fuckphilosophy.com

Our consciousness is constituted by sense impressions that are put together by our brain somehow (Kantian “categories” or whatever – I don’t *actually* see the computer in front of me).

Our concepts/images/ideas have features/details that we have inherited/learned through a continuous lineage that reaches back into the unknown dark (experiences/events in the past that are gone; there was no documentary crew there to record it). All we have is this idea.

This is similar to our relation to the evolved structure of our brains.

So…what do we know?

p.s. Wait, not just “sense impressions”, but also: emotions, memories, imagination, visions, etc.

Implicit to everything I was saying was that a re-enchantment of the world is in order. Look at all the students you taught here at [insert institution of higher learning]: they called themselves ‘Christian’ (which is supposed to be a “spiritual” tradition), but how spiritual are they? *Maybe* they pray, but I’m guessing that (if they do) it is more like begging. Here is the question: would you rather just watch the movie, or play a role in the outcome of the movie? You know this difference; we have talked about it before. I’m saying, fuck all this “so-and-so said such-and-such and they are wrong because…”…whatever. Look at all the confused fucked-up people! I’ve met them. I was out with them the other night! The world is fucked-up dude. You know this shit dude.

If the laws of nature are mathematical laws and regular in some way (as in either they don’t change or they change regularly), then does it follow that in such a universe everything that is ultimately knowable is knowable a priori?

If anything is a priori, then mathematics is. In a consistent mathematics, all well-formed formulas (and more?) are true statements (in that system at least). And if we have decided that nature is describable by math, then it would seem like ultimately all truths about nature are knowable a priori. That follows right?

Philosophy is an annoying smudge that won’t come off of glasses that you can’t see without. Philosophy is also that annoying scratch that you can’t itch.

Here is a definition that came out in class the other day:

Philosophy is a good ratio of blabber to meaningful content.

Then the question was asked: what is a “good” ratio? I don’t remember what the answer to that question was.

This is a follow-up to a comment I made in my last post about you-know-who (we must pass over it in silence). I made a comment that there are no philosophers anymore (never was, maybe one). What I meant is just this: that there are no philosophers anymore. ‘Philosopher’ is of a kind with concepts like ‘unicorn’. I may have suggested this in an earlier post, but my suggestion is that the term be replaced by ‘philosophy people’. If that sounds boring I also came up with ‘philosophizers’. I might like that one better. Say that one a few times (out loud) and you’ll come to like it I think. ‘Philosopher’ refers to the Platonic idea of the philosophizer. ‘Philosopher’ doesn’t pick out anything in this, the actual, world. Hell, it might not even pick out anything in all possible worlds. I mean, how could there be? Now we have the strong claim that there are necessarily no philosophers.

Going against everything I just said, now that I think about it, the real problem might be in referring to oneself as a ‘philosopher’ without tongue-in-cheek. Putting these two ideas together we have ‘philosopher’ as the Platonic idea as well as being kinda alter-indexical, as in it can refer to anyone except me. As confirming evidence (even though evidence doesn’t confirm theories, we can make this exception I think) that this is correct we need only look at Socrates. Socrates is the Platonic idea of the philosopher without question, qualifications, and without any of ya’ll’s back-talk. This makes sense because Plato came up with Platonic forms, and he learned philosophy from Socrates, and his idea of what a philosopher is was based on Socrates. Therefore, Socrates is the Platonic form of the philosopher. (Starting to make some sense now, eh?) Also, Socrates claimed to have no wisdom and rather tried to extract wisdom from others (which makes sense, but a dumb idea nevertheless); therefore, he probably didn’t consider himself a philosopher. Therefore! Exactly what I said above (I don’t feel like trying to figure out what I was talking about).

THEREFORE, there are no philosophers. ESPECIALLY if you think you are one. If you think you are one then you MOST DEFINATELY are not one. See how that works? That’s like some zen shit or something. It’s that easy to do philosophy! That is our goal here at fuckphilosophy.com: to show you the folks at home that you can do philosophy too. Now you know (and knowing is half the battle).

P.S. I am aware that the above made no sense. Therefore, if you laugh at me and point out how it doesn’t make any sense, it won’t hurt my feelings because I already know that.

