Eschatology: The Apocalypse and You

I'd like to take a quick break from the serious existential crap to talk very briefly about the end of the world.

So it's 2012 and the world is totally going to end.

Now one the one hand, that's totally awesome for me. I've recently decided (and managed to actually tell my parents) that I'm going to take some time off after graduation to "find myself." If the world ends at the end of this calendar year, I'll be smack dab in the middle of "finding myself" and will have only had to stand precariously on the edge of legitimate responsibility and adulthood. In fact, I'll be about seven months out of college, probably working a decent to crappy job, but be totally in a place where I have the time to go out with friends and read/write philosophy and do all the stuff I wish I had more time to do.

So really, the world ending in 2012 will be kind of awesome for me.

What's most terrifying though is that I think people are legitimately going to freak out this time. Not in a Harold Camping kind of way but I think it's been so hyped that we might legitimately see some terror on the streets. Anywhere from London riot style to people actually killing and stealing and martial law kind of stuff. It's just human nature, really. The world's going to end so why don't we just go to town?

"That awkward moment when you killed the 711 owner and stole all the Mountain Dew and Twinkies you could carry and then the world didn't end."

Say just for kicks that the world does end. We know that it's going to at some point so why not just suppose that it's going to be this December. What kind of apocalypse can we expect?

Zombie Apocalypse:

I love zombies. Not because they're fun to write about (yes, I am writing a zombie apocalypse novel) but because it would be easily the most interesting apocalypse to live through. Imagine being on the run from hundreds of assailants who want nothing more than to eat your flesh at any personal cost to them. It's a threat that can only be stopped by trauma to the brain and a threat that spread so quickly that you suddenly find yourself one among millions who are still capable to think. Now of course in the fictional literature there's always a hero who manages to stay afloat among a storm of the undead but I think in reality it would be less entertaining. Sure, you'd have the few psychopaths who would have no trouble pulling a trigger against an undead girlfriend or neighbor or whoever but then you'd have every other normal, level-headed person who would try to hold desperately onto the idea that their loved ones could be cured and probably get eaten in the process. They would hesitate at the crucial moment of self defense and die an ugly and violent death. These people are the reason that zombie literature is so interesting--why there's always the hero standing against the odds: because 9 times out of 10, someone hesitates and gets bitten. This results in massive hordes of flesh eating zombies and sudden halt to production and social structure. It not only destroys our social environment as we know it but makes for one of the most Hobbesian kind of environments we can imagine. What would you do? Head to the gun store? Look for loved ones? Kill yourself? You just can't know until you're there. I like to think that the human instinct for self-preservation always kicks in but you never know... with everyone around you dying I'm sure it's easy for the despair to take a toll for the worst.

And a zombie apocalypse is TOTALLY possible because of the way biowarfare is going and all of us zombie fiction writers have found a plausible way for this reality to exist.

Religious Rapture:

Ever picked up the New Testament? Ever read the book of Revelations? It's fascinating stuff. I mean really. It's easily the most interesting book in the Bible since it's really the only one that predicts what's to come when the world ends. Among other things it involves a select few being taken up into the loving arms of God and the rest of us being subjected to burning as four angry dudes ride across the sky giving us the old what-for. Assuming you/I/we chose the wrong religion or are just unlucky enough to not be one of the predestined (see: Calvinism), we're probably going to end up burning a horrible, firey death while collecting groceries and then spending the rest of eternity in hell. Sounds pretty awful doesn't it? I mean, think about it. Zombies you can kill if you've got a blunt object and the will power. The four horsement of the apocalypse? Hah! Angels wielding spears and crap? Hah! Demons? Hah! (Though they seem to the only ones allergic to holy water and crosses.) You're not only struggling internally with the existential realization that there is in fact a God who has been watching you sin for your entire life, but you're up against an immortal and unearthly being who is raining a merciless fire on your heretical behind. It's not a good feeling, I can imagine.

This of course means that there's a heaven and those of us who are chosen are going to be watching the chaos from whatever vantage point they are granted thinking either A) "Thank God (lol) I went to church every Sunday or B) "Oh no those poor people... but thank God I went to Church every Sunday. I mean seriously how bad are they going to feel? It's going to be a lot of "I told you so's" and a plague of smugness. Either way, it's going to confirm a lot of things people have staked their entire lives believing either right or wrong and honestly, make philosophy complete irrelevant because all moral and metaphysical questions will be answerable by the now very accessible creator.

Natural Disasters:

Here I'm thinking about disasters a la the movie "2012" or "The Day After Tomorrow." Think earthquakes and tsunamis and a second Ice Age. For whatever reason science cares to come up with, the Earth is going insane and things are just falling apart. Blame it on the core or the poles or some garbage like global warming, the earth is fighting back against all of our abuse and it's not taking any prisoners. Sure we can build arks and maybe find refuge in a now-hospitable African continent, but a whole lot of people are going to die. I'm talking billions of people. I'm thinking like 6 billion people are going to die because much like "2012," only the rich will be able to afford the technology that will keep them safe. On the one hand I find this understandable but on the other I don't like it because money doesn't guarantee genetic integrity and I don't think the rich are necessarily those we want repopulating the world.

Regardless, you're going to find yourself chilling one day doing whatever it is that you're doing, whether it's driving to work or sleeping or using the toilet and the earth is suddenly going to open up and swallow you. Seriously. That's it. No need for elaboration. You'll just be doing stuff and then the next moment you're dead. Sucks, right? Hopefully this is part of the previous scenario (religious rapture) and you'll be quickly taken up into the arms of a creator. At the very least you'll be hoping (rather loudly and erratically) that he exists and that being swallowed up by the earth or sea isn't too terribly painful. Hopefully if you're anything like John Cusack you'll be able to survive and see a new society built in the wake of whatever survivors exist after the clouds part.

