Rerum Causae

A Review of Veckatimest

2009-05-23T06:06:00.000-07:00

In his conversion, the apostle Paul notes how he was once a pharisee and a zealot who violently persecuted early Christians. These pharisees were known for their strict adherence to law and failure to welcome new ideas. Paul however, turned his back on his hateful past and his conversion process began after a miraculous encounter with the divine. What does this have to do with independent rock in 2009? Bear (!) with me a moment. What I find interesting in this story is the following overlooked passage. After Paul's encounter with God, he says the following, "neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus." What exactly is in Arabia? Nothing. And that's the point. He sought respite and solace in a place removed from society where he could think, draw inspiration, commune with the divine. Vecaktimest is one of the Elizabeth islands off the coast of Massachusetts. Like Arabia, there is nothing there. Uninhabited, uncontaminated, a small (16 acre) island outside of space and time as it were. This sets the stage for an album that was inspired by such a place, and "in the end" becomes a sonic sanctuary of inspiration in its own right.

Let's get to the point. The vocals on this album are absolutely gorgeous. Unlike their previous endeavors, every member of Grizzly Bear now shares a vocal role in the music. Having fine tuned the vocals in a church in New York, the reverberation on both Ed Droste's crooning as well as the backup vocals sound quite spiritual at times. On some tracks the melodies are direct and welcoming, but more often they reward the careful listener with subtlety. This isn't to say it's a snoozer however. The sun-pop sound of tracks like "Two Weeks" will get you out of your seat more than anything Yellow House had to offer. "Two Weeks" in fact is the poppiest, most upbeat song they've written to date, yet this is not to say it's weightless. It sounds slightly anachronistic, and certainly evokes nostalgia for the pop of a much older time. Oddly however, it retains an emotional depth that adds plenty of heft.

This isn't the only sound you'll get from Veckatimest. Grizzly Bear pulled no punches and there are touches of psychedelia, folk, funk, and rock among many others. The sounds are often so interwoven that it's hard to pick them out. Sonically the album brings in the crisp, plugged in sound from the magnificent Friend EP, yet while on Friend the guitars frequently crescendo into raucous cacophonies, here they are subdued - used to complement the vocals as well as to help shape the soundscapes. You'll hear the same prominent drumming sections found in "Knife" and "Central and Remote" from Yellow House in Veckatimest's "All We Ask", "Cheerleader" and elsewhere, but despite a few nods to their previous work, this album is undoubtedly a step in a new direction.

Upon pressing play for the first time, the opener "Southern Point" might make you double check your CD player (or more likely, your iPod) to be sure you didn't fire up the Doors instead of Grizzly Bear - something I definitely didn't expect. After you've reaffirmed your selection and settled back in your chair you'll quickly notice that Grizzly Bear's penchant for structure changes remains intact. On first listen, "Southern Point" almost sounds like it's going in too many different directions, but the acoustic guitar sections pull things together coherently, and you'll find yourself longing to return to hear the chorus erupt. From here the album bursts into the piano pop of "Two Weeks" before moving into a quieter mid section that adds substance and character to the album. More patience is required, but it pays off in droves. Here, the melodies are haunting without bragging about it, and the moments of release after building up tension are very satisfying. Moving into the second half of the album, things pick up a bit more with "Ready Able" (a personal favorite) devolving into a psychedelic synth crescendo matched with (once again) gorgeous vocals. Most of us have already been familiar with "While You Wait for the Others", but the studio has been good to it, and if we are going to call it a pop song, I think we might also have to call it one of the greatest pop songs ever written. It's just... ridiculously brilliant.

On Veckatimest, the music and vocals are very much at the forefront while the lyrics seem to take a back seat. That's not to say the songs aren't very well written however, from what I can tell (can't seem to find too many published lyrics yet), the song writing has also taken a step forward. If there is a theme here, it seems to be about the space between lovers and all the uncertainty and emotion that goes with it. Yet it's more than that. On "Cheerleader," Droste sings, "I'm cheerleading myself... I should have made it matter... chance is on, nothing changing." Such sentiments of regret, isolation and futility are not only a nice contrast to some of the more upbeat sounds/words in the album, but they also suggest that more is beyond the surface. Veckatimest opens with an ending, and ends with a beginning. The chorus on "Southern Point" declares, "in the end... you'll never find," and the closer explains, "this is... a foreground." This suggests that as we reach the end, we realize it is only the start of what is to come. It must be noted how delicate and beautiful this closer is, and just as importantly, what it means to the album. While Yellow House closed with the open ended question, "what now?" Veckatimest ends with the declaration that this is only the beginning. To me this describes the album as a whole. Much of it is a breathtaking, attention grabbing foreground, yet you realize in the fuzzy distance, there exists a place outside of space and time. As the first words of the album articulate, "Our haven on, the southern point, is calling us." The album itself calls to us much like Paul's Arabia and Grizzly Bear's Veckatimest. If we will look beyond, we'll find something astonishing. This is what Paul must have experienced in Arabia. Take the trip to Veckatimest and you might find some truly transcendent moments.

UPDATE: In my zeal to review this album, I realized a few things. First of all, I could have written 10 more reviews and none of them would have been similar. There is a lot to discuss here. Particularly human frailty ("we all fall through" -While You Wait for the Others, "if we're all faltering" -Fine For Now). All that aside however, the reason for this update is that the official lyrics are obviously available and as it turns out, I (and the rest of the internet) had the lyrics for Cheerleader dramatically wrong. The proper chorus is, "I'm shooting them myself, I should've made it matter... God let it go, it doesn't mean a thing... Chance and sow, nothing changing." These words are immediately much darker, more compelling, and infinitely more interesting artistically than we previous realized. Chew on that one for a bit.

Untitled

2009-05-09T08:41:00.000-07:00

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die.

"Due to sheer convention we call those things true that we agree to call true. Then, crucially, we conveniently forget that we have reached this linguistic consensus - in fact, we need to forget to allow our confidence in the language we have agreed upon to exercise its full effect."

I might be wrong

I could have sworn I saw a light

coming on

I used to think

There was no future left at all

I used to think

Start again begin again

...

Nothing at all

What would I do?

If I did not have you?

Open up and let me in

"Search me, O God, and know my heart, try me and know my thoughts."

Pessimism?

2009-03-28T12:17:00.000-07:00

An experiment by its very nature divorces phenomena from context. How are we to understand one without the other? Value free science is an oxymoron, and an attempt to think otherwise is not only mistaken - it is an attack on truth. Epistemic problems for science are even greater for religion. Religious attacks on science and vice versa are juvenile, for both are deeply problematic epistemically. A polemic against science is not a eulogy to religion. Skepticism of scientific explanation can be quite liberal (as it is in my case). In any pursuit, there is danger when we embrace our own knowledge to the exclusion of our own ignorance, tragedy, pessimism, and irony.

