Philosophy and What It Means to Me

Philosophy and what it means to me is this week's topic, suggested by Sanjana, the youngest member of our blogging group.

The word "philosophy" is derived from Greece. It originates from the words "philein sophia," which mean "lover of wisdom". "Phil" is the prefix that relates to love, while "soph" is a word root that means wisdom. Therefore, the word "philosophy," like the original Greek, means "lover of wisdom or knowledge." The Cambridge English Dictionary says philosophy is the use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of the real world and existence, AKA the meaning of life.

There is an interesting list of the supposed major philosophies on the meaning of life from the last 5000 years or so in a blog called Adioma. Check it out - maybe one of the philosophies listed is the same as or similar to your own.

You may even find that no single philosophy is all-inclusive and you find yourself a combination of two or more. In a world as complex as ours, it actually makes the most sense to me. While one's outlook on life is primarily defined by a single philosophy, snippets of others are recognizable. I find myself being a subjective, modern humanist according to the list of philosophies offered in the posted link - a combination of subjectivism and modern humanism.

Many people I know consider themselves Christians - theists in the philosophies listed. Then there are the logical positivists - the folks who believe life has no meaning until you give it one, and boy do they like to argue with those determinists that say everything is predetermined. Those damned hedonists are always too busy partying heartily to even join in the conversation. Maybe the absurdists are right and we should all just stop trying to find a meaning and just live.

Yes, folks, it is my belief that philosophy is all firmly etched in water. Do any of you spend much time looking at philosophy? Did you ever answer that question I posed last week- the one that asks if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? Philosophy discussions tend to be similar to circular firing squads. I tend to take the easy road - treat people the way you want to be treated - well unless you are a sadist. You make your own choices in life and the meaning of your life is up to you. Unless, of course, you are a huge Monte Python fan.

It might look like I don't take philosophy seriously. The truth is, I am not a huge fan of the discipline if you can even call philosophy a discipline. My degree is in political science - an oxymoron of the highest order. Too often, philosophy discussions in my observation turn into exercises wherein people try and impress each other with how many classical philosophies they can name and compare. To me, that is like only considering classical literature real literature. IMHO there is no better observer of humanity these days than James Lee Burke, with Dana Stabenow a close second. They happen to be primarily mystery authors.

In all seriousness, if discussions about philosophy and the meaning of life cause a surge in polite discourse and actually get people talking to each other, then let the conversation begin. That would certainly be an improvement over the current divide.

That ends my quick take on Sanjana's suggested topic. Be sure to take a look at what  Ramana, Conrad, and Sanjana have to say on their respective blogs.

See ya next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

Doing the Wrong Thing at the Right Time

This week's topic, doing the wrong thing at the right time, reminds me of the mind games college philosophy professors used to play back when I was a student. You remember them - things like if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound? Right and wrong are even more nebulous.

Right and wrong are relative terms. Being precise in their definition is often difficult, perhaps even impossible. You might even say or think there is no absolute right or wrong in this world. What is most often the basis of "right" is religion. Right is what a given society determines to be moral, just, and legal. That leaves wrong things to be those things that are not in accordance with morality or the law.

So, in relation to our topic, Ramana has proposed doing the immoral or unlawful thing at a time when it is determined to be moral, just and legal. Is there a right time to do the wrong thing?

In a world where there is no absolute right or wrong almost anything is possible. People with strong religious upbringings will most typically do the right thing. Unless, of course, like  religious right here in the USA, they choose to support  amoral, falsehood-based policies and practices to pack the Supreme Court with conservative justices to facilitate overturning existing law with which they disagree. Apparently, everyone has a price. I myself find little if anything done by radical Muslims to be moral, just or legal. There are many more examples.

For a long time climate change was laughed at and considered folly by conservatives here. Several consecutive years of radical temperature change, extended drought and the great state of Texas almost losing its electricity grid in an exceptionally cold winter seems to have awoken a few to reality. Climate change is the right thing to address, so can there really be a wrong time for that discussion?

Man's contribution to pollution? One of the unadvertised benefits to the pandemic we have been enduring is cleaner air. Why? Travel has been severely restricted. There's that nasty science bugaboo raising its head again. Can there be a wrong time for that discussion?

The wrong thing at the right time has been justified for centuries when the outcome is considered positive - in other words, the end justifies the means. It's what Arthur got wrong with Camelot - might for right. That is really no different than might is right.

Considering the high regard in which science holds evolution, we can easily conflate might makes right with the survival of the fittest. Is that always correct? I think not.

Thomas Jefferson had an interesting take on religion and Jesus. The "Jefferson Bible” was created by Thomas Jefferson in 1820 as a collection of the Biblical teachings of Jesus that he found sound, with passages that Jefferson found unreasonable, such as miracles and the resurrection, removed. To me, it is a humanist view of Jesus. Strip away the magic from Jesus and the Bible reveals a real guidepost for life.

