Journeyman Philosopher

The following is an interesting excerpt from Nietzsche’s essay ‘On the Advantage and Disadvantage of History for Life’.

“Socrates took it to be a malady approaching insanity to imagine that one possesses a virtue when one does not possess it: and certainly such imagination is more dangerous than the opposite delusion of suffering from a shortcoming, from a vice. For through this delusion it is perhaps still possible to become better; the former imagination, however, will daily make a man or an age worse…”

This is an interesting opinion, what do you think about it? Is imagining you have some trait more detrimental than imagining you don’t have it?

I agree with him, rather under-confidence than over-confidence; our world is full of those who speak firm-footed on nothing, hence problems.

A very interesting thought entered my mind the other day while discussing the concept of scripture in the classroom. Scripture (writing), as we all take for granted, is a technological invention. It is a technological invention that permeates all of our society. In order to be able to write and to understand someone’s writing it is necessary to be trained in it, without this training our own writing becomes disjointed and nonsensical whilst the writing of others becomes alien.

Ask yourself why it is that when you read someone’s blog whom you disagree with you find it inherently more offensive than when you encounter the same opinions verbally? This has to do with more how we perceive writing than with the content of the words themselves. Plato commented that writing was in a sense ‘inhuman’ as once thoughts were transferred on paper they became separate from the individual thinking them. This separteness in essence put them on a different plain of reality than the verbal words and opinions the writing stemmed from. You can’t argue with text, all text is a statement of truth in some manner or another. If you read ‘The dog ate the cat’ you can reply ‘No it didn’t’ but this in essence does not change the composition of the text ‘The dog ate the cat’ is still ‘The dog ate the cat’ regardless of your objection to it.

To understand and cope with this concept human beings have taught reading and writing for centuries and in essence it has transformed how we see the world (as a matter of fact our world would not exist without writing). A technological invention came about that we in essence societally evolved ourselves to use efficiently. In such a manner we evolved through technology. Take this line of thought to the present day. Currently we depend on huge amounts of technology to live our daily lives, but one fundamental difference between how we have adapted ourselves to understand writing and how we have adapted ourselves to deal with technology is that in essence technology although becoming more complicated and powerful is progressively being made more human user friendly, whereas writing was a system adopted because of its advantage despite its lack of user freindliness.

With writing we adopted an efficient system of technology for the transmitance of knowledge and maintained it through generations ‘by teaching ourselves how to work with it’, however now computer technology is being adopted and used in society as an efficient means of a varied amount of things yet fundamentally ‘it is being taught how to work with us‘. There exists an important transference of power, initially human beings evolved through the technology of writing however now the technolygy of computers is evolving through us!

This I believe is very important. If artificial intelligence does ever come into existence human beings are in some ways going to be an evolutionary ancestor of their species, just as in some ways the technology of writing has become an evolutionary ancestor of ours.

Quote for thought:

“If one were to imagine a house consisting of basement, ground floor and first floor, tenanted or planned in such a way that there is, or is meant to be, difference of social class between the occupants of each floor — and if now one were to compare being a human being with such a house, then the sorry and ludicrous fact with most people is, alas, that in their own house they prefer to live in the basement. Every human being is the psycho-physical synthesis planned as spirit; this is the building, but he prefers living in the basement, that is, in the categories of sensation. Moreover, he not only prefers living in the basement — no, he loves it so much that he is indignant if anyone suggests he occupy the fine suite lying vacant for him; after all he is living in his own house!” Soon thereafter “The truer a person’s conception of despair, while still remaining in despair, and the more clearly conscious he is of being in despair, the more intense the despair”

These excerpts are found in the book ‘The Sickness unto Death’ written by Soren Kierkegaard, in which he examines the concept of despair in our person (’despair is the sickness unto death’). He makes some very interestingly relevant observations. What immediately jumps to my mind is the use of narcotics and intoxicants in our societies to cover despair, or as Kierkegaard would put it ‘living in the categories of sensation’. I find it very interestingly true, as well, that the deeper our conception of despair the more intense; hence why one must acknowledge that they are the creation of their own despair thus freeing themselves from it (although I believe Kierkegaard would disagree with me).

What do you think?

“Religion is indeed the self consciousness and self esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again.” Karl Marx

Today in my studies I came across this quote. I found it very interesting and I wanted to share it with you to see what you thought about it! The quote is found in a talk about Marx’s perception of religion and how it affects individuals and society.

Ask yourself a few questions: ‘What is he implying about religion?’ ‘What is Marx implying about individuals?’ ‘What type of religion is Marx referring to?’ I’m very interested to hear what you think.

 What do you think?

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.

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?

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?

I have come to a conclusion. Fundamentally my martial arts philosophy is based on the self defense principle, while it is framed in my ideals as a buddhist regarding strength.

I believe everyone has a right to defend their right to life if someone encroaches on that, and this is something I believe is taken as fact in today’s age. If someone attacks you for whatever reason you should be able to take the reasonable steps to protect your right to life. Of course what these reasonable steps are is a question all in itself, that which I believe many martial artists strive to eventually answer.

Take the idea of self defense idea and place it within the framework of what I view as the root of strength, that being compassion, and I believe you have a healthy discipline.

In such a manner the belief is fostered that strength is of value in light of its defensive attributes. But because strength stems indirectly from compassion you must learn and apply your martial arts style in accordance.

What does this foster? To me it fosters compassion for others in the hope of further self development. An act of violence would be incompatible with this belief, just as I believe, or rather hope, that I am incapable of a truly violent action.

On the topic of sparring, I don’t think, is an act of violence because it lacks the intent to hurt, kill, or maim. Rather it is the application of compassion through a method of wisdom with the intent to strengthen.

This is I think what I think, heh. I have never really sat down and tried to piece together my beliefs about martial arts before.

What do you think?

I am inspired to write about my personal philosophy of martial arts. I am actually surprised that I didn’t think to write about it before.

First some background: I’ve been doing various Martial Arts for the past 8 years, and my experience sits in Hapkido, Jeet Kune Do, Kyokushin Karate, and Muay Thai. Currently I train in Muay Thai as its the most enjoyable martial art I’ve experienced so far.

As well, as you most likely know, I’m a practicing buddhist. Many see contradictions in practicing martial arts such as Muay Thai and being a buddhist that believes hurting others isn’t a good thing.

So why do I train if I don’t value hurting others? Well, as I’m sure many would disagree with, I learn martial arts in order to defend myself and others and I believe this is justifiable.

When I first started Martial Arts I remember signing a contract at my Hapkido martial arts dojo. It said in a lot of words “If you are ever caught street fighting with this skill you will be banned from the studio, and may even be prosecuted for defamation of character.”

“Through compassion comes wisdom, through wisdom comes strength.” is an expression I believe in and has helped guide my martial arts practice.

For example; most look at sparring and competitive fighting like a kind of violence. What I think is important to realize, as I believe most don’t, is many martial artists hold the opinion that this process is done out of self improvement. As such you don’t fight someone with the objective to beat them up, rather you fight them in the hopes to improve yourself and them.

So what’s my philosophy? Motivated by my saying “Through compassion find wisdom, through wisdom find strength.” I always train with the intention to help others in mind.

Hmmmm, yet this leads me elsewhere. I hope to avoid a zealous rant about defending the weak, as it seems like this is quickly becoming, yet I don’t know how to pursue this article otherwise.

Hmmm, give me a day or two to think about this.