"What is the significance of the tragic myth among the Greeks of the best, the strongest, the most courageous period? And the tremendous phenomenon of the Dionysian - and, born from it, tragedy - what might they signify? - And again: that of which tragedy died, the Socratism of morality, the dialectics, frugality, and cheerfulness of the theoretical man - how now? might not this very Socratism be a sign of decline, of weariness, of infection, of the anarchical dissolution of the instincts? And the 'Greek cheerfulness' of the later Greeks - merely the afterglow of the sunset? The Epicureans' resolve against pessimism - a mere precaution of the afflicted? And science itself, our science - indeed, what is the significance of all science, viewed as a symptom of life? For what - worse yet, whence - all science? How now? Is the resolve to be so scientific about everything perhaps a kind of fear of, an escape from, pessimism? A subtle last resort against - truth? And morally speaking, a sort of cowardice and falseness? Amorally speaking, a ruse? O Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? O enigmatic ironist, was that perhaps your - irony?"

--Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy

Science has not necessarily attached itself to the absolute blueprint of the nature of reality. On the contrary, it is often a very poor explanatory tool - successful at predictions, but unsuccessful at truth. As it conflicts with phenomena, science contributes very little to the meaning of life. Clock time is not lived time. The former is a fabrication - an arbitrary social contract to govern (in many cases in brutal fashion) our activities. We have blurred the line between the two.

"A long time ago, man would listen in amazement to the sound of regular beats in his chest, never suspecting what they were. He was unable to identify himself with so alien and unfamiliar an object as the body. The body was a cage, and inside that cage was something which looked, listened, feared, thought and marvelled; that something, that remainder left over after the body had been accounted for, was the soul.

Today of course, the body is no longer unfamiliar: we know that the beating in our chest is the heart and that the nose is the nozzle of a hose sticking out of the body to take oxygen to the lungs. The face is nothing but an instrument panel registering all the body mechanisms: digestion, sight, hearing, respiration, thought.

Ever since man has learned to give each part of the body a name, the body has given him less trouble. He has also learned that the soul is nothing more than the grey matter of the brain in action. The old duality of body and soul has become shrouded in scientific terminology, and we can laugh at it as merely an obsolete prejudice.

But just make someone who has fallen in love listen to his stomach rumble, and the unity of body and soul, that lyrical illusion of the age of science, instantly fades away."

--Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being

My goal is perhaps much like Nietzsche's was in The Birth of Tragedy - "to look at science in the perspective of the artist" and "at art in that of life."

The Letter Killeth, but the Spirit Giveth Life

2009-02-25T19:50:00.000-08:00

Thanks to my friend Hillary, I recently came across this monologue from Nick Cave. It is absolutely magnificent and must be shared. I suspect it will be of more interest to those who a) have a penchant for religious thought and/or b) are at least vaguely familiar with Nick Cave. These however, are certainly not mandatory prerequisites. I realize few people read my blog, but it would be interesting to hear some thoughts.

Part 1

Part 2

Veckatimest

2009-02-19T07:26:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I'm a bit early on this one, but May 26th is going to be an important day for music this year. About a week ago, Grizzly Bear announced and titled their highly anticipated follow up to 2006's Yellow House. The new album will be called Veckatimest, named after an uninhabited island off the coast of Massachusetts. Before I continue, I must say that I acknowledge the possibility that the new album could be ambitiously mediocre, or downright terrible making the author of this post out to be deeply mistaken. That said, if any release this year is going to challenge Animal Collective's Merriweather Post Pavilion for album of the year it's going to be this one (granted the year is still very young). Some of the new songs have been kicking around talk shows, radio programs, and live performances for some time now (over a year even) and they have been impressive to say the least. The songs seem to have in no way compromised the artistic integrity of the band while at the same time, they seem to offer a more direct, accessible feel. The anticipation for the album is going to (if it hasn't already) reach a fevered pitch by May. This could be a big break through moment for the band. As much as I love Merriweather, I'm going to be bold and say that Veckatimest is going to be even better.

As experimental rock albums go, Yellow House was brilliant, yet even after repeated listens, it demands a level of patience from its listeners that few are willing to give. The aesthetic experiences here are reserved for those willing to put in the time. I remember upon first listen appreciating the ambition from a distance. What initially drew me into the album was actually the challenge rather than any immediate connection to the music. After accepting the challenge, my ears slowly coaxed the album's humanity out from the layers of instruments, voices, and structural U-turns. One's patience particularly pays off during those moments of direct and disarming beauty (on the fadeout in "Knife" for example - the vocals fade leaving only quiet percussion to decrescendo with plaintive piano chords). Given the way the band plays with structure, these moments of direct beauty can catch you off guard at times. The magnificent closer "Colorado" leaves us with the open ended, but perhaps slightly rhetorical question, "what now?" This question is loaded with uncertainty and must inevitably be answered by the listener. The obvious answer is, "I don't know." What this answer means however will vary among listeners. For some, the "I don't know" will express their inability to connect with the album, their unwillingness to be patient and with a shrug of the shoulders they will pass it by. For others however, the "I don't know" will express a humble confession. This confession is the beauty found in the uncertainty of an aesthetic experience. This, "I don't know" is both devastating and liberating. It is an end in itself. The phrase is perhaps all we have to offer when trying to describe the sublime with words. All great art has this respect for the uncertain in common. It must be felt more than described.

In a much less abstract sense however, Grizzly Bear is preparing to offer a different response to the question, "what now?" The answer is, Veckatimest.

Higher Quality Pleasures

2009-02-10T05:44:00.000-08:00

I'm finding that it can be rather difficult to maintain a blog and get a master's degree at the same time. I've been meaning to contribute a post for weeks now. Apologies aside, here are some thoughts. It starts off dry, but gets better so don't give up after the first couple paragraphs.

In a succinct but powerful quote, Mill provides a penetrative, teleological insight into human nature: "It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a pig satisfied." Less of a formal argument and more of an illustration, the quote describes our capacity, and our proclivity to transcend our base, egoistic desire to satiate the insatiable carnal pleasures. One of Mill's important observations is that we all have some higher pleasures, and that we all have the capacity to pursue them in greater quality and quantity. This seems to block the accusation of elitism to an extent. It seems that a by-product of free society (more accurately as a result of general slothful apathy) is a strong sense of relativism that permeates society. Often we hear the arguments that it's simply a matter of what one prefers in life. One person might like classical music, while another likes Limp Bizkit (sp?... that may have been the first time I have ever typed that, it brings an unpleasant prickle to my palm - like petting a hedgehog against the grain). "It's just a matter of what you like," they say. No objectivity can be proved. Yet the quote still remains, "it is better to be Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied." Few would disagree with this (unless they're being particularly obtuse). It's true that one particularly human trait is the ability to reflect inwardly. A level of examination, reason, and autonomy is uniquely and exclusively available to human beings. This doesn't necessarily mean that we are required to engage in exercising such a capacity, but at the same time, doing so is a primary component of a meaningful life.

To an extent, this all feels like beating a dead horse (and I will probably just keep beating the poor dead bastard), but I think there are some more interesting things to say about the higher quality pleasures. First of all, a fault of the higher quality pleasure camp is that we tend to think that our particular subjective higher quality pursuits make us more human than others. We fail to recognize that the scope of higher pleasures is rather wide and attempting to rank one higher pleasure higher than another proves to be rather difficult if not impossible. For example, a higher pleasure could be a love of a spouse, a friend, a parent, a child. Indeed what could be higher than love? Yet this is clearly of a different classification than say, a refined taste for art and music (or is it?). The point is that there is an extremely wide range of higher pleasures. The implication however, is that while everyone is capable of higher quality pleasures, they most often will avoid as many as they can.

