Journeyman Philosopher

As I was reading online, I clicked on a link that I probably shouldn’t have and this what popped up: “Jordin Sparks makes a virginity vow”. Jordan Sparks is an American Idol winner, as I found out, who wants to wait till marriage to make the sexual leap. With my own personal opinions of this aside, it made me realize something.

Ya know what I think this society lacks? A “I’m not going to be a (excuse my french) slut vow” or in its more politically correct form “I’m going to be sexually responsible vow.”

Right now it seems as if the media is only interested in portraying these two extremes, it would be refreshing to see some stars adopt the middle path of sexual control. But perhaps I am placing to much emphasis on what is being portrayed and what in actuality exists. Although I do believe the media influences people and as such it would be more than useful to have a mature portrayal.

In light of this I’d like to go on the record to say I’d find sexual responsibility more interesting then sexual abstinence or sexual craziness. So come on media, entice me!!!

?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Sounds good doesn’t it? Good enough to believe perhaps. Unfortunately its far from being true. There are many example that exist showcasing the fallacy of this supposed truth. For example the present Dalai Lama, and previous Dalai Lamas, King Asoka, and Im sure there are many other figures that are not of a buddhist orientation that I don’t know of.

This, however is despite my point. What is it with people and adopting clever lines as their philosophy? “Oh you shouldn’t do that because ‘To each his own’”, “You know what they say ‘birds of a feather flock together’” and etc.

Where is the justification? Where is the argument? Where is the reason?

Idea in pill form seems to be the most common trend of society. People carry around quotes without understanding them and brandish them like sound justifications. Usually these quotes are crazy!!! But that’s OK because what they are is witty, and people like witty!

Don’t get me wrong being witty is important, but don’t throw out the baby with that bath water people. Oh look an expression, although I believe this is a justified one…. assuming you like babies (makes you wonder how many people actually threw out the baby ‘Oh it’s clean now, bye bye.’).

Anyhow my point with this oh so close to a rant is that one should think about what they’re saying. Realize that your words imply certain things, and although wittiness is important if thats all your ideas are based on take a step back and think about it.

?

Continued from my ‘Lifeboat or Spaceship? pt.2′ post.

Deep Economics is a theory that is very similar to Deep Ecology (if that reference helps you at all). It is the theory that our economic system in somehow misrepresents the world as we see it, and in a sense falsifies our conclusions that we make based on the systems validity.

To understand how this supposedly happens we must first understand the basics of an economic system. An economic system, as defined by a philosopher such as myself, is simply a self fabricated value system. It observes various variables making judgement calls on the value of such variables, that it thereafter expresses to us. The system metaphorically would be the ‘working hand’ of a core economic theory, such as Capitalism/Communism/etc, that determines fair/true value.

In todays standards you often hear the talk of the system expresses concepts similar to ‘We must do what’s good for the economy’ ‘ The bad economy affects the happiness of middle class workers’ ‘Local economy booming due to oil tariff exemptions’ economy, economy, economy, blah blah blah! The overall gist of the average economic talk is that ‘good economy’ is good for us, and ‘bad economy’ is bad for us. But is it really this simple?

I believe something has happened somewhere along the line, there has been a disconnection between what we as humans value and what the economic system values. The problem with this disconnection is that the economic system was suppose to represent our values initially. Yet now it seemingly expresses ideas of its own, that then motivate us to value the ideas in light of them being of our own values (ie. it tricks us).

I bring to reference an example expressed by, I believe, the founder of Deep Economics’ who I can’t remember her name but is a politician in New Zealand if I remember correctly (I apologies for the vagueness). There was a case in New Zealand in which an Oil Tanker ruptured spewing oil all over an inlet that caused the destruction of vast amounts of wildlife and the nearby forest due to the contamination of the water. The strange thing is that although people looked at this event and said ‘What a horrible disaster.’ the result was considered good for the economy. This was as the accident caused more work and jobs in the area.

How though can something be good for the economy that is seen as bad for people and bad by people? After all our economic system is suppose to represent our values. If not there would, clearly, be no reason to adopt it. After all the only reason to apply the system would be for our well being, unless of course we are some form of theory based masochists!

Richard Layard in his book entitled ‘Happiness’ addresses the theory that our economic system was based on the idea that more money equals more happiness, but believes that modern science has proven this theory flawed (he proves this through studies of happiness in different financial states). I quote P-Diddy when I say “Mo’ money, mo’ problems” (I just can never quote that line enough for some strange reason). Perhaps this is where this issue arises?

Monetary gain is not the only happiness. After all we can be poor and happy (as many philosophers I’m sure will contest :D). I believe as such it is very important to re-examine our economic system in order to determine what truly makes us happy. Although I do acknowledge that our current system may be considered good for the past as a stepping stone for the future I think its time for a change.

