dangit. i've gone and lost my identity...

I was sitting at my desk doing calculus problems, and out of the blue, i was suddenly just overwhelmed with horror at the realization that we somehow hold the power to control our own nature.

Some would say that we can't change who we are. But I must believe that we can, if I plan to accept free will as a human possibility.

we can change who we are.
and in fact we do. every conscious decision that a person makes, reshapes him into someone else.

that's terrifying...

What I find to be possibly even more disturbing is this... if who we are, is such a fragile thing that it can be radically altered so easily by a careless decision, then is who we are really anything at all?

As Batman would put it, "It's not who I am underneath, but what I do that defines me."
At the time, I was far too caught up in the epic-ness of Batman to realize the sobering truth behind this statement. It seems that as humans, (and Batman) our will is most truly the only thing that does define us.

Suddenly the awareness of my own lack of will-power crashes down on me with the force of a thousand snooze buttons being hit all at once...

dang...

"Whoever has learned that existing as the single individual is the most terrifying thing of all, will not be afraid of saying that it is the greatest." -Soren Kierkegaard

On God...'nstuff...

A critical paper on Descartes' (in my opinion, invalid) argument for the existence of God...

Objection to the Ontological Argument

The purpose of this paper is to present a critique of Descartes’ ontological argument. This argument makes the assertion that a divine being must exist, given that man has within his mind, the concept of such a being. As Descartes states in the Meditations, “I have no choice but to conclude that the mere fact of my existing and of there being in me an idea of a most perfect being, that is, God, demonstrates most evidently that God too exists” (Meditation Three, 40).

The argument may be understood as follows. God is that of which nothing more perfect can be thought, and existence is more perfect than non-existence (Meditations three, 39 and 41). Thus, a God that exists, is necessarily more perfect than a God that does not exist. It follows that if the concept of a perfect, infinite being exists in the mind of man, then it must be preceded by the actuality of God’s being (Meditations three, 39).

The problem arises with the assertion that a God that exists is more perfect than a God that does not exist. Descartes defines nothingness as ”what is at the greatest possible distance from any perfection” (Meditations three, 41). This, however, is a fallacious definition, as existence is not something which can be attributed to, or denied to a being. For example, by no means could one make the claim that there is a God who does not hold the attribute of existence. Such a statement would be self-contradictory. Thus, that which does exist cannot be said to be more, or less perfect than that which does not exist. Such things are incomparable. Since the premise that a God which exists is more perfect than a God which does not, is false, the argument given by Descartes does not provide adequate evidence for the existence of God.

The best thing ever

you know you're a philosophy nerd, if you find this comic remotely funny...
(click on it to enlarge the image to a readable size.)

a shamefully easy assignment

This is such a sad little excuse for a philosophy paper that I'm kind of ashamed to post it. But this is my first paper for the modern class. It's basically a response paper on Descartes' ever popular argument for self-existence.

A Critique of The Cogito

The purpose of this paper is to present a critique of the Cartesian argument for existence, which states “I am, I exist is necessarily true every time I utter it or conceive it in my mind” (Meditation Two, 30). In his Meditations On First Philosophy, Descartes offers this argument for self-existence, that the very act of contemplating one’s own existence, is itself proof of that existence, or in its better known phrasing, “I think, therefore I am” (Meditation Two, 30).

This argument has several plausible fallacies, but the particular one that I will consider here is the fallacy of begging the question, or circular reasoning. In an argument that is begging the question, the truth value of the argument is invalidated by the fact that the conclusion is already assumed within the premise. The premise of the Cogito argument is the “I think” statement. However, this statement can only be valid if the argument’s conclusion is assumed to be true. For a being to have the property of thinking, it must first have the property of existence. This is a self-evident truth which seems to invalidate Descartes’ argument. Since a statement cannot be made about a thing without implying that thing’s existence, any argument of this nature must invariably beg the question. A more complete syllogistic presentation of the Cogito argument might be “I exist, therefore I think. I think, therefore I exist. Yet this reasoning is clearly circular and does not provide a valid conclusion. Thus the Cogito is an invalid argument for self-existence.

and that's my new philosophy...