Cosmic Explosion:

In a similar yet not unrelated vein we have something slightly more simplistic: the sun blowing up. Now astronomers are well aware that stars are just big balls of gas that are likely to give at some point and our star (the Sun) is no different. Apparently at some point our Sun, in similar fashion to other stars, is going to just... blow up. Basically, it's going to swallow everything up until Jupiter or whatever and that means we're all screwed. There's not a lot to it other than the fact that we're all done for. I can imagine people are going to flip and start killing each other or hugging their loved ones and praying to God but we are basically all screwed. And there won't be anything left because the explosion will vaporize Earth. Hopefully we will figure out how to travel to another galaxy or some crap like that before then because if not, we're all done for.

Nuclear Winter:

Anyone who reads the news (for the record, I don't) knows that we're constantly on the brink of global conflict. Anyone who plays Call of Duty knows we're just a terrorist away from nuclear winter which only YOU can stop. In reality though, I can see international politics getting out of hand to the point where those with nuclear weapons are going to have their sweaty hands trembling over blinking red buttons Skyping with each other yelling "I'll do it! I swear to God I'll do it!"

And then someone will. Some idiot is going to say screw it and push the button and then everyone will start launching their stuff because what else do we have to lose? Might as well take them to Hell with us. The aftermath is going to be a mostly scorched earth with minimal surivors yet not complete decimation. I'm thinking something like Fallout. There's going to be a lot of people left fighting for supplies and their lives while some semblance of government tries to take a hold, yet the one thing everyone is going to have to worry about is food and water which will all be completely irradiated. Speaking of irradiated, things are going to get nutty. I'm talking mutations people: the next level in evolution. People, animals, plants... things are going to start changing and adapting Darwin-style to the deadly environment in which we now have to live in. Look at Chernobyl--that place won't be inhabitable for another five hundred years at the very earliest. It probably won't be devoid of radiation for at least another thousand or more. Some people on the internet are talking about 50,000 years. Either way, those of us who are left after the idiot politicians start launching nukes are going to have to get used to the whole radiation thing. Those who don't die will start to change and those who don't change will die. Living in this world will be a lot like the zombie apocalypse--fighting for resources in a world where production has halted and little to no government to speak of--only now instead of the more killable zombies you have the unkillable radiation to deal with.

Social Meltdown:

Okay so say for whatever reason we're able to restrain ourselves and we don't launch a crap-ton of nuclear missiles into to each other. Awesome. That's for the best. But racism, xenophobia, and class tensions are only going to increase and worsen as time goes on. Discomfort and discontent with governemnts and people's opinions about how life should be lived are only going to make things worse. We're going to have a fanatic or some like that stir up his people into taking action against their government. This will cause copycat movements which will cause mass anarchy and the proliferation of whatever kind of ideals they're pushing. Or... one particular group will just take control like the Nazis and form a society like in 1984--a massive Big Brother society in which freedom is a forbidden word and we just do as we're told.

Either that or somehow we will just devolve into a Hobbesian existence once one of the aforementioned situations has occurred. Social meltdown will likely somehow be a facet of the end of the world no matter how you slice it.

Aliens:

Okay so say the Earth doesn't blow up or we don't blow ourselves up or whatever... there are billions of stars, many just like ours. So... there must be stars with planets around them who have had similar abilities to develop life. Let's not get religious or whatever and I know that statistically speaking the conditions for developing life happening on another planet are astronomically (lol) small but say it happens. Say for example this society evolves thirty times as rapidly as we do (because their conditions for evolution were better) and they develop long-distance space travel. Say they also hate foreigners. They're probably going to come over here and mess us up. If they don't just have an innate hatred for anything that thinks themselves as advanced as the alien race, they'll certainly see our corruption and sinful ways and think that we're better off dead anyway. Maybe they'll be gracious enough to enslave us or keep an elect few of us alive. Sounds a little like many people's conception of the Rapture. Anyway, aliens invading and killing us all is totally possible. Look at a crappy movie like "Skyline." They come, they conquer with little interference, and we are just plain screwed. You never know.

So now you know. Whatever happens at the end of this year, you'll hopefully be slightly more prepared or at the very least aware. Live this year the best that you can and enjoy it like it's your last.

On Morality and Nietzsche

So... Here is where I talk about why I don't like Nietzsche. It's an adamant dislike, actually which is hopefully founded in sound reason. As I always say, the best way to avoid group think is to encourage disagreement and dissension. Thus, if you have issue, speak up.

Oh and please excuse my very topical treatment of Nietzsche and his "philosophy." After all, I only care enough to have read him to the extent I can write a proper essay of him and hopefully respond to his key arguments, but if I have missed something that would provide crucial insight, please, again, let me know.

First, the part that I can understand. The distinction between Master and Slave morality seems relatively intuitive. I'm not saying it's right, but I think its intuitive as the basis for my disagreement. For those who don't know, Master morality is the championing of natural strength, of wealth, and of power and the distaste of weakness and the like. Slave morality is born of ressentiment which is French for resentment but isn't necessarily being used in the same fashion. Ressentiment in this manner means building a moral code and value system based on a frustration towards an authority you don't respect. Thus we can see where we get the term slave morality (because it comes from the "slaves"). Slave morality is characterized by Nietzsche as self-denying the pleasures of life such as money, sex, and the like as well as adapting strong opposition to killing, stealing, lying etc. because those are things that the Masters do and is therefore bad because they treat us wrong.

He uses the example of lambs and birds of prey. The birds feed on the lambs and the lambs get mad and adopt a no killing policy as part of their moral code. This, Nietzsche says, is part of their ressentiment towards the birds and is not a justifiable moral... thing. Nietzsche says that the birds are just doing their bird thing and cannot be blamed for seeking to conquer and feed on the lambs. (Here, Nietzsche also is falsely attributing cognitive states to animals which I certainly don't approve of.)