But what can you do? Its simple. Don’t associate so simply what is good for the economy as what is good for you. Although many times it will be its not so simple. Motivate yourself to find your own happiness, with the heavy influence of our system aside.

?

Wow. When doing some catch up research on ‘deep economics’ I stumbled upon an idea that has yanked my attention away from the promised discussion (as so I apologies but you’ll have to wait till tomorrow for more on deep economics).

I present to you VHEMT or known to those who don’t like to refer to it in abbreviation form the ‘Voluntary Human Extinction Movement’

“As VHEMT Volunteers know, the hopeful alternative to the extinction of millions of species of plants and animals is the voluntary extinction of one species: Homo sapiens… us.

Each time another one of us decides to not add another one of us to the burgeoning billions already squatting on this ravaged planet, another ray of hope shines through the gloom.

When every human chooses to stop breeding, Earth’s biosphere will be allowed to return to its former glory, and all remaining creatures will be free to live, die, evolve (if they believe in evolution), and will perhaps pass away, as so many of Nature’s “experiments” have done throughout the eons.

It’s going to take all of us going.” Found on www.vhemt.org

Wow, is all I can say…. I am blown away by this!

Don’t get me wrong its not that the overall idea’s crazy, as a matter of fact we really do need to control our population, but the fact that someone has actually suggested something as self-less as this boggles my mind.

But there is a problem, and a simple one. We are a part of nature and have rights as well. Of course I wouldn’t say that these rights override the rights of all other beings, but that these are still very important.

As so to make a quick objection to the idea; ‘Why are we not equal? Why can’t there be a balance?’ this is the fundamental problem with their view I believe.

To move on:

“However, if any of us thinks about the situation long enough, and makes the effort to work through those socially-instilled blocks to clear thinking, we will arrive at virtually the same conclusion: we should voluntarily phase ourselves out for the good of humanity and planet.” Found on www.vhemt.org.

I mean this is just a blatant contradiction. We must phase ourselves out for the good of humans, because not existing is good for us. This works on the idea that being alive causes more suffering to our own species. Ya know if we’re all buddhists this could be considered all good and dandy but we aren’t. Surely our species existing is a good thing, or at the very least not a negative thing.

One thing that I feel this idea does not make clear, is at moments it seems to say ‘You support us by not having children’ and then on the other ‘You can still support us by just thinking we need to reduce our population’. They discern what they call ‘volunteer’ (one who promises to not breed), and ’supporter’ (one who doesn’t support extinction, but who doesn’t think we should add more population to the earth).

This is problematic, because seemingly a ’supporter’ could hold a completely different view. By their classification I’m a supporter, yet I don’t believe what they’re saying, rather I believe that their approach to the issue is so far-fetched and non-sensical that we’d be just as well off not thinking about it.

I mean if I was to address these issues of environmental damage, unethical treatment of animals, and the complete borderless stomping of the human race; I’d advance a theory that would require us to lessen our footprint while living more in tune and with respect towards nature.

My objection stems from the fact that its simply unrealistic; although VHEMT does deal with this objection by saying ‘people always say stuff like that, and despite it being unlikely its our duty’. This is true, in a sense, people always say things similar to ‘you’ll never change anything’ to hold onto their base staus quo.

However I think it would be more logical to choose an approach that came easier to us, yet still would result in lasting changes. Suicide is hard to do, not breeding is in a sense going against a natural desire. As so it really seems as though their really fighting an uphill battle. I mean it would seem sooner realistic to adopt a theory that says the entire human race should vacate to Mars before self imposed extinction. In such a manner earth would be ‘happy’ again without us. But the fact that this seems more practical than their theory cannot be a good thing for VHEMT.

Of course the site acknowledge all of this. It is an uphill battle it is a struggle. But knowing this and not finding a better way, or even a better way for now just seems silly. Sometimes practicality is an important issue, and I believe VHEMT fails to acknowledge this.

?

Last month I started talking about the two different popular ways to view the world. On one side the lifeboat aphorism and on the other the spaceship aphorism. You can find the previous article here.

When I wrote I initially asked for responses to what you my readers thought. A response which was not only insightful but actually explained in more clarity than I the spaceship example follows:

I like to think of it this way: We are all on a spaceship but living in different sections and responsible for different tasks on that spaceship. The spaceship is Earth, and each section is a country/continent, some sections may be better off than others i.e. better staffed, more supplies etc. Some sections are more important than others and sections play favorites with each other, so they can pick who they help depending on what they get back from them, some sections want help, some sections want to be left alone. But the fact is if one section were to disappear the spaceship would stop functioning but at the same time each department has to ensure that they have what they need to do their job and maintain their section. Commented by Pooky

I agree with this assessment. I think the spaceship metaphor is most suitable for a fair representation of earth. My reason is that it seems accurate, whereas the lifeboat aphorism seems incompatible with the real state of affairs of earth.

