart, I don't think fame is a necessary factor.
Sunday, September 21, 2014
"The un-examined life is not worth living"
First off, I have no idea why this is stuck in caps lock, so my apologies. I am not that enthusiastic.
I think that this statement, although said by the founder of western philosophy himself, is a bit harsh and over-exaggerated. I agree with Socrates with the fact that a life full of self examination and questioning can lead to a further enriched understanding of life, the universe, etc., however, I do not believe that if people don't go through that "self examination" their lives aren't worth living. If a person lives his/her entire life completely ignorant of possible philosophical knowledge about life, yet still lives and enjoys his/her life, then what's wrong with that? Is it harmful for a person to go about every day living without questioning the universe? No, I don't believe so.
Life, although comparable to the "cave wall", is much more enriched with possible experiences and enjoyment. There are endless opportunities and pleasures such as growing up, having friends, getting a job, having a family, etc. So although we humans are still ignorant to most of what's going on outside this world, we can still live a very good life in ignorance. That's the problem with the "cave wall" thing. Earth is not a cave wall. We do not see three shadows every night. There are so many things that this world has to offer, tons of experiences. The Earth should be seen as one giant playground. That's the problem I have with Socrates's statement. I'm all for critical self-examination, and I really wish I had further knowledge about everything, yet I would much rather live life to it's fullest potential than sit around and ponder about the universe. With that said, I ponder about the universe all the time, but not the way Socrates did it. It seems to me that Socrates just spent all day looking at the sky and asking people questions, which is great, but I think that he kind of ignored the things that this world has to offer and missed out on a lot.
I think that this statement, although said by the founder of western philosophy himself, is a bit harsh and over-exaggerated. I agree with Socrates with the fact that a life full of self examination and questioning can lead to a further enriched understanding of life, the universe, etc., however, I do not believe that if people don't go through that "self examination" their lives aren't worth living. If a person lives his/her entire life completely ignorant of possible philosophical knowledge about life, yet still lives and enjoys his/her life, then what's wrong with that? Is it harmful for a person to go about every day living without questioning the universe? No, I don't believe so.
Life, although comparable to the "cave wall", is much more enriched with possible experiences and enjoyment. There are endless opportunities and pleasures such as growing up, having friends, getting a job, having a family, etc. So although we humans are still ignorant to most of what's going on outside this world, we can still live a very good life in ignorance. That's the problem with the "cave wall" thing. Earth is not a cave wall. We do not see three shadows every night. There are so many things that this world has to offer, tons of experiences. The Earth should be seen as one giant playground. That's the problem I have with Socrates's statement. I'm all for critical self-examination, and I really wish I had further knowledge about everything, yet I would much rather live life to it's fullest potential than sit around and ponder about the universe. With that said, I ponder about the universe all the time, but not the way Socrates did it. It seems to me that Socrates just spent all day looking at the sky and asking people questions, which is great, but I think that he kind of ignored the things that this world has to offer and missed out on a lot.
Monday, September 15, 2014
Ja Boy Charlie
Hello, my name is Charles Bernard Blumenthal and I'm a senior here at WY. I'm also an avid tennis player, in fact some might say I'm a prodigy. Who says that? I do not know, but it would be cool if people did. Not only do I play tennis, I also play the piano. I'm medium at it. Another hobby I enjoy partaking in is stand-up comedy. I am also medium at that, however, I enjoy it very much.
I got my first job two years ago working for my dad's beanbag company. I stacked boxes and stuff. It was awesome, however, it was time that I pursued my dream of becoming a lifeguard. It was a brutally excruciating process, but in the end it payed off. This past summer I worked at North Avenue Beach, Chicago's most popular and fun beach to work at. I made tons of new friends and even got to save a few people. I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up. When I was younger I wanted to be Spiderman, however, it seems that job is not available/non-existent, and I've run into similar issues with Superman and others, so I've found myself completely out of options.
As a child diagnosed with severe ADHD, I find myself "mentally wandering" quite a bit. However devastating these "wandering" sessions are to my grades, I find that I've pondered about some pretty fascinating ideas about life that are somewhat mind expanding. I guess that's what really drove me to take this philosophy class, because I get the sense that I literally don't even have to space out in order to discover those radical ideas, I just have it told to me, so that's cool. Ya know I never really made this connection until now, but I am most definitely an awful lifeguard. It's like 8 hours of straight up spacing out, I mean who knows how many people drowned while I was on duty...? Just kidding probably none, but still.
On that note, I would like to conclude my introduction to this class, and I'm looking forward to a very fun year here in room 116.
I got my first job two years ago working for my dad's beanbag company. I stacked boxes and stuff. It was awesome, however, it was time that I pursued my dream of becoming a lifeguard. It was a brutally excruciating process, but in the end it payed off. This past summer I worked at North Avenue Beach, Chicago's most popular and fun beach to work at. I made tons of new friends and even got to save a few people. I don't really know what I want to be when I grow up. When I was younger I wanted to be Spiderman, however, it seems that job is not available/non-existent, and I've run into similar issues with Superman and others, so I've found myself completely out of options.
As a child diagnosed with severe ADHD, I find myself "mentally wandering" quite a bit. However devastating these "wandering" sessions are to my grades, I find that I've pondered about some pretty fascinating ideas about life that are somewhat mind expanding. I guess that's what really drove me to take this philosophy class, because I get the sense that I literally don't even have to space out in order to discover those radical ideas, I just have it told to me, so that's cool. Ya know I never really made this connection until now, but I am most definitely an awful lifeguard. It's like 8 hours of straight up spacing out, I mean who knows how many people drowned while I was on duty...? Just kidding probably none, but still.
On that note, I would like to conclude my introduction to this class, and I'm looking forward to a very fun year here in room 116.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)