We all have the capacity to choose right over wrong. We do it daily in our lives. Many times we habitually do the right thing which helps maintain stress levels. Imagine how you would feel if you actually had to ponder every decision you make daily. Turn left, turn right, stop at the sign, and so on. Habits can be a good thing. Sounds like a 9AM naptime to me.

Since there are no real absolutes, you could be forced to do the wrong thing at the right time quite often. Take each action as required. It is all about perception and as long as your moral compass, be it god-based or humanist, leads you down a sound moral path, I suspect you will be just fine.

That's my quick take on Ramana's wrong thing at the right time conundrum. Be sure to check what Ramana and Conrad have to say. We'll see you next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

How is today's world compared to the 21st century you imagined as a child?

 As a child in Colorado, my view of the 21st century was shaped by what I saw in the movies and on television. I saw some of the old Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials and my favorite at the time- Jet Jackson, Flying Commando. Jet Jackson was actually Captain Midnight with a different title and sound dubbed. His sidekick, Ichabod Mudd (with 2ds) was the same in both incarnations. 

Then, of course there was Forbidden Planet, a big budget Hollywood movie that I remember seeing at the drive in.

Forbidden Planet introduced us to Robby the Robot and futuristic flying machines and space travel. Alas the special effects were in their infancy and it would be years until things got really interesting.

It wasn't until the TV show The Jetsons that real speculation about life in the future would be seriously imagined.

As you can see, we are light years away from the Jetsons' flying car and Orbit City. George worked a two hour workweek and complained about being overworked. Interplanetary travel? Tesla is working on it. Robotic maids? We are making great strides in robotics. Much of what the Jetsons predicted is on its way.

Flat-screen televisions  and tanning beds were predicted by the Jetsons. The show was canceled after 24 episodes because there were not enough color televisions in homes. Only 3% of homes had color televisions at the time. We did not get one until the first time the Oakland Raiders made the Super Bowl (1967).

Science fiction literature and Star Trek and Star Wars became prime predictors of future life. Not surprisingly, Star Wars and Star Trek focused on military technology. Our war machine is very efficient and we have kept it very busy. Lasers, satellites, and cloaking have all advanced.

Technology these days is about what I expected it to be. We are geeks at heart, I suspect. Rather than active  physical play, kids gravitate to the latest technology. Texting has largely replaced conversation as a means of communication. Interpersonal communication and conversational skills are severely lacking in my opinion. Nearly half of our population chose to support the verbal flatulence and belicose ramblings of an amoral, pathological liar. Our interpersonal discourse is at the lowest levels in recent memory. I most definitely expected better of us. I do not see the divisions in our society going away any time soon. Ayn Rand would be delighted at the degree of selfishness rampant in our selfish society. And yet, we see random acts of kindness regularly. So maybe there is hope for us yet. Only time will tell.

That is my quick take on Conrad's suggested topic. Be sure to check what my compatriots Conrad and Ramana have to say on their blogs.

I'll see ya next week, same bat time and same bat channel.

If it ain't broke don't fix it but if it is......

Interesting timing - to have the bogus BCS title game the day before the next step in the grand spectacle known as American politics. I suggest that both syustems are broken and need to be fixed.

The BCS is all about money - schools jockey for a BCS bowl game each year for the not insubstantial financial stipend that goes to each school for participating. The more prestigious the bowl the higher the payout.  BCS payouts according to Wikipedia are $18,000,000.00.  Non-BCS payouts range from 6.5M (Cotton bowl) down to .75M for several games that usually pit a pair of teams with as many losses as they have wins.

BCS teams come from the cryptic ranking system currently in place and coaches freely admit to being less than honest when bowl season comes around and BCS rankings and therefore bowl games and payouts are at stake.

That is of course the Cliff's Notes version of the BCS but it segues nicely into the election season currently just leaving the gate, Iowa already being in the books and New Hampshire voting today for the Republicans.
 Don't misunderestimate me.  Ahem - thanks for that one Dubya.  Our election system is the best one out there at the moment, we just keep screwing it up by electing the same clowns over and over.    We have made politics a profession.  We keep people in office often times until they can retire and become highly paid lobbyists or run corporations. They keep fat government pensions that we pay for, take advantage of the contacts they developed over time and then influence legislation to benefit those corporations. I mean WTF - isn't it the American way???  Improve yourself? get rich?

Clearly this is barely a sound-bite commentary on American politics and there is much more to come.  I just pondered the similarities between a flawed college football rating system and its payouts with a career in American politics and its big payouts. Where else but in America could a former politician run a company that requires signifiicant political ties internationally,  ascend to another even higher political office and then make that companies shareholders even wealthier when said company becomes an active participant - for profit - in international conflict.  Hells bells - one of the contestants in today's current New Hampshire contest spent recent years lobbying for substantial fees  but feels his calling as an idea man is to run the country instead.  Want to bet his lobbying fees go even higher when he inevitably loses??

So yes indeed I am saying that Americam politics are all about money. The Supreme Court says so.  They say Corporations have the constitutional right to influence politics. And Corporations exist for one reason - to make money.  There will be more on this subject later.