The reason for this of course is that we have an aversion to pain. Higher quality pleasures cannot be understood or achieved without pain. No one particularly enjoys sitting through a lecture on Kant's transcendental unity of apperception, it doesn't feel good. We don't particularly like staring at an abstract painting. It initially brings confusion and one's immediate reaction is to move on. There is nothing enjoyable about running 5 miles. Your legs ache, your lungs feel like caving in. Writers often say that writing is not particularly enjoyable. It is a very painful process. All of these instances of pain however, lead to a higher quality pleasure and indeed make our lives meaningful. Higher quality pleasures come loaded with constraints. Morality for example is a constraint, though to one who has made a life of cultivating higher quality pleasures, it seems much less constraining. I think this is partially what Christ meant when he taught that "the truth shall make you free." The willingness to confront pain, to sacrifice yourself for something greater, something higher, lifts the burden of constraint and allows one to lead a meaningful life of higher pleasure.

We can take this a bit further. There is a symbolic, aesthetic sense to viewing this struggle. The world at its most basic, scientific level is teeming with violence. Think of evolution, think of basic laws of physics such as friction, think of supernova explosions. Anything that exists is a product of violence - we come into existence through extreme pain, followed by a world of violence that slowly (or in many cases quite quickly) takes its toll until sooner or later we die - a perpetual, cyclical process of creation and destruction. On the one hand it is understandable that we would try to ignore this fact. It can be unsettling, but on a teleological account, it seems that human beings were destined to embrace this truth. It is part of our purpose to exist in a world of violence - yet by this same teleological account, we were given reason, autonomy and an ability to reflect on ourselves. What makes us supremely human is to reconcile both facts of human existence. I find that the works of art that truly speak to me embrace and celebrate this fact. It is both ironic and tragic then, that we decide to ignore these facts and indulge in as many lower quality sensory, carnal pleasures as possible. We run from that which makes life worth living yet the pain is absolutely necessary and unavoidable. Through the conflict, meaning is born. Our higher quality pursuits are a metaphor for existence itself.

All of this said I tend to agree with Mill that individuals are not solely responsible for the neglect of higher pleasure pursuits. It is perhaps more a problem of government, society and the institutions we are affiliated with. It is important to reemphasize that all have the capacity to pursue higher quality pleasures, so it is worth our while to share with those who haven't cultivated very many. This said, it is equally important to share with those who are in constant pursuit of higher pleasures as well, for we all could use a greater insight to a wide range of them. I know I could use more exposure to many more. I also know that these are the very things that make people interesting. When it comes right down to it, the most important character trait that is going to interest me in a possible girlfriend is her pursuit of higher pleasures. The other stuff is important of course, we all need our lower pleasures. Balance is important, but it is the higher quality pleasures that truly make a life meaningful.

In Pitch Dark I go Walking in Your Landscape

2009-01-08T13:01:00.000-08:00

He walked through the alley, ruminating over the elongated lampshades surrounding each light shrouded in freezing, grey fog. He thought about dying. The fog submerged and stifled the traditional morbidity, which typically surrounds the subject. Approaching the bridge, the Thames stared back at him through the fog like a featureless rift in time. His eyes sought something, anything discernible. A ripple, a wave, a fold, a line, anything to which his eyes could hold. Nothing. Unintimidated he set foot on the bridge unable to look away from the void. Past experience told him there was a river down there.

Lyrics echoed in his mind. "Our bodies floating down the muddy river."

"A new year," he thought. "Get in shape, save money, set goals, go to church, kick bad habits." A wry smile dismissed the cliches into the abyss below. All but one. He peered through the fog across the bridge. Blackness. The curvature of the bridge led to the afterlife. To the End. To the Silent. Perception and interpretation extend only so far, until there is Nothing. Did the start of the bridge necessitate the end?

The fog thickened. He had walked the bridge many times, but never in such weather. He knew the bridge carried those who would traverse it carefully and securely to the other side. He knew if the fog dissipated, he would be able to see a breathtaking cathedral. "Bad habits," he thought. Habit harbors comfort. Comfort repels growth. What could be more habitual than unexamined consciousness? Self reflection is a uniquely human trait - even more, uniquely ignored.

Upon his return home, he found his phone ringing. He fumbled for the light, tried to release himself from the fog and answered.

"Were you asleep?" a female voice on the other end asked.

Sitting and wiping his eyes he ventured, "... yeah, sort of."

Happy New Year everyone. Rerum Causae is back up and running again. Lastly, check out this photo. It is an incredible 360 degree view from atop St. Paul's Cathedral. Keep in mind there is a statute to this day that no building within a certain radius of the cathedral can be taller than it. Pretty cool. I tried to upload a version, highlighting the window of my place, but the file is just too large. Instead, this post will include a super fun activity entitled "Find Mark's window!" Here's what you do. 1) Make sure the photo is enlarged. 2) Find the Tate Modern (ooo where could it be!?) 3) Look to the top left of the building to find the words "Tate Modern Collection" 4) Follow the words to the left and you'll run into a building behind the Tate (my hall of residence!) 5) Count 3 windows from the lower left corner of the "T" in "Tate Modern Collection" 6) Revel in the possibility that you found me before someone else. 7) Continue from now on to do everything I tell you to do, you are now in my power. Wasn't that fun?

The Context of Aesthetics

2008-12-06T12:49:00.000-08:00

With the semester coming to a close here in London, I find myself frequently visiting the idea of aesthetics. In so doing, I find that aesthetics have an influential power that extends far beyond the arts. London (and more so Europe) is a great place to contemplate philosophy and aesthetics. Here are a few of my thoughts on the matter.

In the course of studying philosophy lately, one concept has continued to interest me. This is the importance and evanescence of the creative process. Creativity seems to inform science just as much as it informs art. In the philosophy of science, a distinction is made between the context of justification and the context of discovery. The former is the study of how a scientific claim can be justified as valid, while the latter deals with the elusive question, "how are scientific theories discovered in the first place?" Some philosophers of science have attempted to reject questions about the context of discovery saying that it's ultimately of no relevance. It comes down to asking "why" instead of "how." These philosophers suggest science shouldn't ask "why" and instead this should be left to metaphysicians who according to Carnap are really just "musicians without musical ability." We should really only ask "how" scientific theories are corroborated. This way we avoid the "irrational" elements of science and make the system fervently rational. I find this preposterous (read that sentence in a British accent). There is no way to divorce the creative process from the rational - any scientific theory has convincingly relied on both.