What I wanted to discuss here is what I believe is a fundamental flaw with the lifeboat example that, if I remember my teachings correctly, supposedly inspired modern economists.

The lifeboat assumes that there is no such thing as renewable, thus maintainable, resources. It bases its claim on the concept that their are no self-sustaining resources, but thats just simply false.

This is clear as we think about what exactly you are doing in a lifeboat. You are only surviving, a lifeboat is not a sustainable situation. If you do not reach land, salvation, in time you will die. The fact is we aren’t just trying to protect ourselves for now, in reality we are trying to preserve our future (or at least I am). As there can be a future, just drifting and surviving for now seems non-sensical to me.

This is a very strong a misconception and I think in no way represents the real world. We do have resources that are sustainable (solar, wind, hydro), the fact that we choose to use resources that are unsustainable is of our own volition.

What I find of concern is that this justification actually influenced modern economic theories. Although when this idea came about it may have seemed more sensible, I assume perhaps because of a lack of understanding of renewable recourses, it now is non-sensical.

If it is the case that this theory that influenced our current economic theory is wrong, does this not shed doubt of the economic theory itself?

Tomorrow I will continue with an idea entitled ‘deep economics’ which touches on this issue.

?

For the sake of clarity I wished to re-explore my last post and organize the idea.

Let’s start with the summary:

The Joker claims that morality is a luxury of the well off. By this he means:

My claim is that morality isn’t a luxury of the well off. By this I mean:

I think fundamentally this is an issue of choice. And the choice that is always apparent, yet can only be found by the intuitive eye.

If morality were merely an endowment of the rich, or a luxury of the well off one would in essence not be able to act upon it if they were neither well-off or rich.

But people do act morally regardless. There are, for example, many instances in war in which people do horrible atrocious things, but as well as people doing wonderful things (Oscar Schindler is a prime example of this). I think what is important is that morality is ‘always’ a choice, be you well off or not. I know even I could easily kill and loot someone I know, and if planned correctly I would assume it very easy to get away with it. Yet I don’t. Instead I value them in accordance with the moral values I hold.

The fact is at this stage we don’t see it as an option to kill and loot someone for our own benefit. But isn’t that really just the state of a naive mind?

We always have the chance to kill but we choose not to, we always have the chance to be what we consider immoral but we choose not to. With the fact of if we do or not aside. What’s important is that we always do have that option, as so we always have that luxury. Although in different situations and applications it requires different risks upon ourselves to apply it.

In times of war are we really exempt from our moral rules. No, I don’t think so. However I do believe that people who do not have confident self confirmed moral rules will feel exempt from them at this time. I don’t mean to say that these people will not benefit from their actions, but I do believe that they still could be condoned as immoral.

But I digress, what really are moral rules and systems? As I have come to believe moral rules are rational beliefs based on self stated assumptions. Individually then based on various assumptions through reason and consistency we can determine what we would consider a moral system. This moral system would be true in light of the assumptions taken.

I bring to reference myself. I live in a place called Calgary, Alberta Canada. I personally consider Alberta to be the redneck province of Canada (we’re known for our cowboys & Alberta Beef). As so it is not a vegetarian friendly place, quite the opposite. In such a light of all the places to not be a vegetarian this would be a great one, yet I still stick to my guns and maintain my diet. Yet morals in the context of my situation would seem irrelevant. Yet I maintain a self projected moral code that makes me responsible for my conduct in any situation.

Nietzsche, however, does make a good point. Custom morality does ‘make stupid’, the day we start basing all our morality simply on what was done in the past and stop thinking about it we stagnate. However I don’t believe philosophers have done this, and I do believe philosophers are the experts in morality. As I have always said ‘As you trust an engineer to build a bridge, trust a philosopher to build morality.’

But I digress. Is the Joker really correct? I don’t think what he said applied to true morality. That being a system that is self-determined and justified. However that which society believes is morality, I would say he is correct.

The question is how can you take away something from someone that is self-constructed? Perhaps by taking away their ability to think, but we can always think regardless how poor or destitute we are. This I think is far beyond the Joker’s power of spreading chaos and fear.

In hindsight however, maybe this is exactly what the Joker was implying. Perhaps the Joker only meant to imply that society doesn’t understand morality and just uses it as a form of convenience. After all he assumed ‘the Batman’ was above the masses in some strange manner, and obviously felt he grasped some concept of true morality.

If this was the case then morals would exist in light of the knowledgeable, but not in terms of the masses.

Hmmmmm, I’m muddled. I will clarify my ideas shortly.

On friday night I was lucky enough to get tickets to see the newest Batman film ‘Dark Knight’ which, I must say, was wonderful; if only for Heath Ledger’s brilliant portrayal of the Joker.

