Journeyman Philosopher

Let’s talk about equality.

In most ‘modern’ societies there are two recognized theories on what equality is, or rather how equality can be generated, in society. I hope here to give a brief explanation of both theories, thereafter hear back from you guys on what your opinion is on equality.

First lets talk about formal equality. Formal equality theorizes that in order to ensure equality in society you simply need to make sure everyone and everything gets the same treatment. In such a manner woman and men should be treated identical in order to ensure equality. Simply formal equality believes that equal rules are key to true equality!

Substantive equality feels differently however. Substantive equality theorizes that in order to ensure equality you need to make sure everyone is equal by leveling the playing field. The idea is that although equal treatment is eventually necessary as it now stands treating people equally does not acknowledge differences in class, sex, and race in a sense it propagates current societal models that ensure inequality. Simply substantive equality believes that the key is balancing the playing field.

This is just a general explanation of both ideas, as they stand so far how do you feel about them? Are our societies equal?

What do you think?

Over the weekend I had a chance to check out the Body Worlds exhibit touring through Edmonton, Alberta.

The ‘Body Worlds’ exhibit is basically an ‘artistic’ and ‘educational’ display in which donated cadavers are preserved and then displayed in various poses in the attempt to demonstrate the complexity of the human body. It definetily was an interesting exhibit that displayed bodies in very… curious ways. It’s quite educational actually to see how bodies function underneath, coming from a martial artist perspective it was a very useful visualization of attack targeting.

An overall theme of the displays was the attempt to make one realize the limits of their own body and as so their own mortality. When walking through the displays there were numerous billboards quoting ancient greek philosophers talking about death. Most views rotated around the concept that death was not to be feared as evil, as it is a neutral state as so the absence of anything.

I think it is useful to reflect on your own mortality and death. I have practiced visualization since I was very young, but for different reasons then most. I just wanted to throw the question out there; what do you think about reflection on death (useful/useless, necessary/unnecessary, proper application/misapplication)?

For more information on body worlds, you can find the website here .

Hey everyone!

I just wanted to let you all know that I have returned to my studies and as such have a busy year before me. I just wanted to let you know I still plan on updating my blog although not as frequently as before. Hopefully I’ll be able to incorporate a good 2-3 posts a week for you guys to read.

Due to the nature of thought, I will most likely be publishing work on concepts and ideas that I have been inspired by in school. As such expect topics soon on issues of Equality, Women Rights, Contenential Philosophy, and Scripture theory.

I really hope you’ll still take the time to drop by and read my posts, and, of course, commenting on them yourself.

You’re always told in life that this is the be all end all, that mistakes now ensure horrible failure in the future. This is something, that I believe, coerces us into acceptance of a way of life we do not wish.I’m sure we can think up many examples of this; ‘If you skip a class you’ll fail.’ ‘If you’re not a Christian you’ll burn.’ and ‘If you call in sick you’ll get fired.’ All these statements attempt to keep us in tow by making us afraid of the consequences of not following a norm.

I have one good example that I have experienced that I feel has only had positive results for me. I, as most of my readers will probably be surprised, never finished high school. This to me is a badge of honour one of the things I am actually proud of myself for not doing.

High School was, simply, a waste of time for me. The growth that I felt it  encouraged at the time I was uninterested in, and in hindsight I believe was juvenile.  Through out my High School education I was taught simply how to regurgitate information while constantly experiencing juvenile social dynamics.

Long story short after leaving full time high school studies I started working. After I felt that i could learn no more from, what I feel is, the endless path of retail I ended up pursuing more advanced studies in college and found myself falling in love with philosophy. I soon entered as an adult student after completing a few semesters as a part timer; interesting point is where I live it is actually easier to get into certain college/university programs as an adult.

I just wanted to write this short post to give my readers a small insight into me personally, as well as extend to those that have also had problems in school that it is not the be all end all.

Through my own experience I have learned you will most likely always have a chance to make up that which you are told you cannot. We are different people and as such need to find our own methods for learning and living. Our societies general message is not compatible with this due to its structured nature, yet you should be sure to not let it hamper your path. Simply, different means for different people.

There is value everywhere and very few life experiences can be considered a waste of time. Leaving school and working earlier in my life I feel has allowed me to mature quicker then the average person my age. It has also given me the time and ability to discern my own values and thereafter what is right for me. There are no guarantees and the future is seemingly vague, as such live your life valuing what you do because you do.

My opinion:

Stop feeling rushed in your life, as there can always be something to rush over. Slow down take a deep breath and make yourself happy as only you know how. Its a lot easier to live with the burdens and pressures of society put aside, or, in more clarity, put into true perspective.

I’m interested to hear about any societal burdens you may have experienced, that you found once discarded was self uplifting!

What do you think?

There’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while in order to justify violent action toward certain individuals.

Imagine a situation in which you are approached by an individual who is insulting you constantly and pushing you around aggressively. You communicate to them verbally ‘I don’t like when you do that and I’d appreciate if you’d stop.’ Yet they still continue pushing you. You continue ‘This really makes me unhappy and I would appreciate it if you would stop’. Yet he goes on aggravating you despite your pleas for peace. In an attempt to communicate more clearly you attempt using charades and yet he doesn’t seem to relate to your attempted use of symbolic gestures.

In this situation it seems that your means of communication is inadequate to relate your true feelings to the individual, because surely if he associated with your sorrow he would stop.

The idea is then, that violence is a form of communication that would most adequately communicate to this person. This seems insane at first but think about it!