What is so interesting about this discussion over the context of discovery is the extent to which "aesthetics" influence our thought process. I am using aesthetics here in a broad sense - referring to that phenomenon that occurs when one has an aesthetic experience. These experiences are subjective, but at the same time universal. Like I've said previously, we can't say what it is, we can only say that it is. An aesthetic experience comes through pondering art, ruminating over literature, and losing oneself to find oneself in music. These experiences however, are also present in scientific discoveries, philosophical inquiries, and many other disciplines we often consider to be purely rational. It is difficult to quantify, yet there is some creative influence, be it internal or external, that informs even our most rational thought processes. The source of this influence is equivocal. What is it? How does it work? These are questions better addressed by the metaphysician. Perhaps the metaphysician really is nothing more than a 'musician with no musical ability,' but to me, a musician who uses words and abstractions as instruments to inspire aesthetic experiences in human beings that often lead to great discoveries of knowledge is hardly the pejorative Carnap might have intended. This leads me to another interesting idea. Perhaps metaphysical philosophy is to be read from an aesthetic perspective. Carnap was worried about the problem of verifiability. Fine. Perhaps we should read metaphysics employing our reason and experience where possible, but search for truth in the words in an aesthetic rather than a purely rational way. This can lead to corroborated theories in the sciences as well as other great discoveries of human knowledge.

It is important to better understand these aesthetic experiences - at least to the extent to which we are capable of doing so. First of all, we must be vigilant not to confuse the aesthetic with base sensory pleasure. Hume described moral and aesthetic judgment as a sort of "mental taste" (I will discuss this further below). Secondly, we ought to address the old cliche "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." This cliche is usually meant to advocate subjective relativity in regards to beauty, which I reject (I won't put forth a full argument here - let's just say Beethoven's 9th is of more objective worth than Brittney Spears' "music"). The previously stated mantra though is true in a different sense. I have argued on this site before against the idea that the external world exists independent of the human mind. This idea is further elucidated when considering beauty. Naturally there is no beauty out in the external world itself. When we see the color red, all we are seeing are refractory properties. Rods and cones. There really is no such thing as "red" in the external world, let alone beauty. Thus, again the interpreter is the one responsible for experiencing (even creating) beauty. Quite literally, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We then project a sense of beauty onto an object. The sunset becomes beautiful, when the sunset itself holds no inherent beauty at all. This for Hume is called the "sentiment of approbation." This projection of beauty corresponds to our constant interpretation of the world (which I've previously defined as an absolutely necessary condition of "being"). There are still many metaphysical questions to be asked about how this happens, but again it does happen.

I want to briefly address Hume's concept of aesthetic experiences as a sort of mental taste. While there is plenty of room for differing interpretations in the arts, it is not true that "anything goes." An aesthetic experience is something more than just a warm fuzzy sensation (it is not a purely physical or emotional state). Beyond this, some thing, some truth is being communicated in these moments. This is a mental taste that draws a line of demarcation between that which is fun or that which feels good, from that which is truly insightful. Greater knowledge yields greater insight and understanding as to what is being aesthetically communicated. I found this passage from Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, "in many orders of beauty, particularly those of the finer arts, it is requisite to employ much reasoning, in order to feel the proper sentiment; and a false relish may frequently be corrected by argument and reflection. There are just grounds to conclude, that moral beauty partakes much of this latter species, and demands the assistance of our intellectual faculties, in order to give it a suitable influence on the human mind." So while we have an immediate response to a work of art that is more relative according to taste, an application of sense, reason, and knowledge improves and refines.

So beauty is in the mind of the interpreter, and the aesthetic experience is a sort of mental taste where some truth is gained. This truth is subjective, yet there is a more objective framework of knowledge by which this subjective aesthetic experience is shaped and refined to increase its magnitude and clarity. Going back to the beginning of this post, I think these aesthetic experiences are deeply valuable for human experience. We cannot fully separate the truths gained from a moment of aesthetic inspiration from the more purely rational truths gained from the empirical sciences or other more concrete/rational disciplines. Perhaps Carnap was right in criticizing metaphysics. Even so, perhaps we should approach metaphysics as a sort of aesthetic truth to be gained by employing mental taste. I think in such speculative fields, we should do our best to employ our knowledge and reason to avoid error, but where we cannot do so, perhaps we should weigh the concepts with our experience and read the metaphysicians' musical work from an aesthetic perspective. In so doing, we should be prepared to thank metaphysics for great discoveries in the "rational sciences" that come from its creative nature.

There are all kinds of implications the reader can draw from what I've written and I hope that he/she/you will do so. Take it a step further, think about your own aesthetic experiences. Think about your spiritual beliefs/experiences. Think about your lack of spiritual beliefs/experiences. I really hope that my philosophical ramblings go beyond an easily dismissed interesting idea and actually help people think about things in a relevant way. Anyway, I am further working through the impact aesthetics have on our moral sentiments/moral judgments, for I am increasingly convinced that aesthetics have a role here as well. Perhaps I will explore this in more depth at a later time.

Reflective Aestheticism

2008-11-20T01:01:00.000-08:00

It's been a little while since my last post, and I apologize to you who frequent Rerum Causae (anyone? ... no?). I've been slightly busy with coursework, but I thought I'd share some material (unrelated to school) that has had an influence on me as of late.

A Poem

AFTER THE TITANIC

They said I got away in a boat

And humbled me at the inquiry. I tell you

I sank as far that night as any

Hero. As I sat shivering on the dark water

I turned to ice to hear my costly

Life go thundering down in a pandemonium of

Prams, pianos, sideboards, winches,

Boilers bursting and shredded ragtime. Now I hide

In a lonely house behind the sea

Where the tide leaves broken toys and hat-boxes

Silently at my door. The showers of

April, flowers of May mean nothing to me, nor the

Late light of June, when my gardener

Describes to strangers how the old man stays in bed

On seaward mornings after nights of

Wind, takes his cocaine and will see no-one. Then it is

I drown again with all those dim

Lost faces I never understood. My poor soul

Screams out in the starlight, heart

Breaks loose and rolls down like a stone.

Include me in your lamentations.

-- Derek Mahon

Philosophy

Kierkegaardian Aphorisms

What the philosophers say about reality is often as deceptive as when you see a sign in a second-hand store that reads: Pressing Done Here. If you went in with your clothes to have them pressed you would be fooled; the sign is for sale.

Aren't people absurd! They never use the freedoms they do have but demand those they don't have; they have freedom of thought, they demand freedom of speech.

Besides my other numerous circle of acquaintances I have one more intimate confidant - my melancholy. In the midst of my joy, in the midst of my work, he waves to me, calls me to one side, even though physically I stay put. My melancholy is the most faithful mistress I have known; what wonder, then, that I love her in return.

This is the main defect with everything human, that it is only through opposition that the object of desire is possessed. I shan't speak of the various syndromes that can keep the psychologist busy (the melancholic has the best-developed sense of humor, the most extravagant person is often the one most prone to the picturesque, the dissolute one often the most moral, the doubter often the most religious), but simply recall that it is through sin that one first catches sight of salvation.

A fire broke out backstage in a theatre. The clown came out to warn the public; they thought it was a joke and applauded. He repeated it; the acclaim was even greater. I think that's just how the world will come to an end: to general applause from wits who believe it's a joke.

--from Kierkegaard's Either/Or

A Quote

“We do not want to get committed to any one particular understanding or locked into

it. This danger looms large for writers; in the public’s mind or in their own they easily

can become identified with a particular “position.” Having myself written earlier a

book of a political philosophy that marked out a distinctive view, one that now seems

seriously inadequate to me―I will say some words about this later on―I am

especially aware of the difficulty of living down an intellectual past or escaping it.

