Is there an up?

Philosophy questions, to be discussed, pondered, argued, and applied to life.

[isthereanup-blog]

Strange faces. #zia #dog #liveadventure #landpirate #love #art #hitchhike

[isthereanup-blog]

I moved to Portland

And it's pretty cool. The night before I slept three hours, hopped on a plane and boom, here I am. Got picked up by a wonderful person who I met through my about three other people. I'll be crashing at his place for a few days. Anyway talked with him for awhile, then began figuring out my way around, which roughly went like this:

* Walked the wrong way. Twice. 

* Saw 3 cop cars pull up to a bus stop. 

* Talked to a homeless guy named Tinman.

* Got on the bus, then the train and made it to town.

* Walked around the Rose Center.

* Walked down town, and stopped at a little coffee shop with a super nice owner.

* Decided to go to the 24 hour coffee shop. Figured out how to go.

* While walking found blackberries and gorged myself. 

* Walked about 17 blocks past the shop because I missed a turn. 

* Walked back and found it. 

* And now I'm sipping  cappuccino in Southeast Grind. Which I like. 

Any way that's all in about 12 hours of leaving the Springs. Updates to follow. :D 

[isthereanup-blog]

Violence

Is violence ever justified? Does defending ones self make it acceptable? Is it always ok? 

My quick two cents: violence is only justified in defense of ones self or family. Unless of course its just for the heck of it. Then it's fine. 

[isthereanup-blog]

East vs. West

I was talking the other day with a friend, and we got into the difference between thought in the east and the west. When you stop to think about it, they view almost everything differently. The east views things as circular, spiraling, repeating, connected, and intertwined. The west views things as straight lined, separate, independent, and linear. They are almost entirely opposed. Is one view more right than the other? Does one side have an entirely wrong view? 

I tend to think not. I believe that the two cultures are both right. Much like science tells us that light is a particle and a wave, life cannot be viewed as entirely straight, spiraling, independent or seperate: it is a mixture of the two. Both are right, and both are wrong, and in the end it changes nothing except our perception of things. But it's still fun to think about. 

[isthereanup-blog]

Time, time who's got the time?

It’s  been a little bit since I’ve written on here. I thought about apologizing, but then I realized it would be so much more interesting if I didn’t. Because really, what is time? Is it true that I am behind schedule? Or is everyone else just ahead? Is there even a schedule? Einstein claimed time is relative, but does time even really exist?

Think about it. As a modern society we have used the same calendar for some time, but for centuries before different calendars existed. The Mayan’s had one which was supposedly more accurate than our modern one. The Inca’s had their own system. And each one followed the same concept, but had differences.

In my opinion time is a man made creation, or at least modified by man to suit his own needs. Think about it. If we stopped using time tomorrow what would happen? People would get up with the light, and stay up till they were tired. Days would come and go. Nothing would really change. Time is simply a constraint people have placed on us. 

Admittedly time is useful. It allows us to meet someone at three instead of sundown. It allows preciseness. But in all honesty it doesn’t really help us that much; if anything it constrains us. Till later…. whatever time that may be.

[isthereanup-blog]

Times, they are a-changing.

Change.

Change is good in most cases. Change means movement, and movement means things  stagnate.

When your mind is stagnate it means you aren’t thinking enough, exploring enough, challenging enough or changing enough.

Stagnate water has mold, algae and all sorts of disgusting things in it. Do you want your mind to have that in it? Old gross growth? I know I don’t want that in my mind. 

So here is the challenge for today: go read, think or talk about some idea that your fundamentally opposed to. Try and find reasons that support both sides, then exercise your mind, use it to think. In a word allow change. 

Ciao! 

[isthereanup-blog]

Thoughts.

I had an english paper, and I ended up liking it. So I decided to share!

Through his writing and ideas, John Locke had a profound influence on the forming of the United States of America, especially through his work, Two Treatises on Government. Over a hundred years later, Henry Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience, which focuses on government and issues therein, in the country that Locke’s thoughts helped shape. One area they tended to disagree on what obligations a citizen owes his country. Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines citizen as “2 a : a member of a state b : a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it” (Merriam Webster Online). While both Locke and Thoreau could agree on this definition, they differ as to what is owed the government. The disagreement arises because of their views on the importance of an individual over group, and their views on moral obligations.

Locke believed society had benefits to offer, and that once a agreement was reached a citizen was obligated to follow the government’s will, as long as neither side broke the contract, while Thoreau believed strongly in personal importance. In Two Treatises on Government Locke wrote, “Wherever, therefore, any number of men so unite into one society, as to quit everyone his executive power of the law of Nature, and to resign it to the public, there, and there only, is a political or civil society” (351). He believed that man should engage in society, at the cost of giving up some freedom. Contrast this with Thoreau who wrote, “I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward” (374). Thoreau was fiercely individual, and believed that while government could be useful, one was obligated primarily to oneself as opposed to society. This argumentation is furthered when he writes, “The only obligation which I have right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right” (374).  And doing right, morally speaking, is another area where Thoreau and Locke differ in their views on obligations.