Here's where I start to disagree, obviously. You can't blame someone for subjecting someone else? You can't blame the bully for beating up the nerd? You can't blame a murderer for killing? You can't blame someone for just being a general jerk? Really? Really Nietzsche?

Nietzsche adopts the argument that what is natural is right. As I was recently enlightened to, there is no arguable conceptual connection between what is natural behavior and morally correct behavior. Additionally, animals are NOT moral agents and therefore cannot make more judgements! THE LAMBS DON'T HAVE A MORAL CODE. Sorry. I digress. It seems that Nietzsche supports the Darwinian idea of might makes right and whatever behavior promotes oneself is good behavior to have. But again, these ideas in and of themselves are not necessarily moral. Again, since humans are capable of moral action, we are not on level with animals in our moral choices and thus what is necessarily natural is not necessarily moral.

Going back to slave morality: it is in this moral viewpoint that Nietzsche claims that religion is born from. He primarily attacks Christianity and, by extension, Judaism, but he really is attacking the moral framework of all religions. He says they are self-depriving and wrong because they are based upon this championing of the meek and lowly and weakness and the like which is not something that we should be okay with. My issue is that A) while that might be a possible source for morality in religion, that doesn't make it wrong. In fact, seeing injustice and forming a moral code around NOT doing that is what's right, in my opinion. B) To have a very Darwinian society is much like having an anarchist society in that no one abides by laws they feel they can physically overcome. It's a dangerous spiral.

Nietzsche wants a resurgence of Master morality which I think is dangerous to society. Moreover, he wants people to reconsider their morals. Because they might be grounded in falsehoods of slave morality, we should reconsider them. I think we should reconsider our morals for the same reason we should reconsider our beliefs about the world and other values that we hold dear. They might be grounded in false reason or misconceptions. Point is, I think instead of having a strict set of rules, we should have guidance systems that help us come up with rules as we need them. I suggest utilitarianism as just one of the many ways one can establish a frame of reference for these things. Nietzsche says utilitarianism sucks because it treats everyone as equals. REALLY? What kind of elitist is he that he can say that some people's pain or pleasure counts for more or less than other's? It's outrageous to say that one person is inherently better than another. It blows my mind.

Finally, on top of all this absurdity, Nietzsche spends a TON of time talking about why there is no truth. Mainly, he says that any proposition of so-called "truth" is just an assertions of someone's "Will to Power." That is, whoever says, "Hey I've got some truth for you," is really just saying, "Hey I want to be better than you and so here is something you should accept as truth because I said it is and I want to be better than you..." or something. This too seems outrageous for a few GLARING reasons. A) There HAS to be objective, empirical truth about the universe. It abides by laws and any positing of these laws cannot merely be an assertion of power. B) A priori truths are not necessarily false by the virtue of their coming to be. There is a definite possibility of some things being known without having to be experienced or without the need for definitive evidence.

and of course, C) HOW CAN NIETZSCHE SAY THERE IS NO TRUTH WHEN HE IS TRYING TO TELL US THERE IS NO TRUTH? By saying there is no truth, he is trying to convince us of something he believes is true. He's contradicting himself completely and entirely and it bothers me. His claim of untruth fails on so many levels. Additionally, I can't tolerate skepticism in general. Mainly epistemological skepticism because it's not practical in the slightest. It doesn't do us any good to sit around and try to think of reasons why we can't know anything because that's contradictory in itself. Descartes can get away with it because he at least makes an attempt at moving away from his starting point of complete skepticism. All Nietzsche is doing is whining in a corner saying we can't know anything while telling us what to think.

It's not okay.

More on Humans, animals, and the state of nature

This first thought kind of relates to everything I've been talking about when it comes to religion and evolution and stuff like that.

It's amazing how perfect everything works isn't it? I mean... out of all the stuff that can go wrong in the scheme of things... it's amazing how perfect everything works.

Here's a thought I had earlier:

What do dogs hear when we talk to them? I imagine it would be like someone talking to me in very fast Japanese. I have NO IDEA what they're saying. But then think about an infant. The infant makes noises, thinking it's communicating in an effective manner... but it's not. But what the infant does do is as it develops, it learns that the words it hears from its parents have meaning beyond just being sounds. That the word "chair" refers to something shaped like a chair and that if it wants to reference the chair, it should say chair. But despite hearing "chair" a million times, a dog could never absorb the word chair and learn that it should say the word chair if it wants to talk about the chair. I mean, its obvious that it doesn't have the same capacity for vocals that a human does. But still, can you imagine the cognitive function and upper-level thinking that it takes to absorb first language? We learn new languages by referencing the one we already know and so it's crazy thinking about we first make associations.

Oh i remember what I wanted to talk about..

I've been reading Rousseau almost out of genuine interest (but don't have nearly enough time on my hands) and he talks about a lot of interesting things. For example, he says that because we live in a civilized society, we feel the ever-increasing need to advance ourselves that, without society, we would never do. That there are so many illnesses and maladies that exist simply because, as creatures in society, we indulge and therefore push our bodies beyond their natural capacities. It's just really interesting to read about his state of nature.

I have a very similar view as Rousseau, I think. He talks about nature treating infants as did Sparta. That is, weak or deformed infants just die because of the demands of living in the wild. Nature would treat humans the way it treats all creatures, with a fair and crushing indifference.

He says that man in the state of nature has to be strong. That he could easily beat up civilized man, even with all of his tools because nature has crafted him to be resourceful, smart, and cunning. It's funny because beyond the natural sciences, every single thing we learn is an attempt to understand the society that has emerged from this hypothetical state of nature. Rousseau says that man has no need for reason and thus, no need for philosophy.

And without philosophy, there is no need to ponder the workings of the universe.

And thus, no need for any other discipline.

In the state of nature, man knows all he needs.

Anyway, I might post more things that he talks about that I think are interesting.

