Oh How I Want to Be A Philosopher, a Philosopher I Want to Be Part 2

But how do I become the philosopher whom I want to be? What do I see about which I can make synthetic judgments about later? Sight in philosophy is the privileged sense because if one sees things with their eyes it is reasonably certain the event happened. (Even critiques of sight in philosophy, primarily the rationalist philosophies of the 1500-1600's did not deny seeing events, they denied whether what they saw was real life or not.) This entry will give just a taste of what I see in the world which a philosophy is written about.
"Dude, that party this weekend was epic awesome, but now I have to go to class :(." This brief snippet of loud cell phone conversation on a Friday morning before class tells us two things about human nature. In human experience, there is joy and there is suffering. In this case, the joy is an ecstasy of sorts brought on by the party experience. The suffering is coming back to reality after the crazy Thursday party of having a class. Existence continues in this paradox of joy and suffering.
I also see a pretty sunrise and a pretty sunset. The colors in the sky glow magically, and this pattern of sunrise and sunset happens every day, at a predictable time, even when I cannot see the fullness of the sun because of cloud cover. However, in this same experience, every day when I see a sunrise I may see people who are going about a work/school routine, or people who are doing things out of the ordinary, like having pink hair or walking a dog in sub-zero temperatures. I see people who care, and people who are cold to the world. The one thing I can say for certain in life is that there is order and there is disorder. This order and disorder deepens the experience of a paradox because things are and are not at the same time.
The question now is, "what do I do with this experience of a paradox?" Am I doomed to think life is meaningless because I see this paradox and see importance in experience? To answer this question, I must examine if there is anything common in human nature which I see in my experience, as well as others. The first commonality I see, is that all who can realize their own existence in this manner are humans. Animals cannot detect the importance of a pattern and reason events out; they live by instincts and their appetites. Thus, there must be something special about people, no matter how they fit into the patterns of order and disorder, and the difference in their physical attributes.
However, to make this distinction is not enough for the discussion at hand. All people are special, and all people fit into the flow of order and disorder; however, there is little agreement about what is order and what is disorder. Also, each individual person in themselves at the same time lives a life of order and disorder because of the choices people make. (Good choices bring one closer to order, bad choices bring one closer to disorder, generally speaking anyway.) If a person can be in order and disorder at the same time, then for observational purposes there needs to be something in the experience of all people which can be observed in order to make a connection to order.
As I examine and think about the people I have encountered in my life, one thing is clear, love is necessary. Without this love, people become cold to the world and lost in its disorder. It is easier to act in disorder when one does not receive love and instead receive cruelty. Meaning is difficult to find, and order becomes harder to ascertain when one sees disorder all around them. Families that break and leave children neglected, the poor in India who long for their material and emotional/spiritual/mental needs, and the struggling migrant worker trying to work in America to make a living for his family back home, all of these people see vast amounts of disorder. In all of these examples, something is missing and not on the part of these people, but on those who observe. Many people see these kinds of situations and see a situation similar to animal nature, in which the strong survive and the weak are left to starve.
However, this sentiment is one which cannot stand because people do have an empathy for those who suffer, seen in all the little and great ways. There are friends who help the child know a loving environment and affirm their achievements. There are religious orders, social workers, caregivers, and volunteers who do care about the needs of people in India and Latin America. In disordered society, when needs are not met by those who hold the power, there are those who rise up and meet the needs of people in compassion. In this way, order is brought to those who suffer in isolation. Because of this, there is a connection between love and order. (This connection needs further examination later.)
A quick review is important here: sight is important because it is the one sense which is privileged in both a legal and a philosophical sense. What people see with their eyes has a higher probability of being true because the eyes input information in an instantaneous and direct way which does not need another source of mediation. (e.g. hearing requiring imagination to get an image of what is going on in another space, feeling needing some interpretation of the surface being felt in order to know who/what is being felt, etc.) The world one sees is one of order and disorder, and individual people can be in order and disorder at the same time. Examples of order and disorder are prevalent in the world if people know for where and what to look. However, in the midst of order and disorder, there is this empathy for those who suffer in the disorder of communal living. This empathy draws people back to the order of things.
Since what I see has now been made clear, and sight is something which is only a step in building a philosophy, the process of which I have discussed here. Then for the next step, I need the help of the readers. I want the readers of this blog to discuss with me what they see in the world. This does two things for me. First, it helps me move to step 2 in building a philosophy and becoming a philosopher :). Second, and probably more importantly, it helps ascertain whether the synthesis I have currently made can stand to reason. The synthesis I have begun to make in this text is jumping the gun a little bit, since experience is something which is greater than the self; however, I feel this error in philosophy will be forgiven, because the response of the readers will either be to agree with the synthesis or propose a different model based on the experience of the reader. So I need your help and I know you won't let me down. :) Think of this as an opportunity to help yourself grow by asking yourself the fundamental questions and at the same time, you're helping a potential philosopher, (e.g. me) to develop more by responding to your experience.
I hope all have a blessed Christmas season (as this is the only actual holiday going on right now, as Hanukkah was early this year, and I'm not exactly sure about Kwanzaa.)