Other people in conversation often want me to continue to maintain that young man’s

“libertarian” position, even though they themselves reject it and probably would

prefer that no one had ever maintained it at all. In part, this may be due to people’s

psychological economy—I speak of my own here too. Once having pigeonholed

people and figured out what they are saying, we do not welcome new information that

would require us to re-understand and reclassify them, and we resent their forcing us

to devote fresh energy to this when we have expended more than enough in their

direction already! I would do well to recognize, somewhat ruefully, that these

meditations too may exert their own retarding gravitational force.

However, it is not quite positions I wish to present here. I used to think it

important, when I was younger, to have an opinion on just about every topic:

euthanasia, minimum wage legislation, who would win the next American League

pennant, whether Sacco and/or Vanzetti were guilty, whether there were any synthetic

necessary truths—you name it. When I met someone who had an opinion on a topic I

hadn’t yet ever heard of, I felt a need to form one too. Now I find it very easy to say I

don’t have an opinion on something and don’t need one either, even when the topic

elicits active public controversy, so I am somewhat bemused by my earlier stance. It

is not that I was opinionated exactly; I was quite open to reasons for changing an

opinion, and I did not try to press mine upon others. I just had to have some opinion

or other—I was “opinionful.” Perhaps opinions are especially useful for the young.

Philosophy too is a subject that seems to invite opinions, “positions” on free will, the

nature of knowledge, the status of logic, etc. In these meditations, however, it is

enough, it might be better even, simply to mull topics through.”

--Nozick from the introduction to The Examined Life

Music

Imagine one of the most influential moral and political philosophers in history. Now imagine that he decides to compose some music on the side. The result is this opening aria from Rousseau's Le Devin Du Village. Simple, moving, beautiful. Just when you think you might not be completely useless, you come to grips with someone like Rousseau. The only way I could upload it was in movie format, so I made one with 4 recent photos. Forgive the clumsy method of delivery. If the photos distract, minimize and listen.

Bussed-Ad

2008-11-09T08:47:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: For those of you who have already read this post, you may have noticed I changed the title. I decided the Tool lyric I originally used was a bit... daunting. This one is much more inviting and happy... like me. Also, I saw Fleet Foxes perform tonight. They were astounding.

A few weeks ago, I came across this news story. I have to admit it made me laugh. "There is probably no God." Then there is the claim "now stop worrying and enjoy your life." Whew! That's a relief to theists everywhere, because I'm sure every believer hates every second of their wretched faith filled lives. My favorite however, is the ambitious use of the word "probably." Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't all the bold declarations in the history of human thought have been prefaced with... "probably?" Let's take Newton's third law of motion: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." Newton is without a doubt on the shortest imaginable list of the greatest thinkers of all time, but wouldn't this specific law be much more robust had Newton written it thusly: "For every action there is probably an equal and opposite reaction?" If Newton was actually convinced of his position, he surely would have included the "probably." Let's look at what he wrote about gravity.

Every particle of matter in the universe attracts every other particle with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the particles and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

This is a pretty profound discovery, which we can no doubt strengthen as follows:

Every particle of matter in the universe probably attracts every other particle with a probable force that is probably directly proportional to the probable product of the masses of the particles and probably inversely proportional to the probable square of the distance between them.

With this amelioration of Newton's law, we've come to a conclusion that leaves nothing to doubt. How can you argue with probably?

Smugness aside, let me give credit where credit is due. The advertisement which will be cropping up on buses around here I think is a good thing - for two reasons. First, the declaration certainly appears fatuous given the world "probably," yet it is not inaccurate. Given the mountain of empirical evidence, it's arduous not to hold, "God probably doesn't exist." Secondly, these pseudo-atheist buses will stroll the streets of London propagating a memorandum of thought and reexamination more than merely advocating atheism.

This is healthy. In this light, the word "probably" plays an important and genuine role. Religion should be examined, and then reexamined. We can't prove or disprove the existence of God. In other words, the dialogue will persevere, and will likely persist for the duration. We should therefore carefully and perpetually examine our personal convictions, for no one has all the answers. Faith in any sense is a process with no foreseeable end. People of religion have a tendency to forget this. They think they have all the answers, and no further examination is necessary. Further, they forget that faith implies doubt. We could not have faith, if we did not have doubt. We cannot have absolute knowledge of anything really (another discussion entirely). If we could, faith would evaporate. Like the blind believer however, the atheist can easily fall victim to the same constipated thinking. So now that I've berated the bus ad, setting it up for ridicule for its gratuitous use of "probably," through a further examination, I think we can applaud the ad for encouraging thought from all sides.

Before I post this mental saunter through the implications of a bus poster, I feel it necessary to circumambulate back to my earlier point that the empirical evidence against the believer is not something to be sneezed at (not sure how I managed both walking and sneezing in that sentence, but let's go with it). There is something we must understand about the nature of belief. We must admit that faith is absurd (a point the atheists are well aware of, the believers less so). The absurdity of faith however is not exclusive to a belief in God. There are other absurdities we deal with as human beings. The following concepts in philosophy have proven to be just as absurd as the concept of God: the self, free will, and to a lesser extent love. Despite a lack of knowledge of these things, we have reason to believe in them. In other words, even though belief is not rational, we are not insane to believe in such things. At this point, I will resist the urge to delve into a full argument for and against belief. We'll save that for another day... probably.

Hermeneutical Phenomenology - Part II: A Step Further

2008-10-30T12:14:00.000-07:00

As a result of some of your comments, I have been inspired to write a follow up to my previous post. First of all, my conception of human possibility is not nearly as fluffy, optimistic and powerful as it might seem (as you will soon find out). A couple of important clarifications (and/or additions) need to be made to better understand my position.

First, hermeneutical phenomenology and the possibility it allows should not be used as a spring board into the morass of subjectivity. There is an objective component of correlating the external world with one's sensory interpretation of it. In other words, one's possibility as a tanning salon receptionist is not equal to the possibility of Siddhartha Gautama's life as an enlightened exemplar of truth. Through comparisons of this nature, we can agree that there is some objectivity at play. There should always be room for subjective movement within a framework, but there are superior frameworks of possibilities. This goes back to my first real post - if your interpretation of the good is drugs and porn, then your view is simply objectively inferior. We could argue about this, but I've got much more to say in this post so I'll leave it for now.

Second, hermeneutical phenomenology makes no specific claims about control. I spoke of a harmonic relationship of one who has apprehended the true association he/she has with the external world. Understanding this bond as a more egalitarian relationship, does not equate to holding any power over the external world. In fact, the harmony of this relationship is a tumultuous one. Sounds paradoxical, but the very notion of harmony is one of balance, and balance can only come if there are two divergent systems competing with one another. When they are adequately reconciled, harmony is born. The peace of the hermeneutical phenomenologist is found through humility. This humility can only be grasped by a sense of severe irony.