Oh and another thought I had during my terrible, awful philosophy seminar:

We spent nearly 2 and a half hours talking about whether animals have ideas and if we need to worry about the content of their ideas in order to show that they have them. On the one hand, I believe it can be argued that animals are little more than fleshy things with feelings. I believe animals can feel pain and respond to stimuli. In the vein of Hume I believe that animals have a very limited capacity for reason in that they can be trained through Pavlovian conditioning.

For example, when my Dad opens the fridge and takes out the pack of American cheese, the dogs come running because they've been conditioned that when he takes out the cheese, they will get some. They come because for whatever reason, dogs just like to eat and eat and eat and I think if you somehow had a never-ending pile of cheese, a dog might just sit there and eat it til he died.

On the other hand, you could say that the dog had the desire for cheese or that when my dad gets the cheese out, they already know they want some and now is their opportunity to grab it. This would imply that animals have desires and no matter the content of their desires, gives us some insight to proper moral treatment. Now I think it's very possible that animals can have desires. Like when it comes to playing games. Maybe dogs legitimately like fetch or tug-of-war because they have fun doing it. Maybe they only do it because it helps them work out their instinctual frustration that being a house pet surpresses. If the former, then dogs have desires to play games. If the latter, my point stands that they are little more than fleshy things with rudimentary brains.

I can't decide and frankly, I don't care. Still, it's interesting to think about.

On Animal Welfare and Politics

So Professor Light was (thankfully) absent from class today and we were left with a video on animal welfare to entertain our thoughts for a small portion of the class period. Probably since it would be unthinkable to allow us to go unstimulated for two whole weeks.

Either way, it was an interesting video. But really, it just pissed me off. Not because of animal cruelty, but because of the politics involved behind the whole thing.

Now, it's not that animal cruelty doesn't bother me.... in fact... let's do this. We can accept the following as true:
A) Animals are sentient beings that feel pain and potentially slightly more complex feelings such as fear and being to know if they're separated from family.
B) There is a ton of science to back this up.
C) Good, peer-reviewed science is legitimate grounds for legislation.
D) As moral agents, humans with the knowledge of A and B have, at the very least, the ability to recognize animal suffering in factory farms.

Factory farming is horrible and unnatural and as a meat-eater, I dislike supporting the organization. In fact, I plan to be more conscientious about buying products and plan to look out for animal products market as free-range or humanely raised. In the video we were even shown how in the modern day, traditional animal husbandry can be not only humane, but just as profitable.

Now, if we can accept these things (and please tell me if you can't), we need to look at why we're actually dealing with the issue.

Agribusiness (which is actually a word, surprisingly enough) is huge. Massive. Pervasive. It has the same lobbying power as the tobacco, alcohol, and firearms industry and we can all attest to the power they have. The issue is that because the agribusiness lobby has such intense power to influence senators and congressmen from farming states as well as any other legislators, nothing gets passed. The legislation as it stands is muddy and convoluted in the way that while many common animals are protected under anti-animal abuse laws, animals under the domain of factory farms are not. It's appalling how Europe has already passed dozens of laws for the humane treatment of farmed animals and yet we lag nearly 50 years behind.

The thing is, nothing can get passed because of the greed in the legislative body. In true Orwellian style, we are being subjugated and told what to believe and not say by a totalitarian state. The worse thing is that it's not even the state that's doing this. The corporations are so powerful that they've pushed the government aside and are not only feeding us with their product, but with the power they have over how this country runs. Again, it's not just the agribusinesses. You hear all the time about how perfectly sensible bills that could really help people are stricken down by special interest groups and heavily pressured subcommittees of Congress because the vote of our legislators, the people we vote for, are up for sale.

I know it's a very Mr. Smith Goes to Washington kind of thing in that it's truly idealistic to think that lobbyists, the people who are only supposed to be providing congressmen with legitimate information, should and could never hold real power over our congressmen, but the fact of the matter is that they do.

Animals in factory farms do suffer and that's not really debatable. I know it's tough to watch PETA propaganda and it's even easier to push it out of your mind as isolated cases. But I feel like the fact that every PETA documentary has new footage of animals squeezed into tight cages is enough to say that maybe this stuff is really happening.

I'm not a vegetarian by any sense and I certainly don't plan to be. I don't think we have a moral obligation to be vegetarian, but I don't believe we have to harvest animals in a way that makes them suffer more than necessary just to increase productivity and expand profits. Natural animal husbandry in such a way that is profitable to small farmers would increase competition and drive down the prices of animal products and hopefully alleviate the suffering of farmed animals. While this still means we bring animals into this world to kill them, at least they don't have to suffer along the way.

I just don't think it's possible though until we have someone in the White House that is not afraid to take a stand against Congress. We also need a total flush of Congress while we are at it. Get some young, educated, idealistic Senators and Representatives in there and get some stuff done. Again, I support a totalitarian state as long as it is one that uses ultimate power and subjugation FOR all people instead of against them. I support the state dismantling factory farms and agribusinesses so we can have smaller, more humane farms. It would probably solve a lot of problems as long it was run by a totalitarian dictator that isn't trying to kill a certain kind of people or conquer the world and instead is motivated by a desire to help everyone at the same time. I think it's very possible.

Again, always open to objections.

On Free Will

To continue my brief series of philosophical discussions, I'm talking today about the notion of free will. I don't think I'll actually be positing any sort of final claim on the issue but I'll surely be exploring what is an interesting perspective.

This came up when we were discussing... Spinoza? Or... Leibniz? Err... well doesn't matter. I thought it was an interesting notion and I want to share.

We go through our lives believing that we are in full control of everything we do. We choose when to wake up, what to eat, whether or not we want to go to class or work. We make "choices" every day. We believe that we have a personality that makes us a unique snowflake among the six billion people that live on the earth.

But consider this: maybe we have zero free choice. Maybe we make no choices that are of our own accord.