This is going to be the second and last post about Keira Knightley. These posts are only nominally about Keira Knightley. She isn’t what we are really talking about here. It is the principle of Keira Knightley that we are really talking about. Now you may ask yourself, “what on Earth is he talking about? ‘The principle of Keira Knightley’?” Even though we say ‘fuck philosophy’ here at fuckphilosophy.com, we are still philosophers here. (When I say “we…here at fuckphilosophy.com” you can feel free to envision me as one of a staff of philosophers…and by the way, there are no philosophers anymore, and if I ever refer to myself as a philosopher you can take it as a joke, ok? Because that is what we do here at fuckphilosophy.com: we put the ‘fuck’ in ‘philosophy’. Yes, I bet you didn’t know that there is ‘fuck’ in ‘philosophy’. It’s in there, even if you can’t see it. That is philosophy right there, just think about that one. Philosophy is f-ing easy!) Philosophers talk about principles, and not the bag of bones that is Keira Knightley’s person. Philosopher’s talk about the principle of the matter, we are philosophers here, and yet we say “fuck philosophy”? So what is the principle of saying ‘fuck’ to philosophy? That will have to be addressed at a later date. Back to the matter at hand.

So, if we’re not talking about the bag of bones, that bag of protein water and bones, then what are we talking about? What I want to know is: how does Keira Knightley know how to do that? What is it that Keira Knightley does so well? One could say that she is sexy. It doesn’t quite describe it to just say that Keira Knightley is sexy, or really sexy or really really sexy. Saying she is “sexy” sounds so dumbed down, reduced to a quantity of some standardized common denominator stuff. I think there is a technical term in Hollywood for what we are talking about: “it”, as in “she’s got it”. You could call it ’star power’, but again with this dumbed down industrial strength nonsense. (”Dumbed down” is a dumb-ass term too. I feel dumb just saying it. I wish I could think of another. ‘Deflationary’, that is the word I was looking for.) It would be incorrect to say that Keira Knightley is just a human being like you or I. Sure we are all just bags of bones, but that isn’t what I mean. To say that she is a really hot one also doesn’t seem to do it justice. All these stupid words. Deflationary rough approximations of ineffable fucking nonsense. That is why I rather like the term “it”. Don’t ask what it is. You know what it is. And if you don’t, then I guess we can’t talk about it. And if you do, then we don’t have to talk about it, because you already know what I’m talking about. Fuck it.

In summary, the principle of Keira Knightley is not found within the bag of bones herself. The principle of Keira Knightley is different in kind from the principle of this staff philosopher here at fuckphilosophy.com. And finally, that famous quote from Wittgenstein: “What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence”.

It almost seems absurd to talk about the weather with other philosophy people (I can’t say ‘philosophers’). It is kinda embarrassing…talking about the weather, I mean. I’m not saying I think we should be embarrassed, because I don’t. I get a headache talking about philosophy all the time. Talking about the weather is a pleasant escape, a pleasure cruise. Can we just enjoy an interlude about the weather? Damn it was a nice day today.

• Do you like wondering about how one would know if they were living in the matrix?

• Or if you don’t like the matrix…how about: how could you tell if you weren’t actually just a brain in a vat (more like a pickle jar really, if you’ve seen one)?

• Would you like to have everything you believe to know thrown into question?

• Do you find solace in being reassured that we don’t actually perceive objects in the world, but merely images in the mind?

• Would you like to know what it would mean to know something for what you think are good reasons, for it to be true, and yet not really know it?

• Do you want to be able to freak people out at parties by bringing there most commonly held beliefs into question?

• Would you like to spend $10,000 per semester (like I do) to learn about this stuff?

In continental philosophy there seems to be these themes of taking responsibility for your life, being engaged in the world, making your life a project, living your life like you mean it, etc. Would those who live such a life find any inspiration from such ideas? I’m assuming not, other than making them conscious of what they are doing, which might just serve to derail them if they allowed themselves to be distracted by them. Who would be interested/eager to hear such ideas? Might it not be people who are not living such a life? And what purpose do these ideas serve but to simulate the theoretical experience of such a life. Carpe Diem, just like all the t-shirts say. As if merely understanding concept is to realize the existence it professes. Because, presumably, to understand an idea, for it to speak to you, is to be ready to receive the idea. If you think your life is fine, and you hear something about being thrown into the world and living dangerously, these ideas aren’t going to mean anything to you. And like I said, they may not make any sense, or sound like child’s play, to those who perhaps lead such a life. And that just leaves those who are fixated on some image of what they want to be/wish they were/etc. Like those basement disproportioned geeks who like superhero comics. The philosophy is an escape, allowing us to temporarily imagine what it would be like to exist in such a way. These ideas often act as a lozenge taking the place of the lives that they profess.

Philosophy is the notes that fill my notebook, preventing me from finishing what I’m reading.