Posted: 2005-05-19 00:06:00
when you just wanna say FUCK YOU!
Posted: 2005-05-19 00:06:00
when you just wanna say FUCK YOU!
Posted: 2005-05-15 11:50:00
it's a good thing shower curtains are held up by multiple rings, because when one comes apart, it doesn't fall. It's also pretty cool how easy it is to snap the ring back into place.
steve, myself, and doug have all seen a cat run across our apartment at different times. There is a ghost cat living in our place, which is kinda cool cos i've been wanting a pet.
it's gonna be a trial of my might to fit everything into my car to come home. go home. am i coming or going?
sometimes cereal just doesn't cut it and you need a sandwich.
do i look like that trustworthy of a person that you'd just get in a car with me after knowing me only two days?
i kinda wanna go mushroom hunting.
If there are arrows on the ground, follow them, they'll lead you to fireworks.
If your job was to get fired, would you constantly be out of work?
I am a champ.
Posted: 2005-05-10 21:56:00
this is a paper i just finished up, lemme know what you think. it's not due till friday, so if i like what you have to say, i'll incorporate it.
We want to say that there cant be any vagueness in logic. The idea now absorbs us, that the ideal must be found in reality. Meanwhile we do not as yet see how it occurs there, nor do we understand the nature of this must. We think it must be in reality; for we think we already see it there. ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein (45)
Does someone experience God because He exists, or does He exist to that individual because he/she 'experiences' Him?
Wittgenstein focuses much on the language used when expressing ideas of and about God. To say that the ideal must be found in reality is to be blind to the option of the ideal not existing in reality, or for the matter, at all. Could it be that the things we see, think, feel, and otherwise observe in this world are there simply because we wish them to be? And similarly, does the idealGodexist only because we wish him to? I wish to assert that God is a subjective entity, and in that, that He does not exist as an Absolute being, but rather as an idea in the minds of people of faith. Arguments will be made for and against this assertion, looking at it from multiple angles.
I first wish to look at this from my standpoint, using my own logic and reasoning, which is highly mathematical due to my nature. To jump straight into questioning the existence of God seems a bit overzealous. Instead, one can break the question down into more concrete and relatable terms. To begin, we must define what is reality. For the purpose of this case, reality will be defined as what one can see, touch, hear, smell, and tastewhat is perceived and not the actual object. This immediately brings into question the reality of a blind person, a deaf person, or a person who has no sense of taste. This will be touched on later.
A simplified version of the main question posed, or perhaps not simplified but a lesser parallel, is this: Is something visible because it is seen, or is it seen because it is visible? First, it seems necessary to define and differentiate between what it is to be visible and what it is to be seen. To be seen is to have an organism capable of vision to acknowledge the presence of the object through sight. To be visible is for an object to have the properties necessary to be seen. If something is visible because it is seen, this implies that in order for an object to be visible, there must be a being to see it. But this seems illogical. If there were an uncharted piece of land, say somewhere in the Antarctic, where no man, no creature, no being had ever been, would that mean that the objects in this place were not visible? Perhaps then it should be stated that something is visible because it can be seenit has the potential to be seen--not because it is seen. Unfortunately, it seems I have just come back to what I have already defined visible as. In that case, the definition answers the question without any further insight. But then how do we know that something is visible until we see it? Just because the potential is there, does that necessarily mean that we will see it when confronted with the object? This can be answered by looking at the second half of the original question.
An object is seen because it is visible. This seems to take a scientific approach. Above, visible was defined as something possessing the necessary components to be seen, but what are those components? An object is visible then if it has the ability to reflect light, because light must be reflected into the eye in order for it to be seen. By that rationale, all matter would be seen because it is visible. But are there things in this world, or any world, which do not reflect light? Anti-matter and black holes theoretically dont reflect light. But when surrounded by light, an absence of light would be perceived as visible.
Earlier I spoke of vision and other senses in conjunction with people who lack those senses. This sparks an interesting interjection into the topic. It was stated before that in order for something to be seen, a beings eyes must interpret the reflected light as sight. Since a blind persons eyes cannot do this, to them nothing is visible. Does this mean that the object its self is not visible? A person with functional sight would say that the object was indeed visible, which leads to a fascinating point: visibility is subjective. To each individual person, whether or not an object is visible is different. This can be seen in real life examples as well. At a crime scene, many witnesses may see different occurrences because what they saw was seen as different by each individual. When two people look at a painting, they may both see different things. And if these hold true for sight, similar principles can be held for other senses.