Think about this. Say we have a personality. Say it is the governing force behind everything we do. Perhaps it is the genetic rule book that serves as the guidelines for all we do. I chose to wake up 11am today. According to my genetic rule book, I was predisposed to get up at that time. The way I act towards people and what I do in my free time, what I believe and think about, it's all pre-determined. There is nothing I do and nothing about me that is in my control. Say I choose to get up at 9am instead and I choose to go running outside for the first time in my life. Free choice, right? Wrong. The only reason I was able to break from routine is because I recognized a genetically and personality-driven pattern and according to that pattern, deviation is possible only when I recognize it. Say I walk a certain way on my way back from the Gym. As I'm walking, I realize that I always take this path and I suddenly veer off on a different one. The only reason I took the different path was because I recognized that I always take a certain one and purposefully deviated. Even the deviations in the pattern are pre-determined.

Another interesting look at free will is given to us by social psychology. A radically conservative, hardcore social psychologist would say we have no personality. He would say that every moment of the day we are in a situation which molds the choices we make. Naturally, situations can only provide us a certain few options that we can take and so we are always confined within the situation. The choices we make in the situation are based on how we view ourselves inside of the situation. We are in desperate need to constantly fulfill the human desires for social and self-acceptance and thus, the choices we make in a situation are always geared towards those needs.

Now you could say that our personality factors in a little to the decisions made in situations and of course our personality drives us to the situations we find ourselves in... but that only lends credence to the first postulation I brought up. But still, I find it crazy that we are completely governed by the situations we find ourselves in. My main interest in psychology is social psychology, mainly in social cognition and mob mentality. I just find it interesting how the goals and mentality of the group always, always supersede the mentality of the individual.

So what does it mean to be human? To be the moral agents of the world? To be able to held morally accountable for our actions which we can make in a rational and autonomous way? Yes. Absolutely.

The question is, while we are morally accountable for everything we do, right or wrong, are we making these choices from true free will? Or are we governed by something we cannot control?

On Evolution

First of all, I just watched some Boston Legal with my Dad. As far as legitimate dromedies (thats, dramatic comedy) go, it's THE best written I've ever seen. It's got legitimate legal practice mixed with humor and serious intelligence and hits hard on actual issues. But I noticed a few things about the lawyering portrayed on the show. Mainly that the lawyers exhibit strong skills reflecting deep psychological knowledge, acting skill, and philosophical backgrounds. They know how people function, know how to lie or speak in such a way that is convincing, and in their most compelling arguments don't cite complicated legal code, but ask deep, probing questions about humanity. In the last one, Alan Shore asked what it means to be a human. What kind of question is more philosophical than that? And tell me, what academic field involves the detailed study of morality, ethics, and logic? Philosophy!

So what would be the BEST preparatory undergraduate study for a rising lawyer? PHILOSOPHY, PSYCHOLOGY, AND THEATER! What Am I doing? haha. See, I have a plan. I've had a plan all along.

Onto the topic at hand.

I'm going to go into an involved discussion about evolution or creation. I am a Christian but I am also a firm believer in evolution. Thus, I believe in intelligent design. That is, an evolutionary process that was set in motion according to the will and omniscience of a creator with a plan. I believe that in my view, all of science is compatible with religion.

Again, that's not the point. I'm going to set aside my beliefs (sort of) and outline the mythology that both camps of the debate subscribe to.

First, creation. Now, I have to admit... Creation, to the non-believer, sounds far-fetched. If you have no concept of the power of a omnipotent being, then I can imagine how crazy it sounds. We start off with a vacuous abyss. Then, God molds the earth. It happens, as I assume, suddenly. Genesis simply says, "in the beginning." I assuming it is much like the ancient Egyptians say, that is, out of an infinite ocean came Atun and he created all that is (more or less). Specifically, Genesis says "the earth was without form and void" so I imagine this is the case. "Darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." See the similarity?

In a talk I gave a while ago, I mentioned the word eschatology and said in passing that many religions hold the similar mythologies as Christianity. Maybe some will say, "No Dylan, that's absurd." But it's true. If you read ancient creation stories and ancient myths about the end of times, you'll see that they all sounds incredibly alike. I say that these were passed down by the will of someone much greater than I with a plan greater than I can imagine. I say that there is truth in all these stories because they were inspired by a divine entity.

Anyway, So God says let there be light and there is night and day and then he creates Heaven, land, plants, seasons (except in places like Florida and the arctic lololol), stars, birds, whales, animals, and man. He made Adam and Eve and the rest is history. We know that Adam and Eve were kicked out (for lack of a better phrase) from Paradise and then we have humans.

Now again, I believe this story for the most part. There are certainly parts I find hard to believe. Most importantly, I know that we are here through a plan greater than our own. I don't need to get into what I do/don't believe/understand and why because that's not the case. But it's easy to see how one might not believe this stuff. It's a lot to get around their heads. But as I know it, faith opens many doors, even unto knowledge.

So... the other side is EVOLUTION. Dun dun dunnnnnnn... Here's how the story goes.

One day there was a burning hot singularity sitting in the middle of a vacuous black abyss. Before that there was possibly another universe--who knows. Then, the thing just up and exploded. Maybe it got too hot or maybe spun too fast--who knows. It erupted and sent crap flying everywhere and because of what we know about matter and possibly dark matter (which as Mr. Gregorio puts it, "explains a lot of stuff we can't otherwise explain), things started clumping

Actually, let me go back to that for a second. For those who completely discount Creation because "evolution makes so much more empirical and scientific sense," can we talk about "dark matter?" An invisible undetectable thing that only exists because it satisfies a HUGE variable in the equation? Because its the only thing that explains how the universe can spin without flying apart? Hahaha... you guys...