Truth?

ahh...academia... how it doth kindle the flames of imagination...

This semester I'm taking two philosophy classes, History of Modern Philosophy, and Existentialism. Both of these should prove to be incredibly fun and enriching. Frankly, after a year studying at CIU with Dr. Gentry, I find no intimidation whatsoever in the thought of writing papers for what might normally be considered difficult classes. ha.

I'm currently reading from Descartes, and Kierkegaard. As such, my mind has awakened from it's Christmas dormancy... So I must write, lest my brain explode. Forgive me, as my writing method is a somewhat "stream of consciousness" style. I simply begin with a vague concept and see where it takes me. But anywhoo...

the more I understand how things are, the more I realize that I know nothing. That in fact, on a certain level, nothing can truly be known. The best mankind can achieve is an educated guess about anything. That's the paradox of non-omniscience. Unless we know everything, we most truly cannot know anything. Because every supposition rests on another supposition, which rests on another... Behind every established fact, their is always a question.

If that wasn't enough to convince you, then simply try your best to consider something simple, like a rock. You may know facts of what kind of minerals are in the rock, what the rock looks like, or maybe even what it tastes like, though why anyone would even wonder what a rock tastes like seems questionable to me... You can know any number of facts about this rock. You could make it your life's goal to study this rock, and get up every morning and look at it all day, and count the specks on it, and memorize the pattern...and even see how it tastes with other non edible objects if you want... Yet for all your laborious study of this rock, you can't know the rock itself, only facts ABOUT the rock. To truly know the rock, you would have to have every piece of information concerning the rock, and each of the atoms that forms the rock, their history, the path that the atoms' electrons take as they fly around... everything. You would then have to implement all of this knowledge into one moment of time and one single focused thought. Then, for that one moment, you would most truly know that rock.
For obvious reasons, this is humanly impossible. And thus, nothing can truly be known. So don't go around licking rocks because I can guarantee that it will probably not help your situation in any way.

So I've been thinking tonight about truth. What is it? That ultimate intellectual goal that we all strive after? God's Word? Most assuredly yes... The Bible is truth. Yet it is not the source of all truth, nor is it the extent of all truth. The truth of Scripture proceeds from God, who is himself the source of all truth, as he is the source of all that is.

I suppose that when we call something "truth" it's just a linguistic method by which we denote that something carries a particular aspect of God's nature. I think then, that any "established truth", might be considered for our purposes, to be an extension of God's being, rather than simply derivative of God's being. in other words, it is not true to say that all truth proceeds from God. It could more accurately be put, that God is truth.

Curses...

Whenever I stumble on an idea that strikes me as somewhat profound, it always leads me to something which is already well established and quite obvious. Though I suppose that fact just goes to prove my point. That which we call discovery is merely the act of us viewing God from a different angle, by which we perceive a particular facet of his being, and this we label "truth."

...Not knowing how else to end this excessively long post, I think I'll just harness the limitless power that Calvin and Hobbes quotation offers...

"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure pure reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little pratice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog!"

This entire blog... summed up in two sentences.
Brilliant.

I <3 Kierkegaard.
a lot.
forreals.

(more on that later)

Bwahaha.... Why is this so funny?

The Incoherent Musings of a Desperate Procrastinator

So I was lying on my bed today...putting off homework, when I decided that existence is movement. This idea is foundational to parkour philosophy, and now it seems to be true in a much broader sense as well. Everything moves. The universe is constantly expanding. Nothing escapes movement from a purely physical perspective. Furthermore, time itself necessitates movement, as movement necessitates time. The two are mutually codependent. If all movement suddenly ceased, time would not continue, until something somewhere moved again.

Is time necessary for existence then? Does an absolute lack of movement invariably result in nonexistence?...

Perhaps... Although I don't know if that really makes sense...

But now I have to go do homework....