Let's assume that I'm right for a moment about hermeneutical phenomenology. Let's say that it's not just "an interesting idea" but that most of us are deceived about the external, objective world, and that as a matter of fact our own consciousness holds just as much ontological weight as the universe itself. As I described in my previous post, this is a liberating idea. One which makes a copernican shift from an alienated, forsaken view, to one where the human conscious subject is of equal import. I also discussed how this idea leads to a new understanding of one's possibilities for his life. This we could say is a "nugget of hard-earned wisdom." Here is where the irony emerges. Recognizing possibility is only practicable if we understand our limits. Even though our conscious existence holds great weight, our experience proves that we are in control of very little. The irony is that our exuberance from this hard-earned wisdom is dramatically and painfully curbed by that car crash that breaks your ribs and nearly kills you. It is thwarted by a run in with the lowly transient begging for his last meal. It is quashed by a parent's death. But perhaps most painfully, it is repealed by even a casual examination of history. Over 20 million murdered by Stalin, 6 million+ Jews exterminated by Hitler, crusades, murder, rape, we all could go on and on. The irony is here is that man's possibility it seems, results in the most horrific acts imaginable. For the innocent, any sense of possibility is frustrated by this irony (RIP the "secret"). If we want to bring God into this (in the Christian sense), Christ, the very exemplar, the being of perfection, the blameless one, the Savior of the world, was brutally crucified. Perhaps we can find no greater example of irony we than this. Life is a grand irony, and there is nothing any of us can do to change that.

I'll now move to a more optimistic view. All life is suffering. The only reason we feel pleasure is because we take a break from the suffering. When we eat, we alleviate the suffering of hunger. Our very temporal nature is one of perpetual suffering until death. It is ironic that we seek pleasure, a relief from this suffering, as a light at the end of the tunnel, yet death affirms that we'll never fully escape the dark. This of course is a rather morose view on human life, one which we usually ignore (for good reason). Even further, it is one that seems to rarely check out with our own experience. For you sitting here reading this, few of you will think to yourself, "yes, I am suffering quite severely at the moment." My definition of suffering however, is a valid one if we look at the nature of a human being's life as a tension between desires and fate. I bring this up to show that the ultimate possibility for man is death.

While this sounds like a terribly pessimistic view, there are important implications that actually salvage the idea (in my opinion) and shape it as powerful and significant. I'll save a full discussion of time and temporality for another, uhh... time, but we must explore "death as man's ultimate possibility" a bit further. Anything meaningful in our lives comes about because we will die. This is a crucial point about our existence. When we perform an action, it becomes meaningful because tomorrow, we might not be able to perform this action. We embrace this even in the way we reason through day to day activity. When deliberating over two choices, we often put forward the argument, "let's do x because we can do y at any time." If we could do anything at literally any time, there would be no significance to our actions. Temporality then lends two crucial components to our lives, 1) limits our possibilities and 2) gives meaning to our actions.*

Ok enough of the "depressing" stuff. Let me tie this together. It seems that through hermeneutical phenomenology, our consciousness as an ontological entity aligns us with the external world in a significant way. It also seems that through our concern, we interpret things in terms of possibilities for us - this is liberating. Our ability to reflect and make comparisons show that not every possibility is equal. There is plenty of room for movement and individuality, but there is a reflective framework, unique to human beings, that is superior to other frameworks. Once we have embraced this, become liberated and set a path to create ourselves, we are struck with tragedy, with a lack of control, and with a severe sense of irony. This leads to an understanding of human frailty and temporality, from which we gain an understanding of death and become all the more humble for it. This humility and understanding of human, temporal limitation, helps us to understand what is truly significant, and what isn't. From here we construct a new life. We create new values. These values are forged in a fire of interpretation, experience, irony, suffering, humility, temporality and significance. Perhaps this paints a clearer picture of where hermeneutical phenomenology leads. It is in a sense the first step. In my previous post, I laid out the ontology of our consciousness and how it relates to the external world as well as explained how this leads to interpretational possibility driven by concern. Now we can better understand both the limits and the magnitude of possibility within a world of limitation.

*If you are a believer in an afterlife, or eternity, this seems troubling. I consider this a metaphysical discussion, that is interesting, but impossible to resolve. If there is indeed an afterlife and we persist for eternity, I suppose at that point we must be equipped with some sense of infinitude - which, clearly, we currently and critically lack.

Hermeneutical Phenomenology

2008-10-26T16:49:00.000-07:00

I went to a philosophy of religion lecture the other night at UCL where an astute atheist philosopher presented some mutual absurdities shared by both humanists and believers alike (concepts such as free will, the self, and to a lesser extent, love). He made the point that although these are logical absurdities, we can and have no choice but to muddle through these concepts because they are fundamental and essential to human beings in society (i.e. we have to believe in them despite their ultimately irrational nature to function). The idea of God can be discarded because it has been proven that society can get along just fine without "God." Point taken. It is a good argument against the necessity of God in society but let's be sure to point out that it is utterly useless as an ontological argument against the existence of God... since it isn't one.

Anyway, the point of this post is actually not related directly to these questions. The issue I want to discuss deals with a question this particular philosopher raised in his presentation which is, "what do we care about?" He was referring to commonly shared values in society such as health, education, etc. Sure these things are important, we do "care" about them. But this question led my mind down a much different path, one that I've gone down before. The idea that we "care" in general requires a more careful examination. We need to look deeper than this because human care or concern is one of the most indispensable and unexamined aspects of our existence.

Before I continue, a clarifying linguistic distinction. I will refer to "care" as "concern" both because I think it is more exegetic than "care" but also to eliminate those fluffy, adorable thoughts the word "care" might induce (we can talk care bears some other time... ... any time). Before we think about concern however, it follows that we should first think about ontology. Philosophers have for years pontificated over the idea of consciousness. Arguments have gone back and forth, but we can all agree that we are in possession of some device that allows us to observe both the external world as well as reflect upon our own thoughts (some are better than others at this... yet we all have this capacity). So what is the nature of this consciousness? Is it possible to conceive of consciousness in and of itself? Take a minute and ponder the idea "consciousness." You getting anything? This experiment is quick to show that "consciousness" as a stand alone concept is quite different than the concept of, say, a chair. What we can say then is that in order to understand consciousness, we must add something to it. In language we say we are "conscious of" something. This sheds light on the nature of consciousness for all consciousness is consciousness OF something (sounds simple, but the implications are crucial). We really cannot detach one from the other. In other words, when you think of consciousness, you think of being conscious of the physical world. This is what experience is - the synthesis of the knower (consciousness) and the known (objects).

The implications of the idea that "all consciousness is consciousness of" are quite vast. Suddenly, the distinction between a world of objects external to us seems at best irrelevant and at worst impossible. I'm not trying to say that there is no such thing as an external world that exists without a mind to perceive it - clearly this is possible. To illustrate what I'm after, try this thought experiment with me. Think of a world with no minds to perceive it. Fine, we can do that, I've got a picture in my mind of a barren world with no "perceivers." So there you have it, it is possible that the external world exists independent of any human perceiver right? I say, not quite so fast. Ask yourself the question, "how is it possible that I can conceive of such a world?" The answer is obviously because you have a conscious, perceiving mind. Remove this mind, and you cannot even conceive of such a world. In other words, consciousness is an absolutely primordial, and required prerequisite to even thinking about a world void of perceivers. Does this idea get you worked up? Keep thinking about it for a moment. Our relationship with the external world is inextricably connected through consciousness. Take away the external world and you have nothing. Likewise, take away consciousness and you also have nothing. They cannot be separated.