Anyway, so stuff starts clumping together (and I sincerely apologize for any hardcore scientists who would hang me for paraphrasing this in such a cavalier way) and stars form from gas that collects which came out of the large, dense floating ball of everything. Around these burning balls of gas clump other matter which clumped from other matter. So we now, at this point, have burning balls of gas with matter spinning around them. One of these happens to be in the Milky Way galaxy in our very own solar system which doesnt have a name. One of these spinning balls of matter is EARTH! Ta-da! But wait, at this point, Earth is a giant ball of FIRE! Ahh! (sorry I'm being incredibly insensitive to this.) So it's burning and it's burning and then it stops burning and... well gosh I don't remember how we got from A to C on this one (Sorry Gregorio) but somehow the earth stops burning and the atmosphere settles and then we have WATER! Then somehow we have PLANTS! Ta-da!

Now comes the best part. So we have this semi-new semi-volatile earth and it's probably raining a lot and there are some trees (probably palm trees) and a ton of water...

oh wait I forgot! An asteroid or something hits the earth and breaks off some stuff and forms the MOON!

Anyway, so it's raining and crap and just like a sci-fi movie where an asteroid hits and is full of aliens, an asteroid hits the young earth and I guess it's full of CELLS! Not just any cells... but SINGLE CELLS. I mean, SINGLE-CELLED ORGANISMS... I guess. Anyway, somehow these single celled organisms ride this asteroid through the volatile atmosphere and land in the water. They stew for a hundred years or something or there's a lightning strike and they start multiplying and form fish. And the fish grow legs and form the TYRANNOSAURUS REX. But some grow legs and form other things like lions and tigers and bears (oh my!) and likely monkeys. But not in that order. Anyways, the T-rex dies and then I guess Pangaea breaks apart at some point and then monkeys turn into humans somewhere in Africa and they migrate and there's an ice age blah blah blah and then they build New York City!

Sorry. Really, I'm sorry that wasn't fair. I shouldn't trivialize these well-thought out theories that may be based on a modicum of science. I mean it makes some sense to theorize based on old stuff we found but that's like saying it's going to rain today only based on the fact that it rained Saturday of last week (which it didn't). That's also the fundamental problem with the scientific theory, empiricism, and inductive reasoning in general... Making PREDICTIONS based on observations of things that happened in the past. Sure, you can be 99% certain sometimes and maybe even 100% but there's no rational reason to think that the world won't flip upside down the next time. Not the point.

I just think that the theory of evolution, while very plausible, has some holes in it. Additionally, you have to admit, that it sounds a little crazy (especially when I talk about it). Sure, an arbitrary creation is no less crazy sounding, but at least Creation covers all the plot holes.

I'm not telling anyone what to believe. I'm just saying that on their own, these stories have their faults. But an omniscient, omnipotent being who set these events in motion... now that's something I can sink my rational teeth in to.

And if I'm wrong, as always, I'm happy to talk about it. Convince me wrong, please. I'll happily admit it.

Animalistic Musings

Three in one day?!

Well... I already told my professor I wasn't going to class (see previous post) and thus I am taking a pity day for myself to think. Plus, he said if I just kept up with the reading, I'll be fine. And thus, I am reading the book and will just go to class from now on (seeing as how there will be zero conflicts in the future).

Anyway, I wouldn't be much of a philosophy student if I didn't posit some questions every now and then.

I would like to go back to something I talk about a while ago concerning human evolution and our place on the earth, in the universe, etc. What with all that's going on with the theater fiasco it makes me think a lot about why we do these things, why I feel the way I do, and about life in general. If you think about how a lion carries out his day, he eats, sleeps, defecates, and that's pretty much the extent of it. Instinctively, lions know how to hunt and how to take care of their young. What intrigues me is how lions perceive their environment. They obviously recognize a particular patch of land as their own and recognize a certain shape of animal that they like to eat. They have some degree of learning. That brings me to an interesting quote we read in Hume about how animals do in fact have some sort of elementary reasoning abilities. Typically, when we say, "What's the difference between animals and humans?" we say, "the ability to reason." Personally, I don't think we have any rational ability to say that's true. Animals certainly reason and biological psychologists and behavioral psychologists can tell you that their behavior can certainly adapt and change.

I guess the point that I'm trying to make thus far is that animals and humans, on the most basic levels, are not so different. We have basic adaptation and reasoning skills and we have a short degree of instinctual skills, what we might otherwise call a "gut reaction." Our brains are not even so different since scientists are able to identify pleasure and pain receptors in the brains of rats, an animal far removed from the primate line. It could certainly be reasoned that humans have some sort of basic relation and similarities to all mammals. In some ways, all animals (but mostly mammals).

Where the differences in humans lie is our ability to utilize our higher brain functions. That is, our ability for abstract reasoning, to make complicated choices, and complicated emotions like love, jealously, remorse, and so on. From a purely biological perspective (which I admit I'm no expert), humans, by reason, must have SOME extra glands or synapses that cause different hormones to flow in our brains, causing these feelings of love and genuine emotion. What else could explain the reason that we can build civilizations and learn and feel complex things? Sure, you could argue that lions can't build things because they don't have thumbs. In fact, you could say that the only reason humans, at whatever point in history, ascended to greatness because of our thumbs--that is, our ability to pick things up. And maybe that's true. But then I must posit the ultimate question: Why? Why do we have thumbs? Accident? You would say "evolution" but now we're just arguing semantics. I do believe in a kind of evolution but I don't believe in astronomical chances. If I did, I would play the lottery more often since you have a better chance of winning that then evolving into a creature with thumbs.

So maybe thumbs is the reason humans evolved to having success in the primitive world and maybe that's the reason human brains have evolved to such a level such as being able to love another human unconditionally. Maybe when the first batch of humans that had thumbs conquered the non-thumbed batch, they were able to flourish and write epic poetry and worship gods. They were able to sing and to love. I suppose that's possible. But then by reason, you would say that all animals should be able to choreograph elaborate dance numbers and solve complicated ethical dilemmas. I mean, there are a lot of species on this planet that are as old as us, that have been evolving with us. If all brains develop at a constant and predictable rate (which I don't know if they do), then theoretically we shouldn't be too much farther ahead of anyone else. Unless someone's ancestor ate the only genius lion.