Aristocrates

Also I decided to answer the question of which songs would I keep for a one record White Album:

1. Back in the USSR
2. Dear Prudence
3. Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da
4. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
5. Martha My Dear
6. I'm So Tired
7. Blackbird
8. Don't Pass Me By
9. Julia
10. Yer Blues
11. Mother Nature's Son
12. Sexy Sadie
13. Helter Skelter
14. Long, Long, Long
15. Cry Baby Cry

Instead of trying to explain why I included these songs I will explain why I threw out the songs I did. Some of the songs were just short snippets and not really full songs, so they got tossed (Wild Honey Pie, Why Don't We Do It in the Road, I Will, Happiness is a Warm Gun), some songs were just too different or odd to be included (Glass Onion, Birthday, Rocky Raccoon, Honey Pie, Revolution 9), Revolution 1 was a rerecorded version of Revolution so I left that one off. I tried to follow the standard Beatle procedure of 2 Harrison songs and 1 Ringo song per album which caused me to ditch "Piggies" and "Savoy Truffle" finally there were a few songs that I just have never liked (Bungalow Bill, Me & My Monkey). The rest of the songs fit on one record (just barely) and are more fully developed songs or in Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da's case I just really like them!

Rethinking the White Album

One of the most enduring discussions in rock and roll history has revolved around the Beatles 1968 eponymous 1968 album (often referred to as the White Album). The discussion concerns a comment made by Beatles producer George Martin that the White Album should have been a single disc instead of the two that were released. Since then Beatles fans have argued whether Martin was right or not. Certainly Martin's thoughts deserve consideration; he was an immense part of the Beatles music, more so than many people give him credit for. He perfected the right balance between formal musical discipline and creative freedom that is vital for the creation of quality music (please take note music industry and especially musicians). The kicker of a statement such as Martin's is the automatic reply that comes from most people: "Well, which songs would you take out, they are all quite good."
That is an interesting question, but it is also a very problematic one. There is an implication thatby suggesting that some songs be removed you automatically consider the songs to be inferior to the ones included or just bad or perhaps devoid of artistic insight. This may be true for individual songs but I reject the implication that it applies to all the songs. An album of music is a work of art in and of itself (the Beatles were in fact integral to the development of the album as such.) and therefore songs must be added or rejected on the basis of whether they add or distract from the album as a whole and whether they can relate and stand coherently with all other songs in the album. Even if a song is better then all the others doesn't necessarily mean it should be included on an album with all the others. The unity of the album can be based on a variety of aspects including lyrical or musical themes, but a good album depends on the individual songs being more then the sum of their parts, each song improving and relating to the others in such a way as to enhance the listening experience of the entity. The White Album is not this, it is a chaotic mess (a glorious one perhaps, but a chaotic mess nonetheless). Songs and music zip by at lightening pace in a plethora of styles and substance ranging from the serious musings of Lennon to the musical explorations of McCartney to the emerging voices of Harrison and Starr. Yet for all its messiness it remains a compelling and wonderful listen, obviously if the Beatles are doing something right, even if they aren't making an album per se.
The solution to this dilemma is perhaps to get away from the idea that the White Album is in fact an album, but rather a compilation, a group of songs put together based on some generic similarity but not actually assembled to be a unified whole. The White Album has a feel more akin to Past Masters or 1967-1970 then it does to Abbey Road or Sgt. Peppers. It should really be listened to as The Beatles Musical Explorations of 1968 then a coherent and carefully constructed album.
By classifying the White Album as a compilation rather than an album it relieves it from having to perform within the rigid standards that an album naturally requires. It's double record length is no longer and impediment because the songs are no longer being portrayed as a coherent statement; it's various musical styles and voices don't have to harmoniously blend but rather can be taken as individual statements to be digested separately. Even the short partial songs and forays into silliness can be seen as part of the musical exploration process. The White Album's beauty is that it offers an in depth look at the making of a Beatles album (or any good rock album for that matter) as small snatches of words and melodies are developed and built upon until they reach their proper finished states.

Oh How I Want to Be A Philosopher, a Philosopher I Want to Be

But how can I be a philosopher of which I want to be? A philosopher is one who takes a critical examination of the world and looks at details of life and tries to build up a way of life based on what the philosopher observes in the world. However, since many philosophies have already been developed in the course of history, philosophy tends to follow a certain methodology based on observation and logic which connects to the experience and reason of the philosopher.

The first challenge of the philosopher is to pick a particular system which is consistent in logic and with experience. This can be done in many different ways, though the most prevalent is by observation, mostly sight. What do I see? Sight is the primary means by which events emerge to people, of course other senses can be used to have knowledge, but sight is the most stable confirmation of an event happening. (This is why in trials eyewitness testimony is extremely important to making a case.) Only with this question can one advance to further questions such as, "How is the person taking in this experience? How does this experience affect others involved with the person, etc?" What a person sees in life affects their openness to particular types of philosophical systems, bad experiences in life can lead to a lack of trust, which in turn shapes the view of a person. The events a person sees in their life are the most important thing to their philosophy because experience shapes how people engage the world. Picking a particular system will not be an exercise for this particular blog entry; consequently, this is the process by which a philosopher begins to make conclusions about a particular system. As such, the process is extremely important and worth noting.