By my standards the movie is a must see because of Ledger. I was very suprised to see a Joker that I ended up believing in more than Jack Nicholson. What was most amazing is I couldn’t see Heath Ledger in the Joker, he plays such a strong role it is difficult to even recognize him. Although all id good in this movie I cannot emphasize enough how you should see it because of the Joker. It is a wonderful depiction.

So in short, it is definitely something you should see in the theaters, go check it out when you get the chance!

Now with my dry movie review aside, let us move onto the philosophical nature of the film. And as well what I found most interesting about it; the movie’s portrayal of morals.

Seemingly the Joker would have agreed with Nietzche’s following excerpt entitled ‘Morality makes stupid’:

Custom represents the experiences of men of earlier times as to what they supposed useful and harmful - but the sense for custom (morality) applies, not to these expereiences as such, but to the age, the sanctity, the indiscussability of the custom. And so this feeling is a hindrance to the aquisiton of new experiences and the correction of customs: that is to say, morality is a hindrance to the creation of new and better customs: morality makes stupid.

Found in Friedrick Nietzche’s ‘Daybreak’

Morality portrayed through the Jokers eyes is something that we hold onto for mere convience, and when it comes down to it morality means nothing. Through out the movie he tests his theory on society and is overall happy with the outcome I believe.

But is this really true? Is morality merely an endowment of the well off? Or does it as well extend to the less fortunate? These are questions I extend to you the reader.

For more information on ‘The Dark Knight’ you can find the official site here.

As Digglu hinted in response to my last post:

People should find religion on their own, not have it forced on them, which is probably why so many “Christians” aren’t Christian at all.

In my life and studies one thing I feel I have confidently learnt is that religion is not something that can simply be taught. Religion/Spirituality (whatever you want to call it; they really mean the same) requires the individual that adopts it to take a personal assumption, one that in no way can be taught as a fact by others.

Think of it this way, I use christianity as its easiest to illustrate, you are approached by a priest who says to you ‘God exists, I know he exists’. This priest has, what he would consider, a connection to God of some sort that allows him to make such a statement. In such a manner the priest, to the best of his belief, is most likely not lying.

However what needs to be taken into consideration is the status of the person who is hearing the priest make this statement. Priests in general are respected in society and people have a tendency to place trust in their judgements and decisions. As so it is common place for a person of little or no knowledge of religion to adopt the views of the priest; ironically to have faith in God by truly having faith in the priest.

This is a problem. In this step the personalization that is necessary for sincere religious understanding is sidestepped.

In my last post I covered the concept briefly that religion recquires individual interpretation. How religion is ’suppose’ to work is the priest is suppose to give you their interpretation, but explain it in a manner open for debate that allows the listener to understand that this is an interpretation (although a true one to the preacher).

In this manner the individual listener gets to, through debate/interpretation, determine which truth makes sense to them; and thereafter develop it for themselves with the assistance of the preacher. This allows them to do more than listen, but as well develop critical thought abilities (which is of course necessary to even apply religion correctly to your life).

Think of it like this: It is not sensible to just adopt a belief without knowing its premises. And if its premises require you to ‘just believe’ it makes little if no sense to accept it as a truth, without first determining if you yourself hold that premise.

Without personalization through interpretation religion is nothing more than a fact. But religion isn’t a fact. When religion is adopted as a fact ad hoc someone elses reasoning it leads to a misrepresentation of the sincere belief that is required for successful adoption. This is the fundamental problem of how we approach spiritual development in our societies, we teach as fact rather than inspire individual development.

Imbroglio religious belief, belief that is disconnected from what would be considered its ‘true spiritual element’, is the natural occurrence of mass producing an individualistic belief for a society in an attempt to spread its merits. The merits are inevitably lost in the drone of mass consumption.

I was watching the documentary ‘for the BIBLE tells me so’ the other day. It was a very interesting film and although the focus was on homosexuality, what was the most interesting point to me was the underlying point focused on the correct way to read the bible (or religious texts for that matter).

When I speak to people of religion, spirituality, personal belief, or whatever you want to call it; I often am taken back by the blatant claims of these people who ‘know’ their religion.

My basic belief and personal assessment is that 95% of people that claim to be christian, buddhist, hindu, or of any sort of spiritual or religious belief aren’t. There is a basic teaching which I learned through my education which I think all religious practitioners should keep in mind is that you never take religious teachings out of context of time, and that you never rip individual lines out of the context of the base message.

There was an amazing line in the film by Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene. Keene said that when people came up to him saying “Listen I’ve read the bible I know what it means.” he has responded with the line “That is not what the bible says it is what it reads.”

This is an astronomically important point that the video below drives home (this excerpt was also in the film). Religious text is not suppose to be taken literally it requires individual translation and interpretation. Unfortunately this interpretation needs to be done by people who know how to do it.

The Two Golden Rules (of spiritual and religious text translation):