It can be said that from abstract thinking, all knowledge is born.

We would know nothing unless someone did some exploring or hypothesizing. No math, no reading, no engineering, no nothing. And in this vein, all knowledge started off as PHILOSOPHY.

So there.

Anyways, it still perplexes me to think about the differences between us and the rest of living creatures. Why are we designed the way we are? Through endless mistakes made by mother nature we have two eyes positioned above a nose and a mouth in front of our heads which is settled on a spinal column which runs the length of our back which holds complicated nerve systems that allows us to move our appendages. Again, I don't believe in that kind of luck. That's like throwing a bowling ball into a dark china shop and truly believing you won't break something. I'm not saying I don't think it happened, I'm just saying it stands to my reason that it was guided by someone/something that knows a lot better than we do.

And thus we have the modern human that emerges a long, long time ago. We have the Greeks who posited philosophical theories on math, astronomy, physics, and life. We have the Egyptians that made amazing and complicated structures. There's also the Mesopotamian civilization that contains the earliest recorded religion. (That obviously was NOT in chronological order.) It just amazes me how all of a sudden there is a species on the earth that is flourishing at an exponential rate and all the while developing its knowledge of the known world and most importantly, its self-awareness and even more amazingly, still developing its paradigm of its role in the universe.

Let us think for a minute about how language was born. Obviously language means nothing without more than one person. Even in the most comical fashion, how did one caveman start talking to another caveman in such a way that they both understood? Even for one to draw pictures that made sense to the other involved the first one processing in his primitive mind the idea of a picture being a symbol for something else. And in the second one, he had to associate that picture and connect the symbol and determine the meaning all on his own. Then they both agreed on a sound to make that would tie it all together? We see an apple and we immediately hear the word apple and see in our heads maybe a taste, smell, and a feeling of an apple and we associate all of these things simultaneously and at some point, that had to happen on more than just an individual level. Sure caveman #1 could associate these things in his mind by himself, but he then had to communicate those ideas to his cave-mate. Wow.

And the first lie? Once communication was established in the community, someone came up with the first lie. And this is another amazing feat. Think about it. What goes into a lie? You see a disadvantage to telling someone how something really is because in your mind, you can abstract the consequences of certain communication in your head in an instant. You then decide on a new, equally plausible story and decide to tell that instead, despite knowing its not true.

Then perhaps you feel remorse? Knowing the consequences of the lie and being able to abstract in your head the consequences of someone else believing a falsehood. Or knowing that the consequences of something you did would hurt someone.

And theater? Song? Philosophy? To be able to abstract your feelings and communicate them in a form that is pleasing as well as thoughtful is another amazing human invention. To rationalize in a systematic and convincing fashion? This furthers our understandings of things and allows us to look at things beneath the surface. The lion sees the sun setting in the west, but we can understand it to mean that this side the earth has turned away from the sun. We then associate night with different things, and even feel inspired to communicate those associations. The lion sees his dead prey and all he can think about his food. We see a dead human or something and we feel remorseful or sad. Or we feel alive and happy (if you're psychotic). We associate primal things with ourselves and in the grand scheme of things, beyond what any other creature can do.

Humans are capable of a many great and wonderful things. We are also capable of terrible things. We are the only creature that is self-reflective and able to think outside of itself. So, why us?

Now I understand that someone might read this and say, "Dylan you're retarded." That's great. Thales of Miletus posited in the 5th century BC that everything is, in some way, made of water. Obviously he was wrong but he made an observation based on what was known at the time (at least to him) and made a rational argument for it. If I am similarly at fault, I would be happy to chat. I am always happy to admit not knowing something.

And maybe I can make someone think. Or maybe these are just

Animalistic Musingings.

A fresh start

Well, not really. I have decided two things.

A) I need to try and do this daily. Not only can it be used as a live portfolio for my writing but I think it will really help motivate me to work on my larger projects. So every evening I'll update with something I saw today or thought about. I know I said that was what I would do at the beginning of this all... in fact it's the reason I did this in the first place. But I think I'm actually going to do it.

B) This was in many respects, the best summer ever. I didn't have a job for the first time in 4 years and I had all the free time I could ever imagine. I had time to read, write, see people, and take me time. This was, however, hindered of course by my mother constantly bugging me about something and of course, having to do things I didn't like to do (as a direct result of being unemployed). But I can't really say I don't owe them one, right? Anyway, it was nice not to have to work but it was awful not to have any free money. Summer is typically a season of increased spending but it had to be curbed in a big way so I can leave room for books, etc. It was tough and it would have been nice to have some income--at least to increase my nest egg. I saw Shaelyn which is an insurmountable pleasure and without a doubt, the highlight of the summer. I went to the beach and as I said, sat around a whole lot mooching off my parents. As much as I treasure the extra free time, I certainly don't wish that unemployment becomes a trend.

I got a job as the Broadside's Media Beat Writer which basically means I come up with a lot of the content we have for movies, music, and theater. That hopefully not only means a more frequent/bigger paycheck, but means that I will hopefully be doing a lot more reviewing of the aforementioned media. What worries me is that my editor wants to completely reform the newspaper, making all of the pieces more feature related. Despite the massive logistical undertaking that is, it is a vastly different shift from the previous style section which was all but feature-based. Plus, a review is essentially impossible in feature form. I guess this is a sign that I need to practice writing like a legitimate journalist because law school won't work out. But hey, who knows.

With classes starting soon, my new, challenging job, the potentially to be in multiple theatre productions, and a possible radio show on the horizon, I feel like this semester and 2010-2011 school year will be a great opportunity for...

A fresh start.