John Locke advocated a moral theory that ties directly into his views on politics. Locke believed that nature shows us what is right morally speaking, by what is natural. For example it would be wrong to deny someone “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, but as long as these are upheld Locke believed that citizens are obligated to obey all government rules. Locke writes:

And thus every man, by consenting with other to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free and under no other ties than he was before in the state of nature (351).

Locke shows here that, once a government has been formed, the citizens have an obligation to obey the laws as

the majority decides them. This does not apply when the government is violating the basic principles or

morals, as set forth in natural law. Thus according to Locke, there are few instances where not obeying the

government is justified. Thoreau took a rather different view on how morals affect political obligations. While

he does not promote a specific moral view in Civil Disobedience, Thoreau does take stands on several moral issues, which provide insight into his views on morals and obligations.  For example Thoreau writes regarding abolition:

I do not hesitate to say, that those who call themselves abolitionist should at once effectually withdraw their support, both in person and property, from the government of Massachusetts, and not wait till they constitute a majority of one, before they suffer the right to prevail through them. I think that it is enough if they have God on their side, without waiting for that other one. Moreover, any man more right than his neighbors, constitutes a majority of one already (376).

Thoreau clearly believed that if a government is violating a persons moral beliefs, even if they don’t come from natural law, but instead from God, that that person is justified, and even has a duty to not obey the government. Even more proof that Thoreau believes in the individual more than the society comes when he writes:

In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty more urgent is the fact, that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army (374).

Thoreau clearly believes that citizens, are obligated to their government, but only if the government is not

violating personal morals. Once a government violates this, a citizen no longer has an obligation to the

government, and in fact has a duty to revolt.

In the end Locke and Thoreau share some beliefs in common, namely that there are times when revolt is

justified, and that ones moral compass should be followed, but they disagreed on what form this took, and what

it meant for obligations to government. Locke believed that only when natural rights were violated would revolt

be justified; at all other times obedience to the government was right. Thoreau took a more individual view, and

claimed that whenever the government violated a citizen’s morals that the citizen no longer owed the

government any obligation. Ultimately all that separates Locke and Thoreau is the ideal of individual over

group, and moral their systems, and both have influenced people with their writings on the matter. 

[isthereanup-blog]

Listen

I once had a long, serious, and upset talk with a friend She was the one upset and the topic was something sure to touch nerves: religion. What made it worse was the fact that it was an ongoing conversation, and it actually included multiple friends, all arguing against me. In a strange way I enjoyed the fact that I stood alone, but it was frustrating because only one friend out of five actually heard with what I had to say.

That is not to say that they didn’t listen to me, in fact they made sure to so they could say something back. But only one person actually listened to what I had to say, and thought about what it could mean. He took the reasons and rationale and then compared the different views so he could make an informed decision.

The rest of the group did not hear. They listened yes, so they could repeat a tired, old argument. It really started to make me upset, in fact after awhile we agreed to stop the argument for the sake of the friendship. 

Back to my friend who actually listened. I actually didn’t find out that he heard both sides until about a year later, when he backed me up in a similar argument. I naturally asked him about why he now agreed with me. His reply? “I listened and your side made more sense.”

In essence what I’m trying to say is that ears should be open, not closed. Any new information should be allowed in, and processed, before being rejected. Don’t be the pig headed fool who always, always, always knows what is right. Be humble, recognize you could be wrong, try to expect other people to be right, and listen. It could change your life.

[isthereanup-blog]

This is Phil. Phil is the night worker at my favorite shop ever; The Maté Factor. Every evening my friend Nick and I come here, drink Mate, talk, write, work, and harass Phil. Actually we don't harass him, we just tell him how wonderful he is and joke around with him.  Phil is a fantastic person as is The Maté Factor. That's why I come here so much. Most blog posts I write come from here. That's just a brief snapshot into my life. I didn't really feel like writing a philosophically inclined post today. So I did this instead. Enjoy! 

[isthereanup-blog]

The rise and fall of government

I recently read a blog post by Leo Babauta which talked about society re-imagined. What struck me about the article was a bit about government.

  “Governments are the same. The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” … but actually, they exist only in the minds of the governed, and only have power so long as the governed allow them to have power. The same applies to any system: schools, work, banks, and so on — they exist in our minds.”(The full post can be read here: http://mnmlist.com/reimagined2/) 

  With that as my inspiration, today’s post is about government, and its theory.