Is something audible because we can hear it, or can we hear it because it is audible? Does something have an odor because we can smell it, or can we smell it because it has an odor? Each of these can be answered in a congruent manner to the previous example using sight and vision. And if we can relate this way of thought to the senses, we can draw parallels between these and the question at hand. Does someone experience God because He exists, or does He exist to that individual because he/she 'experiences' Him?
First, if the former is truethat one experiences God because He existsit insists on the existence of God. This seems to be oddly logical. If something exists, why not believe in it? It would just be foolish to not believe in an actual. But the existence of God has never been definitively proven. For one to assert that he/she believes in God is for him/her to assert that God exists, and without proof of that, their assertion is nothing but faithwhich is not the issue in hand here.
If the latter is truethat God exists only because one believes in Hima strange thought is brought to mind. In mythical stories, faeries only exist if there is someone to believe in them. Similarly, if no one believed in a God, then one would not exist. But people do believe in a God, or at least a higher being, an Absolute. There are people who do not believe, and there are people who believe in all different sorts of Absolutes. This is analogous to blind people and people seeing things differently. Furthermore, we can then say that God is, as are the human senses, subjective. I, however, am not extremely well versed in the ways of philosophical thinking. Soren Kierkegaard on the other hand is.
Kierkegaard distinguishes three ways of living, the aesthetic, ethical, and religious. The third stage is where the individual becomes a knight of faith. This only occurs after he/she falls back into a knight of infinite resignation, and then by a double movement by virtue of the absurd do they become a knight of faith (Kierkegaard). A night of faith has a distinct difference from the knight of infinite resignation: he/she holds an immediate, private relationship with the Absolute Particular.
This private relationship creates just what I spoke of before, a subjective Absolute. If each knight of faith has his/her own affiliation with the Absolute that is immediate, then each connection must be different. If they were the same, they would be able to mediate this bond to others who shared a similar union. Here is where perhaps the most profound notion develops. If each relationship is different, how are we to say that they are with the same Absolute?
The assumption of the Absolute is that there is one. Whether is be God, Allah, the Buddhist nothing, or countless others, there is but one true Absolute. A pluralist would say that each of the aforementioned is the true Absolute. Subjectivity comes into play with pluralism in that each relationship with the Absolute is the ultimate truth for that particular individual. But here is where the issue gets cloudy. For each individual to have their own relationship with the Absolute, and for that relationship to be immediate, each relationship must be different, otherwise it would be able to mediate between those who shared these common relationships. Since according to Kierkegaard, this is not true, then each relationship must be with a different Absolute, which is what is implied in saying that the relationship is subjective. If said affiliation is subjective, then there is no one true Absolute, which contradicts the definition of the Absolute, that there is only one. Thus, an immediate, private relationship with the Absolute is contradictory in of itself.
Wittgensteins approach is on a slightly different level. His focus on the language of religious belief looks at the question of the existence of God from a different angle. Before Wittgenstein the correspondence theory was the widely accepted theory of truth. There was a one-to-one relationship between a word and the object that it referred to. Wittgenstein developed the coherence theory; the meaning falls in the context and the use of the word. This relates very much to the to the idea of a subjective Absolute. Each individual has his/her own meaning of the word Absolute.
Wittgenstein also focuses on the possibility of a private language that describes private sensations. He concludes that either way, it is not a plausible option. If a linguistic convention does exist, then there is no epistemic privacy, no incorrigible mental states or beliefs, and thus no private language. If, however, there are no linguistic conventions then one is able to have his/her own private language, but it would mean nothing. Wittgenstein says, Why cant my right hand give my left hand money?My right hand can put it into my left hand when the left hand has taken the money from the right, we shall ask: Well, and what of it? And the same could be asked if a person had given himself a private definition of a word(268).
If there is no private language, then the private relationship of Kierkegaard seems nullified, and yet Wittgenstein still would lead me to believe that there is a subjective Absolute. He says that religion is a from of living in the world, a mode of orientation to the world, and a mode of responding to the world. Religion is not explanatory rather it is descriptive. This relates back to the original quote by Wittgenstein. Religion is not an explanation, yet it is what people want it to be, an ideal that must be found in reality. And in this ideal that we think we see exists the subjective nature of the Absolute. Each individual sees the Absolute as he/she believes it must exist.