Why is this so important? Think about your ordinary life. Think about the way you view the world. My guess is that you have always just assumed that there is an external world out there that is completely detached from you. We can (sort of unfairly) blame science (and Descartes) for this dualistic view. We think that since we have conducted all of these scientific experiments that have proven certain laws about the universe that therefore it exists independent of us. But I'm not so sure that science has really made any claims specifically about this. Let me reiterate my point, how is any science even possible in the first place? It is only because of human consciousness. Human consciousness is primordial to any science whatsoever. Take it away, and there is no science, there is no external world. So for you in your ordinary life, the question shouldn't be, "is there an external world?" The question should be, "what is my relationship to whatever is out there?" If you take my proposal, your paradigm should shift from an alienating universe of cold hard absolutes to that of your own consciousness as the primary existential- a perceiving human subject, the interpreter of that which is before you. In this light, you are in perfect harmony with the external world - I see this as tremendously liberating.

This brings me back to the idea of concern. A necessary byproduct of consciousness (if we can call it that) is concern. If "all consciousness is consciousness of" is the first rule of primary existence, then concern would have to be the second. Out of human concern, we seek knowledge, life, and existence. There is nothing that we do not show concern about in some way. Think about it for a second, any activity, even sitting and doing nothing is a result of a form of concern. Human existence by definition is not static, and what motivates our actions is concern. In order to survive, we have to interact with the world. This requires interpretation. Another way of phrasing this interpretation is that we "humanize" the world. We show concern for objects as they relate to us as human beings. We interpret a stick in the woods in terms of its possibilities (i.e. as a tool, a weapon, an walking aid, a tent pole, a fishing rod, and so on). We are concerned about the way the world relates to us therefore we are concerned about our relationship to the world. From this structure of concern, we are motivated to interpret the world and relate it to ourselves in terms of possibilities.

Given what I've said, I find it interesting that so many of us proceed to give up our own possibilities for our lives. Somehow we are quick to hold to our safe little closed worlds and we forget about the immense number of possibilities we have as human beings. If you agree with anything in what I've said, then this amnesia is a negation of what fundamentally makes us human. Within these possibilities, we find a way to create a meaningful life. If I have to blame someone for the way the modern world misunderstands this, I would have to point to those who have made us believe that the external world and the consciousness are somehow separated (Descartes and inadvertently, modern science). From this very small distinction, we get dramatic results. I think it is of paramount importance to shift the paradigm to the consciousness of the human subject - for in this harmony, a human being is liberated to construct his or her own meaningful life from a near infinite number of possibilities. Thoughts? Comments?

Many of my ideas in regards to this subject have been shaped by Heidegger and to a lesser extent Kant. If this is an interesting idea, check out Heidegger's Being and Time, or Kant's Critique of Pure Reason - be warned however, they are not exactly "page turners" - Kant in fact was critisized by philosophers for being too didactic and boring - by philosophers!!

Let there be light... or don't

2008-10-23T16:02:00.000-07:00

Agnes Repplier once said, "humor brings insight and tolerance. Irony brings a deeper and less friendly understanding." Well my friends (try not to hear John McCain's voice when reading that preamble to this sentence... the MF'er), I have been struck with this very sense of "deeper and less friendly understanding" tonight. Irony has come back to haunt me as it is wont to do. As most of you know, I somewhat routinely complain about American complacency that in many cases is attributable to our worship of convenience over quality. Tonight, as irony has it, I could go for a little more convenience. If the serious tone of my previous web log musings has led you to believe I have been wronged with the injustice of a thousand starving children, then you have not been led astray - this is indeed a somber issue at hand.

Let's say your lightbulb in your desk lamp burns out. And let's say the desk lamp looks like this:

Pretty straight forward right? I went to the store to pick up my provisions for the day and was happy to find a small but sufficient section for light bulbs. I was fastidious to select a bulb of no more than 60 watts as indicated on the inner rim of the metal lamp shade (as seen in photo). So far so good. Upon my return (and after an unexpectedly physical bout trying to extricate the now obsolete bulb from the lamp), I opened the bulb box and extracted the new glass globe, anxious to restore my desk lamp to it's former illuminative glory. We're all familiar with the process so I'll cut to the chase. The new bulb would not allow itself to be screwed into the lamp. No matter how much I swore, or how much I begged, the bulb refused to mate with the lamp. Dismayed, I sat down to reassess the situation. I took a closer look at the discarded light bulb, and suddenly the light bulb in my mind switched on

found the following:

Note the smooth metal circumference around the base interrupted by the pins on either side.

The problem of course is that the new bulb looks like this:

Note the corrugated base that in no way resembles the base of previously observed, burned out bulb.

Dear England, PLEASE MAKE SOMETHING EASY ON ME, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!*

*If this seems like a disproportionate response to a seemingly trivial situation, then you haven't heard me complain about any and every obstacle I've encountered in trying to get things done since I've arrived in this city. For details, feel free to email me.

Here I'm allowed, everything all of the time

2008-10-17T05:45:00.000-07:00

After a rather verbose blog entry, I figure it would be nice to have something to look at on this fledgling blog of mine. It's probably safe to say that Radiohead has played a significant role in my life. I'm sure at some point you will see some sort of elaborate discourse about their music on this site. Today however, I just wanted to share with you two of my all time favorite Radiohead performances. These took place on Saturday Night Live around the same time Kid A was released (around 2000), the kind of venue where great performances rarely take place. The two videos are The National Anthem and Idioteque, two rather avant-garde tracks from a truly mind blowing album. As you watch, you kind of get the impression that people in the audience who were unfamiliar with Radiohead were thinking, "have these guys gone absolutely mad?" Given the nature of Kid A, people familiar with the band were probably thinking the same thing. Anyway, if you are a Radiohead fan, and you don't get the chills watching these performances, then you are not human. If you haven't seen a video of Radiohead performing before, well let me warn you that Thom Yorke sort of gets into his music a little bit. Notice Johnny Greenwood playing the ondes martenot on The National Anthem. One of the first electronic instruments ever made. It is all very impressive stuff.

One more thing before you watch (unless you've already done that). A bit of Radiohead trivia, since you'll be watching Idioteque. The band used a sample from a piece called Mild und Leise, composed by Paul Lansky. The recording was done in 1973 and was the first piece of music ever composed by a computer. If you know a little bit about Radiohead's music, this is really quite significant. You should be able to find the sample used on Idioteque in the first minute of the piece. Have a quick listen, it is pretty awesome.

Enjoy the videos. The National Anthem gets cut a bit short at the end. My apologies.

What's this dying for?

2008-10-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

I officially hate philosophy. And while those of you who know me think about that for a minute, let me take this moment to recommend the new album from TV On the Radio entitled, Dear Science. Please don't read this post until you've purchased and listened to this album. ... ... See what I mean? Ok moving on.

