A few things i've been wondering.

[wolven7]

Danny Elfman - [Ode To Joy (A Clockwork Orange)]--- So, i started this, in metaphysics and will write it, here, maybe go further, maybe not. Here, eat this:

Philosoph[olog]y: The subject is entitled "The Love of Wisdom." As Pirsig said, however, we are not loving Wisdom, for the sake of loving it, we are loving it, vicariously, through the study of those who loved it. Every day we are made to study (I am made to study, anyway) the works of those who have gone before, ostensibly in the noble search for meaning, Truth (If that capital "t" can be yet given), and out of the Love of Wisdom. (Deadsy - [Flowing Glower]). Why them first? {Why must we study them, before we make our own decisions, and postulations?} Our fucking First Causes tell us that it had to Start somewhere. Did that starting point have something to look Back upon? No. (The rest of this is new.) So why are we, in the supposed Philosophic community made to study the works of others, before trying our own?

We read, and then we write. We observe, then we draw. We study that which came Before, supposedly so that we won't make Mistakes, but what if we can teach mistakes, without moulding the minds of those who would make them. (Sneaker Pimps& Portishead - [Water]). We can go towards things, without shoving our meddling fingers into the minds of the newly working. Yes? I would think so. I came up with my Own philosophies, through living, and over-hearing, and piecing the world together from what i knew, and what I thought, about what I heard. Not taking the thoughts of others and sieving through them. Not like this. I'm regurgitating the works of A.J. Ayer, and Peter van godsdamned Inwagen, with whom i strongly disagree. And i can't even pose my own views in class. I have to tweak. I have to twist. And then i have to put the name of an accredited philosopher, next to it. (Voltaire - [God Thinks]). And it has to be someone like Spinoza, or Leibniz, because they probably haven't heard of Heraclitus, and if they have, they think he's a moron, and unrefined, and i'm near Dead sure they think Pirsig was a crackpot. So, when i want to put a view out, i have to make with the-- most recently-- Spinozan-Twist. And i fucking hate that dance.

I'm tired of being a philosophologer. If i wanted to read everyone else, and make notes in their margins, i'd have been an art critic, or a literary reviewer. Not saying that these are unworthy professions, simply that they are more suited to that part of my mind. (Tori Amos - [Strange]). I want to come up with my own views, and Then find the people who have said similar things, down through the years. I want to be a Philosopher, damnit. Wisdom's Love, of its own sake. It's how i started, on this path, and it's how i will continue, and the things i will argue, until the day i die. I refuse to write my papers, from someone else's perspective. It's My fucking paper. MINE. So sod off.

I got a "B" on my godsdamned Objective Truth paper. (Voltaire - [When You're Evil]). A "B." And she said that i could have been more clear. I could have. I did it the night before. But some of her points called my entire argument ito question, which raises My question: If you don't like the argument, why not say so? You obviously don't like the main premise. Feh. She said i cold have used some more examples, and a little more clarity, which, admittedly, is something with which i have a problem. I don't always remember that the people reading my paper don't know what i'm talking about. And that's hard to remind myself, mid-paper. And i hate writing for teachers with the assumed intelligences of third-graders. I'll write for a third grader, all day long, after teaching them terms, and how to use them. Just like i fucking learned Legal terms.

Soul Coughing - [Circles]--- So that's my main gripe, there. Last thing, before i book, though: Why, when i say that i'm "okish," do people think that that's bad? That is a mid-level state of being, and, while a made-up word, a perfectly valid vehicle for the conveyance of a feeling. Yes? Yes. So, when i say "okish," it means that i could go either way, good or bad, but that i've had a fairly balanced day of nothing great, nothing terrible, but probably a little annoying, and a little fun. Please make a note of it.

I'm going to head out, and shit. Later.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

amen.

then you are not tired of being a philosopher, you are tired of being a philosophy student. i say: here, here! and may you show them a thing or two when they finally get their heads out of their asses.

--JMDC

[(Anonymous)]