However, this cannot be the only thing, because with everything which is seen, there are always things which are unseen. (from Jean Luc Marion's In Excess) The next step to being a philosopher then is to listen to and examine the lives of others. The unseen is something which is a part of any event because in a particular event it is impossible to observe every reality which an event can have. Listening to others is an important opening of the unseen because it opens one to more knowledge. It is a move from "what do I see?" to "what do you see?" When this move is made from the self to others it opens people up to make comparisons of experience. On comparison, there will be many similarities between two people, and also many differences. This list of things is something which builds with every relationship in which the philosopher chooses to engage. As people have more experiences with others, there will be some common things which are expressed in all people. Another important part of this process is to discern commonalities in the many ways in which they can appear. Something which initially looks different upon further examination can actually look really similar, which commonally happens between people. The conclusions of the seen and unseen are numerous, but alas, not the point of this entry, what is important for learning how to be a philosopher is to understand the process.

After one has experiences of their own life, and of the lives of others, then reflection and synthesis is needed. Why do the events of experience happen in a particular way? Is there order in the universe? Without reflection time, these questions do not arise, and possible answers for them cannot be given without knowledge of the question. The particular answers to these questions will not come in this entry, explanations and thoughts, which will be shared in due time. But this is how to get inside the head of a person who wants to be a philosopher, and how you can be a philosopher yourself. The joy of philosophy is that it allows for reflection and synthesis because a person becomes open to insight and time with others. In this way, we can all become philosophers and still be sociable as well.

Prefabricated Life Experiences

The other day as I was walking back from the bursars, I happened to overhear a conversation between several gentlemen about a friend of theirs who, in an effort to become a great songwriter, was doing everything he possibly could to destroy his life so that he could suffer and then be able to write songs about it. I suppose this is an inevitable consequence of the manufacturing age, the idea that we can control and manufacture anything we want including our art and our lives. This young man has, in effect, completely planned out his life in order to be inspired to produce great art. Perhaps a noble goal, but certainly an untenable one. Certainly suffering has been a great inspiration for many musicians, but I can't help but feel this suffering was not deliberately caused in order to inspire them to write better songs. First of all, a musical experience of suffering only works well because our natural human inclination is that we do not want to suffer and therefore both the songwriter wants to relieve his suffering and the listener, if he is wise, would do well to learn from the songwriters experience and act accordingly. However, if the songwriter has deliberately sought out the suffering he is in effect lying to the audience. Besides I can't help but feel that someone who writes about prefabricated suffering that he inflicted upon himself would sound a little whiny, in much the same way that songwriters who haven't really suffered (you know those emo bands that complain all the time about the most insignificant things because that is the worst they have suffered in their lives) sound like they are complaining. Lets face it you can't manufacture inspiration or life experience and honestly you probably wouldn't want to live in a life where they could be manufactured, think of how dead and soulless that life would be.

Greetings!

Since my counterpart Omahenesis has introduced himself, I figure it'd be good if I introduced myself as well. My name is Aristocrates and this name comes from the two great Greek philosophers: Aristotle and Socrates. I will discuss many things in this blog but in particular I will tend to focus on the Greek philosophical tradition, its effect on Western culture, and how Christianity incorporates this tradition in its practice. (Also about Christianity in general and how its practice and position is intellectually sound even in post-modern culture.)
As my partner stated in his post, my topics will go against the grain of what is considered rational thought in modern culture and present a different spin on faith, reason, and being in general. My particular interests are theology (being an MA student in theology I hope this is the case :P), philosophy (particularly modern philosophy, phenomenology, and metaphysics, in addition to the Greek traditions. And these relate to Christianity, more on this later), music, poker, video games, and anything that can get my brain going. I look forward to intellectual conversations and lots of fun with you all. :)

Aristocrates

An Introduction!

Welcome weary traveler! You have stumbled upon what we hope to be a treasure trove of learning and thinking. Hopefully our ambitions will not be wilder and grander then our precious time and stamina can stand. It is our goal to turn this simple blog into a repository of culture, arts and thinking in the model of the Renaissance men of old. The subject will be broad but it will expound the classical western thought that has been the backbone of the civilized world. We are guided by a quote from the English historian Dame Wedgwood who declared "An educated man should know everything about something, and something about everything." There are two of us who will be contributing to this blog, I am Omahensis, a name I have chosen because of my love of my region of the world, my Catholic faith and because the word "Omaha" translates, roughly, to "against the flow" or "upstream" and it is my intention that this blog is to fulfill this meaning by attempting to swim against the flow of intellectual degradation that has swept of the once proud middle class of our Western society. My particular interests are cities, infrastructure and music but I love to dapple into just about anything.

Omahensis