From the analysis of my own beliefs and the viewpoints of Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, I feel that I can conclude with much confidence that God, the Absolute, exists because an individual believes in him, it. The subjective nature of the Absolute causes it only to exist when an individual brings it into existence. Certain people bring into existence their own Absolute because they feel that it must exist in their reality, while others dont find it there at all. But like I said before, I am not well versed in philosophical ways, and about that which we cannot know, we should not speak.
Posted: 2005-05-04 10:38:00
reading over my last post, i realized i was wrong. it's not the people, the town, or the state that bore me. it's myself. i'm bored with what i do with myself. it's monotonous these days. get up, go to class, eat, go to work, homework, bed. that's it. then friday and saturday night, get drunk....woo-fucking-hoo.
I've been writing some good music though. I think if i can just sit down and write, things will work out ok. but sometimes it's hard to do that. last night, in a batter of 5 minutes, i had a new song, and i'm pleased with it. it's kinda poppy, but has a solid message, and for once isn't about a girl. I'm really looking forward to getting to write with Davenport cos there's stuff with a bad you just can't do acoustically.
voice of reason is back up, which is fun. only problem is, i don't have anything to rant about. i'm less annoyed by the general public, more apathetic. a few weeks ago, dawn and aj and doug and myself sat around our kitchen table and discussed how everyone sucks unless they are our friend. someone very well might be cool, but until they are friends of ours, they suck.
and i find that to be generally true. i don't like people initially. most people anyway. but i find that once i get to know them, most people really aren't that bad. some are though. some really are.
i guess basically, i feel like i need to do more with my life right now. i feel like i've lost the excitement. so i guess i'll just try to add that back in there.
and yet...i like the routine...i'm complacent.
Posted: 2005-05-03 00:46:00
I've had a craving for cigarettes for like the past 3 weeks. so tonight at 11:20, AJ and amanda and i went to 66 gas station in davenport, Iowa, got a pack of lucky strike red's (unfiltered) and went to ross's 24 hour truckstop. i hate unfiltered cigarettes. i don't think i even really like filtered ones, but i had to get rid of the craving. it's gone now.
all of my teachers decided they would be 'nice' and make everything due the week before the last week of school so we wouldn't get bogged down. which is nice...except they ALL did it. on the bright side, all i have left for the rest of the school year is one paper and it's already half way done. so w00t.
i got my book back in the mail today that i left at home, so i'm gonna read myself to sleep with that. hopefully i'll make it throw a couple chapters...but i doubt i'll be able to keep my eyes open that long.
i think i'm ready for this year to be over. i've had enough failed attempts. summer will be good for me. europe will be good for me. not here will be good for me. it's gonna be rough once i have a real job and have to live in the same place for a long time. i think i've become semi-nomadic. i don't like being in one place for too long...it gets boring.
to be honest, i'm sorta bored with the people, what this town has to offer (it's a town, not a city, don't kid yourself rock island), and this school. fuck, i'm even bored with this state. last weekend, iowa city was awesome. it was new. i miss new. give me new.
Posted: 2005-04-28 11:22:00
Sittin in my traditional seat in java, annie across from me, eating a tomato basil bagel and some grapefruit juice. I, ladies and gentlemoose, was a scientist this morning. In biology lab we used micro-pipettes and put DNA samples into gel stuff and sent electric current through it and it's cool. i wore goggles.
erickson unplugged went well. i was uber nervous, but people say i sounded alright, so that's a plus. i 'won' $25 to west music (mainly cos i just have friends) but i think i'm gonna give it to sean, cos he put the whole thing together.
there was a dead owl in the slough the other day. it made me wonder if it died of natural causes, or if human interference with its habitat killed it. i'd feel bad if it were the latter.
poole pointed out that lilacs are indeed not what i've been smelling. He even brought be one of what i had been smelling (can't remember the name) and shoved it in my nose. he's right, it's not a lilac....but he's a biologist, i should have never doubted him.
got drunk and played trivial pursuit last night. damn game is old! copyright 1981. all the pop culture questions were history questions to me. game took 3 hours, but was a good time.
steve andi are on our own this weekend, doug and yonk are going to various not here places. i really don't have much to write about...and yet i write. so i'll stop.