Now you might say, "wait a minute Mark, you LOVE philosophy." It's hard to dispute that I've led many of you to believe this is the case (probably the most incriminating evidence against me is the fact that 1) I have held numerous discussions of a philosophical nature with many of you at some point, 2) I generally take an interest in those aspects of art, literature, culture, film, music, religion etc. that raise thought provoking queries into the nature of man and his relationship to a meaningful life (both objectively if that's possible and subjectively), 3) I am very much against living an unexamined life, 4) I don't tolerate stupidity well (though I think I have gotten a little better... sometimes), 5) (and these last three premises if we can call them that are perhaps the most empirically incriminating) I majored in philosophy at the U, during which time I 6) presented a paper at the Intermountain West Philosophy Conference before 7) moving my entire life to London to get a master's degree in philosophy from an elite school... this costs a lot of money, I don't have this money, etc. etc.), so when you say, "wait a minute Mark, you LOVE philosophy," I guess I sorta kinda have to concede that your inductive reasoning is not altogether invalid.

I feel that my disdainful declaration is a bit misleading, so let me explain more clearly what I mean. Philosophy seems to have lost its way. Those who pursue it have become increasingly interested in their own "brilliant" argumentation while truth has been left out to dry. They scoff at the philosophical giants for their apparent lack of reason and argument, while toasting one another to their own perspicacity. I can hardly get through a course without a cacophony of "tinks" coming from the champagne glasses. If they can argue a position to the point where their logic becomes "unassailable," they undoubtedly will. And for the sake of what?

For the true philosopher observing this, the whole pursuit seems pointless. Suppose you were in class discussing the concept of happiness as it pertains to pursuing a conception of "the good life." During this discussion, it seems prudent to come to some definition of happiness. Now suppose someone brings up the point that the person leading the happy life is the one who is in a perpetual psychological state of feeling happy. From this, our hero asserts that any activity that enables this happy psychological state inside of him, is happiness. To illustrate, suppose someone derives happiness from snorting cocaine, drinking alcohol and watching pornography. Now let's suppose this person can sustain this behavior leading to his happiness with no negative effects for the duration of his life. Who is to say that this person isn't happy, and hasn't lived out his conception of "the good life?" (tink... tink... nod, smile) The class ends. "So brave soldiers of the mind, what have we learned about happiness?" Answer, "why the hell did I take this class?" It appears as though the morass of unassailable subjective relativity, once again appears to be supreme truth. Welp, guess I'll pack up my things, I now know how to achieve the good. Thanks philosophy.

I'm not saying that arguing for the subjective is always wrong, in fact, I am a strong proponent of subjectivity in most cases within reason, but if philosophy leads us to the conclusion that drugs, porn, and alcoholism lead to a happy life, then we're off the rails. This is but one example of where philosophy in the academic arena has gone wrong (I've chosen an almost hyperbolic example to prove a point... in other examples, it's much more difficult to demarcate the ridiculous from the fruitful - I won't look at these as I've made my point). So what is it philosophers should be doing? The word "philosopher" of course means "lover of wisdom." Would you call the argument outlined above "wisdom?" We philosophers have failed. We have neglected a pursuit for Truth, favoring logic and argument instead. Truth is bigger than this, and we should be ashamed that our pride has blinded us. As Socrates taught, the first step towards becoming a philosopher is to recognize one's own ignorance. These "philosophers" seem only to recognize their own brilliance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should throw philosophical argument and reasoning out the window. These are crucially important tools. They help us carve a path through unfounded opinions, and are allergic to mindless dogma and rhetoric. But Truth is not a syllogism. It is not formulaic. The format of "Premise 1 + Premise 2 + Premise 3 = Conclusion," may give us validity of an instance of truth as it pertains to the structure of language. Truth however, is something of a different animal. In our example of happiness, it is difficult to refute that, given the premises, the drugaholic porn freak has achieved it. There comes a point where we must get away from this way of thinking. The virtues Aristotle taught don't apply just to some guy who happened to value them. They are relevant to a deeper happiness for every person in an objective sense. (As an aside for you etymologists out there (Tom) the Greek word eudaimonia Aristotle used, does not translate into English very well. It is less, "happiness" and more, "joy and satisfaction in fulfilling your ultimate potential as a human being.") While it may be difficult to prove objectivity deductively, we have justified reasons to believe (justified true belief?) in some objectivity. Aristotle's means for achieving eudiamonia came through the virtues. Rather than understand Aristotle's practical wisdom, the modern day philosopher finds something logically inconsistent and then proceeds to throw his entire book out the window. Thus, they hide in language and reasoning, and it makes them feel better about themselves. Aristotle had something to say about these people (from the Nicomachean Ethics), "they take refuge in argument, thinking that they are being philosophers and that this is the way to be good. They are rather like patients who listen carefully to their doctors, but do not do what they are told. Just as such treatment will not make patients healthy in body, so being this kind of philosopher will not make the masses healthy in soul."

So if truth isn't what the logical positivists believed it to be (although I think they were correct in some ways), then what is truth? I side with Heidegger and the greeks about the notion of truth as alethia. This word means that truth is revelation, not in the prophetic sense, but in the sense of unconcealment. We uncover truth, or rather, truth makes itself known. Think about it, truth is not simply a correlation of statements, but it is a process of revealing. Our very lives are processes of change. We live out of the past, through the present and into the future. We are not static as human beings, we interact with the world. We work, we plant, we build, we grow, we reflect, we interpret, and make judgments about the world. In this process, truths are revealed to us. Many times, we don't have a way to explain how these truths are uncovered. We can't say how it is, we can only say that it is. This process isn't reserved for the philosopher who is versed in deductive logic - for truth is something to each of us. The process is almost so basic that we can't even talk about it - yet it is of fundamental and crucial importance.

This leads me to aesthetic experiences. Through aesthetics, truths are revealed. Kant said that an aesthetic experience is the only place where a person truly ceases from all desire. Truths are revealed through these experiences. We can't say how, but we can say that something has been communicated. Try to describe your aesthetic experience to someone else. I think you'll find it extremely difficult. Again, we don't know what it is, we only know that it is. Could this truth be ripped apart by throwing it to the wolves of philosophy? Absolutely. Yet it isn't some abstraction or correlation of sentences and premises... it is relevant. In this sense, it seems that there is some objectivity at work. Something from without being communicated within.

So do I hate philosophy? I think I've made it clear that yes I do, and no I don't. Am I particularly enjoying my academic experience in London thus far? I would say, no not really. I can see why Kierkegaard scoffed at the stuffy academic philosopher who revels in abstraction and is devoid of passion. However, I am coming to conclusions about my life and the role philosophy will play in it.

I Am Born Again

2008-10-04T12:21:00.000-07:00

In a field
I am the absence
of field.
This is
always the case.
Wherever I am
I am what is missing.

When I walk
I part the air
and always
the air moves in
to fill the spaces
where my body's been.

We all have reasons
for moving.
I move
to keep things whole.

--Keeping Things Whole by Mark Strand

My name is Mark Pingree, I moved to London last week. This is my blog. Welcome.