  John Locke had what I believe to be the second best theory on government. Namely that there are certain natural laws and rights, that universally apply to all humans, and that governments duty is to protect these rights. When “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” was written it was hugely because of Locke’s work. Locke would have loved America, especially since the second part of his theory involves social contract. Social contract is the state when men enter into an agreement to abide by rules, aka, pledging allegiance, signing citizen papers, participating or benefiting from governments. When that has happened, the person has agreed to abide by the rules of the majority of that country. The United States uses both of these theories, although it’s debatable how well they uphold natural laws.

  While, Locke’s theories are great, there is another theory that I think blows all other government theories out of the water. And honestly I’m a little nervous writing about it, simply because the worst is always assumed about it. The theory of anarchism.

  Now don’t run off snorting in disgust, with thoughts of destruction, lawlessness, and the end of the world. That’s not an accurate picture of anarchy. In fact anarchy has several different forms it can take, but there is only that I’ll really talk about here; theoretical anarchism.

  Theoretical anarchism claims that anarchy is the best system of government, or lack of it, but acknowledges that humans are flawed creatures, and that it honestly wouldn’t work on a large scale practice. But why is anarchy the best? Let’s explain. Going with the assumption that humans are autonomous beings, and should be making their own choices, there is no justification for another human to have any control over an other. In addition if logic is applied, one wouldn’t violate another’s being or property, so there would really be no crime, war etc. That kills the need for government really, so people would just live, and barter or trade for what they needed.

  Sounds great doesn’t it? Sadly, as a theoretical anarchist, I don’t believe this is fully possible on a large scale. The idea of no government scares people out of their mind, and that’s why we have natural law, to give us an almost acceptable system. Without it, some irresponsible people would do whatever they want, and the “system” would fail. 

  In summary, natural law is needed because humans are weak, but someday we may reach a pinnacle, where Leo Babauta’s society can be realized. I sure hope so.

P.S. I know there are many, many more political theories out there, I just decided to only talk about the ones I find compelling. At least for today.  

[isthereanup-blog]

Why?

A common view on philosophy, is that it consists of old, dead, white dudes, sitting around and talking about theoretical crap. If this where the case it would bring up an excellent question: why should you care about philosophy at all? However philosophy consists of much more than just discussion, and high theory. In fact when used correctly, philosophy is life changing.

Take the epistemology. If you decide that knowing anything is not possible, then how you live your life will probably change. Or views on reality. If nothing is real is there a point to living? And what about God? If you never look at the issue and think about it, how can you possibly pass judgment on it? 

My point is this: philosophy is often just the asking of deep, important, soul searching, life changing questions. And everyone  should be interested in that. Even old, white, dead dudes. 

[isthereanup-blog]

Reality

“What is real?” is a question that has been asked ever since man started to reason. Almost all the great philosophers have asked this question, and there have been many different answers. Personally I find this the most compelling question that can ever be answered because it will provide a basis for any other answers that can be decided. I find two compelling cases for what is real, and they can be defined. I’m not going to spell out exactly what they are, that’s for you to look into more, but I will briefly outline them.

Before we look at the theories I’d like to discuss Plato, and his allegory of the cave. If your not familiar with the allegory, you can see an adaptation here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69F7GhASOdM. Basically I wanted to acknowledge that the cave is a brilliant allegory, and that I think Plato had it mostly right; people are in the dark, and often don’t see the light. However I’m also not sure if we can fully understand everything, or using the allegory, fully see in the sun. In fact the sun could be a light bulb in room, so we  are just seeing, more, better, without actually getting to reality, the sun. Just a thought before we dive in.

First up, Rene Descartes theory. Descartes basically sat in a room and disbelieved anything that he could doubt. In the end he was left with one simple statement, “I think, therefore I am.” From this Descartes went on to build up an entire system of reality and what could be believed.

Next Immanuel Kant, who is one of my favorite philosophers. He claimed that reality could be known through logic, and experience, as long as the logical thoughts can fit in what humans can experience. His theory is rather difficult to explain and I recommend further study. I hope that this post has made you think a little (that’s one of the goals), and interested in finding out more. Questions? Comments? Let me know! Later!

[isthereanup-blog]

Greetings!

This is a place of thoughtfulness, passion and ideas. It will follow philosophy, its flaws, and life application. It will be serious, random, and I hope funny. Specifically what I want to focus on here is how philosophy relate and is applicable to life, almost a utilitarian outlook, but for all views on philosophy. I want this to be an open forum, with feedback, critiques, and input. I’m sure as it progresses it will change and mutate. Most importantly I want this to be from my heart. I love sharing, and making people think, grow, and question things. If I can do that with any one then this will be a success. Either way it’s going to be a journey, and hopefully you enjoy the ride! Ciao!