well, I must say that only the really boring philosophy students actually get off on simply reading the thoughts of others and then regurgitating them. At the same time, can you honestly tell me that from the study of all of those people, even when they were lame, stupid, obtuse, dense, arrogant, etc., you didn't get some new idea from each of them. Even when you read Descartes, took it outside, soaked it with kerosine, and then burnt it...(yes we all do that at some point)...didn't your philosophy subtly change in a way because by reading his ultimate foray into egotism, you realized something about yourself and the world around you, even through disagreeing with his meditations? Every philosopher you disagree with brings you just that much closer to your own subjective truth. that's the dialectic, and therein lies its value. People who just read philosophy to say: "wow that guy was smart"...haven't gotten jack shit out of their studies, it's only when you read that philosopher, and then decide how what he believes fits into (or doesn't fit) your personal philosophy that you get anything out of historical philosophy. If you simply want to think about the world around you without being influenced by other philosophers, go for it, be a nihilist, see how far it gets you, because that isn't what's gotten you this far. Philosophy teachers are split about fifty/fifty with snake oil salesmen and sages, Epictetus had some things to say on that front that were pretty convincing. How can you claim to teach philosophy when you yourself don't even understand that philosophy isn't something to be taught, but something to be lived? The enlightenment kind of got us away from that little point I think, Wittgenstein and Ayer, and yes even Spinoza seemed to be looking at philosophy as more of a puzzle than a lifestyle, maybe that's why modern philosophy has become so goddamn obnoxious, and I think that's why Pirsig wrote his Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, we've lost track of quality in our lofty syllogisms and impervious logic. We've forgotten what philosophy was trying to do in the first place. Maybe you should keep your tuition next semester and buy a motorcycle, hell I wouldn't blame you,
-Patrick

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Patrick, i believe that our problem, and i think i've noted it before, is that we're saying the same things, using different words. No, it can't be Taught, only Shown, and then Found. You Guide toward Philosophy. You can't Teach it. You teach Philosophology. And yes we get things out of it, but that should come After you find your own Base. make the Choice, Get a window to look through, Then look at others' windows, from it, then Jump out of it, if you get me.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I'll never tire of being a philosopher, of the True (Read "Original") sense. I Love Wisdom/Knowledge. 'S why Sophia was my Favourite Roman goddess. I dislike being a Philosophologer in training. As to the latter: We can only hope. And i doubt they'll listen to me. No one is ever listened to, in their own life-time, these days. Faked Death, here i come...

glad to see we're on the same page

[(Anonymous)]

well, I agree with you whole heartedly what I'm saying is though that what you're saying is similar to what Spinoza said. Perhaps it would be better if you wrote an account of your ontology...that'd clear alot up. So I believe that you said in an earlier livejournal that you wanted people to ask you anything and you'd respond truthfully. Well...describe your personal philosophy, damnit. You see, you always just give out little tidbits, and never want to just lay all your chips out on the table, it's really annoying. also, have had a recurring dream the every night since monday involving you and a bunch of other people, the only problem is I keep forgetting it when I wake up...frustrating frustrating.
I do see your point about you being more a heraclitean...although you are aware that that is a rather dubious title, (remember Cratylus) but in any case, palintropos harmoniae seems to be your mantra. And in many ways I agree. I think the reason people don't tend to be big fans of Heraclitus is that he was a little too prone to grandiose statements which sounded pretty, and arguably were very deep, yet tended to be prone to misintrepretation, that's what you're fighting, that and you go to a school with a philosophy dept. which seems to be concerned only with what's new and shiny. They find a new philosopher and they go: "ooh" "ah" and thats the end of it. Nothing before the enlightenment can really be regarded as important because those guys weren't enlightened right...everything they said was founded on "foundations set in sand"...to quote the grand poobah of enlightened bullshit. Little tip about faking your death, if possible, use one of your army of doppelgangers....it'll make it more convincing..ethical schmethical...it worked for jesus!...and now I'm going to hell....ah well.
-Patrick

Re: glad to see we're on the same page

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Had a longer rant, here. Suffice it to say that All things are True, Even that which is Not True, is true to someone. So... Yeah. Perceived, processed, spouted, imperfect.

One little issue...

[karishi.livejournal.com]

The one problem I see with the "you get something out of those asses" argument is that if you take the time to look, as you must take the time to look at philosophy, at another venture such as nature, or art, or martial arts rhythmic gymnastics, you get the same amount out of that to assimilate into your structure of being.
Because you are being. If you only regurgitate, you aren't really being that much, just as if you just say "ooh, pretty colors" at a sunset or "aw man, it's raining, now we can't play ball" at a rainstorm you get much less out of it.
As for the okish, it sounds both like "almost okay," which sounds bad, and "almost not okay," which sounds worse.
But whatever. "My words mean precisely what I want them to mean." -H.D.

Re: One little issue...

[(Anonymous)]

indeed there is always something more to be had from an experience. however, sometimes the idea is not to look deeply, sometimes the true extent of the experience is "aww its raining now we can't play ball." i'm all for looking for deeper meanings and getting more out of my experiences and learning from others who have come before me and who are around me, but there are times when just the base experience is what was intended. which is why, while "okish" sounds like almost okay, the base understanding is that, coming from damien, it means neither here nor there, neither bad nor particularly good, and that's what he intends it to mean and so looking for a deeper meaning is detroying the original intent.

aww man its raining... lets go explore some graveyards!

--JMDC