On Humans

So I may be beating the proverbial dead horse with this one, but I've been wondering a lot why we are here on this earth. Well... Not so much wondering but more like relating. I mean if you think about it, with all the stars in the universe that are like ours (that is, ample size and brightness to sustain life), statistically speaking there are many planets like ours that are capable of sustaining life.

If you think about it, there are many chances that there is life on those planets. But what are the chances of civilizations of thinking, developing, and rational life? Out of all the species that have ever existed, Homo sapiens and their relatives are the only ones who have developed tools, grown, and established relationships and civilizations. We think and reason. We ask questions and learn.

We are the only thing we know of that contemplates the meaning of its own existence. The only living thing that will voluntarily break from its routine to ask itself why it does what it does. We re-evaluate ourselves and even move around to accommodate.

Out of the entire universe, is it possible that there are things that exist that ask themselves what their life is all about? That engage in discussions about the nature of the universe?

To clarify, I think my main question is why us? Why things that look like us? Why does it seem more than coincidental that beings that look like us have the powers of reason and thought. Why not things that look like dogs or cats or cows or lions? Why did they not ever develop the ability to reason? Surely if a lion could plan and think more than they already can, we would be done for. Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me like there is very few reasons why it was our ancestors that caused us to be what we are today. Just seems like everything is following a plan. If what gives us these abilities is our mind (and existentially and espistemologically speaking, that is all we can deduce exists) then why cant our minds have existed in something else? Why is it this upright, two-legged thing can reason, think, and learn when something with better senses, four legs, and a big set of sharp teeth is stuck in a cage in a zoo?

It can't just be our thumbs...

I know WHY we are here, but I am consistently amazed with the sheer idea of it.

I know that we are here because of a plan much greater than we can fully understand.

On a related note...

Niall Ferguson said something interesting on the Colbert Report this past January...

He explained to Steven that since money isn't backed up by gold anymore, it isn't physically worth anything. The only reason money has any value is because everyone accepts it and trusts that it has value. It's an IOU that is passed from person to person with no true value other than the cost of the cotton-paper it's on. I thought that was really interesting that a twenty-dollar bill is only worth twenty dollars because the person I am giving it to as well as myself agree and accept that it is indeed worth twenty arbitrary units of repayment.

Size, weight, and quantity are all arbitrary methods of measurement. There is no reason why an inch is as long as it is but because the United States accepts it as such, that's how long it is. If everyone tomorrow was to accept the inch as a little but shorter, that would unquestionably change our perception of the inch. Same with the pound, the gallon, etc.

This relates to Socrates' challenge of Euthyphro's seemingly arbitrary proposition of piety. I won't get into piety because that again brings in "faith" which is neither quantitative nor qualitative. But the point is that I think it's very interesting how all of these mathematical systems are virtually meaningless without the global acceptance of their standards. (The respect I have for Socrates comes from his methods rather than the conclusions he wants to suss out of people)

Thus, it would be possible to have a universal standard for beauty, righteousness, and all other things that are unable to be quantified if we were to all simply to accept a standard for these things. It's not that we can't, it's that we won't. We just all can't agree on standards for these things which is why everyone's opinion differs.

An inch is an inch because no one can come up with anything better, nor rally the support for a new measurement system. Beauty for one person isn't beauty for another for more psychological reasons of course but no one will agree. Righteousness can't be agreed on of course because people will always want to be able to do what we want in a society where the liberal media says that's okay. Nevertheless, people still follow the laws set forth by the Constitution and by states because that's what they are told to do, because it is universally accepted that these laws have meaning.

Righteousness, it could be argued, was founded in religious tenets that said that the Gods have put forth these laws and we should obey them because that is what the Gods would want. For the longest time people were totally cool with that. People now say that they shouldn't have to not do what they want just because a God tells them to. They cite religious rules as arbitrary and meaningless which is only so because they do not accept them. The same people follow secular laws (which again, are founded on mostly ancient religious laws) because they ACCEPT the governments rule which in essence is equally as arbitrary. All atheists can trace their lineage back to parents who were devout and pious. just thought I would point that out.

I think that's all I have for this.

Philosophically speaking...

My professor said something interesting in class yesterday... we're talking about the Eleatic philosophers and their conception of the universe. My brain died midway through Parmenides' discussion of "what is" is bound by something... but I'm reading over Melissus (meh-lee-sus) and what he says makes a lot of sense.

"Whatever was, always was, and always will be. For if it came to be, it is necessary that before it came to be it was nothing. now if it was nothing, in no way could anything come to be out of nothing. Now since it did not come to be, it is and always was and always will be, and does not have a beginning or an end, but is unlimited."

Basically, the source of everything (chaos, apeiron, arche, etc.) is unlimited because if there was ever a time where it did not exist, nothing could conceivably come out of it since it itself could not come out of nothing.

Whether you believe that "what is" is God (I do) or just the universe, it is interesting to point out that quantum physicists and astronomers are writing, "yeah we've just discovered in the last 20 years that the universe is potentially limitless" when Greek philosophers 2600 years ago already knew it.

Think about that.

This week has been... Rough.

Rough to say the least. I've got a journalism story to do interviews for, a bogus english paper that needs researching, and a philosophy paper of whose content I don't even understand. On top of that, I had a bio exam I think I bombed and a massive spanish exam that our teacher is sure we won't even finish. This is fantastic.

I have nothing profound to say that won't take up my valuable homework time so I'll start you off easy with the last article of mine to be published. The editor went to town with it so if it sounds a little choppy, you know why.

Food Dude Entertains Mason

Abstract: Basically this guy came to our school to talk about what kinds of foods we should eat. He was entertaining. I'll post some more articles or past blogs later.

Until tomorrow...

Oh also, if you would like to know what I'm doing in philosophy and are otherwise thrilled to learn about ancient philosophy from the early 6th century, you can go here because wikipedia is the collection of all knowledge and will likely get me through... well, life.