Do you speak to someone who knows Chinese in English? Do you speak to someone who knows French in Japanese? You don’t, you may try at first, but once you realize you don’t understand their language and they don’t understand yours you move onto something else (perhaps charades). However if it is clear that this communication is not working you can either walk away or attempt a different means.

Now back to the imaginary situation. You are completely flustered by your communication being unsuccessful as so you attempt to walk away. However the individual pursues you. Turning around you look at him, and then quickly punch him in the face. Rolling around on the ground the pursuer then ceases, finally understanding your feelings.

What have you done in this situation? All you have done is expressed yourself to the person in a manner they understood. The punch to the face simply represents ‘NO…. BAD!!!!’ in a different from of communication that he evidently understands as he’s attempting to communicate to you in this manner.

Is this situation that ridiculous? I think not. An important thing to distinguish is understanding the language that someones is speaking and actually understanding the meaning. My question is; doesn’t true understanding require some sort of empathy? Obviously the person bullying you doesn’t show empathy toward you but does understand what you’re saying.

I really think understanding does require this; if I say to you ‘I’m sad’ you may understand my language, but unless you relate to my feelings you don’t truly understand me. In such a manner if violent action is how someone is communicating isn’t it simply logical to communicate back to them in a manner they understand?

What do you think?

Note: This post may contain what you could consider to be spoilers.

Last night I watched a film I had already seen in my youth and for the first time actually understood it. The film is called ‘Royal Space Force: The Wings of Honneamise’, its an animated film directed by Horoyuki Yamaga released in 1987.

The film tells the story of a space program set in a country called Honneamise on a parallel version of earth. In this world spaceflight has yet to be achieved, the story follows an in training astronaut who has to come to terms with the politically motivated situation he finds himself in.

One thing that I felt was interesting was the perception of space travel in the film. One of the main reasons space travel was placed at such heavy importance in our world was due to competition in the cold war. I wasn’t alive then but have heard much about the whole race to space. The world portrayed in the movie however was quite different. Its not hard to imagine a world that, not motivated by the petty squabbles of nations, would look upon space travel as silly. After all we have yet to fully explore the depths of our own oceans, why turn to space so quickly?

In a sense this film really helped me reflect on the political nature of our own reality. In the film there is a sudden shift in focus when the government decides to back the space project, all of a sudden the astronauts are literally made into national heroes. The idea of space travel is transformed from an idiotic idea to a noble adventurous idea with the flick of a switch. What is key is this is not because the information about it has changed but rather because the politicians in the country have coerced the people of the country to change. This is quite relevant to our current election situation in Canada.

Beyond this the movie deals with issues of faith and sin. A moment I found very significant in the film portrays one of the spiritual main characters standing alone attempting to hand out religious pamphlets while a separate conflict is happening elsewhere. The moment, to me, represented the eternal struggle for peace each individual must pursue. Despite the knowledge apparent in the world we each must learn through our own experience what is and what is not. An eternal struggle to free ourselves from sin, while others attempt to manipulate us to their ends.

Safe to say I’d recommend the film, its relatively old but if you’re in a thinking mood its definitely worth watching.

If you watch the movie please tell me what you think here, I’m very interested to hear all your opinions.

Continued from my last post…

There seem to be two distinctions of thought from your responses to my last question:

• Physical Self Defense is justifiable as it gives an attacker a taste of their own medicine.
• Physical Self Defense is unjustifiable as it is simply violent action and other means should be pursued in order to defuse the situation.

I’ve been thinking alot about this and I do believe both views are insightful. Sometimes it is most useful to teach someone a valuable lesson through their own language, and other times it is most useful to teach someone a lesson through a more external abstract act such as pacifism. The difficulty resides in knowing which is applicable in certain situations (I have experienced both situations, one in which it was safe to walk away and others in which if I tried I would have been seriously injured).

Despite this difficulty what I believe is key to both objections is that they believe that self defense is a useful tool (in its pacifist or action oriented form) if it is used to ‘teach someone a lesson and/or provide insight to the attacker’. Both of these are interchangeable I believe although one sounds more positive. From this point on we will move on with the idea that ‘teach someone a lesson’ and ‘provide insight to the attacker’ are both simply a different way to say ‘inspire positive change’.

What is it than to ‘inspire positive change’ in another? It is, I feel, intent to showcase to another person why you do disagree with their action and what you think a suitable means of action is. This isn’t to say that ‘I think your punch form is wrong, allow me to show you proper form’ but rather ‘I think you punching me is bad, I don’t want you to do this’. You aren’t just beating someone up or letting someone slap you because you want the situation to end, but rather you want that person to carry themselves differently after the situation at hand.

I think this concept really shows off well just how much intent is a factor in true self defense. If you base your actions whatever they are sincerely on the intent to ‘inspire positive change’ in another, I don’t think you can wrong. This is as the intent of the action is not to hurt but to give the attacker a positive realization, simply that hurting people is not nice, as such it seems to me as though self defense is justifiable.

Intent in general is a huge part of morality, I think it is fitting that it is necessary as well to make physical or mental self defense justifiable.

What do you think?

In my last post I used the self defense principle as a justifcation for martial arts.But thinking about it I ran into a wall. The premise of being able to violate another’s rights if they attempt to violate yours is a silly one. At least in terms of our societies moral standards it seems.

‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’ If this is true, than how is hurting someone who is hurting you any better? If the action is immoral to hurt another wouldn’t the fact of the person attacking you equate to that of you defending yourself. The most I feel I can say is that self defense is fitting, as the attacker gets what they attempt to have given.

Two wrongs, two victims.

I’m curious as to how you, my readers, feel about this? Is it ok to hurt another in order to defend yourself? If so how would you justify it, or rather how is it unjustifiable?

What do you think?