The Brosius Blog

2008

2009-01-01T17:43:00.001-05:00

Hesitation abound as I sit at my laptop, reviewing the reading I have done during 2008. It is well known that I struggle with the arbitrariness of temporal distinctions, affording them, no truth. Despite this, I feel the desire to take an intellectual field trip and analyze what I read. Below I have ranked what I read by category. I find it difficult to define exactly how I arrived at such rankings. In a word I would say that the rankings reflect the impact the works had on my thought and development. I am excluding three works from the philosophy list: Kant’s Critique of Pure reason, Prolegomena and Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. I read a considerable amount of the Critique, but do not feel that I fully understand it, thus excluding it from the list of read books. The same goes for the Prolegomena and Tractatus. This is not to say that I fully understand everything that I read, but with these works I am not comfortable including them on the list.

Novels

1. The Professor of Desire and The Dying Animal; Philip Roth

2. Nausea; Jean-Paul Sartre

3. Life is Elsewhere; Milan Kundera

4. Niels Lyhne; Jens Peter Jacobson

5. Crime and Punishment; Dostoyevsky

6. Portnoy’s Complaint; Philip Roth

7. Ignorance; Milan Kundera

8. Everything is Illuminated; Jonathan Safran Foe

9. The Immoralist; Andre Gide

10. The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao; Junot Diaz

Philosophy

1. The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals; Immanuel Kant

2. On the Genealogy of Morals; Friedrich Nietzsche

3. Naming and Necessity; Saul Kripke

4. The History of Sexuality Volume 1: Michel Foucault

5. The Metastases of Enjoyment; Slavoj Zizke

Drama

1. The Three Sisters; Anton Chehov

2. The Frogs; Aristophanes

3. Peer Gynt; Henrik Ibsen

4. Uncle Vanya; Anton Chekhov

5. The Iceman Cometh; Eugene O’Neill

Poetry

1. Poems of Catullus

2. Poems of Martial

3. Jack Kerouac’s Book of Haikus

4. The Panther and the Lash; Langston Hughes

5. That Little Something; Charles Simic

2003 NBA Draft First Round Redo

2008-11-24T23:21:00.000-05:00

This is what should have happened.

1. Lebron James-Cavs

2. Chris Bosh-Pistons

3. Dwayne Wade- Nuggets

4. Carmelo Anthony- Raptors

5. Josh Howard-Heat

6. Chris Caman-Clippers

7. Kirk Hinrich- Bulls

8. David West-Bucks

9. Nick Collinson-Knicks

10. Boris Diaw-Wizards

11. Leandro Barbosa- Warriors

12. Travis Outlaw-Sonics

13. Kendrick Perkins- Grizzlies

14. Luke Ridnour- Sonics

15. Mo Williams-Magic

16. Kyle Korver- Celtics

17. Sasha Pavlovic-Suns

18. Steve Blake- Hornets

19. Marquis Daniels- Jazz

20. Jarvis Hayes- Celtics

21. Luke Walton- Hawks

22. Darko Milicic-Nets

23. Troy Bell-Blazers

24. Zaza Paculia-Lakers

25. Dahntay Jones- Pistons

26. Willie Green- Timberwolves

27. Marcus Banks- Grizzlies

28. Sofoklis Schortsanitis- Spurs

29. Brian Cook-Pistons

yeah, i still write, what about it, punk?

2008-07-08T02:58:00.003-04:00

Recently as I've been reading a lot of poetry, not entire sticking to my summer reading list I decided to blog this one. Not saying that any of my previous works are going to amount to anything, but I hope I'm on my way to mature poetic development.

Also, pretend this one is in a book; it doesnt work out of context. I'm not sure what to title it.

Binaries in life are agonizing beyond compare.
The fast-paced, what’s hot next, who’s doing
What with whom world where this morning
Is the new yesterday and yesterday is the new
Last week that which is or is not raises the self
To a new level of obsession and doubt, drenched
In anticipation of the ultimate pronouncement.

You either won or lost; you’re either accepted or
Rejected; you either had sex with the red head in
The green dress or you didn’t- no middle ground to
Be had. You currently reading this poem, maybe
By a pool or in a meadow or it is lost, abandoned
In the abyss of my hard drive, never to be read again.

My Ambitious Summer Reading List

2008-05-14T22:59:00.005-04:00

My addiction to books makes me very susceptible to obsessions with lists of books. I am constantly tweaking and adding to my essential reading list, and I get butterflies in my stomach when I come across a new list of books. I am back from college for the summer, and have a few months (in between working, being social and trying to get into better shape) to read what I please as much as I can. I am currently in the midst of a drama-kick, but I do not know how long that will continue. I have amassed a list of books (all of which I own) that I plan to read. This is, obviously, subject to change, but as of right now, here is the list. It will be quite interesting to see how many of these I actually read, and what else I come across over the summer.

Philosophy

Language Truth and Logic by A.J. Ayer
The Doors of Perception and Heaven and Hell by Aldous Huxley
The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays by Albert Camus
Rameau’s Nephew by Dennis Diderot
D’Alembert’s Dream by Dennis Diderot
Poetry, Language and Thought by Martin Heidegger
Irrational Man by William Barrett
Essays and Aphorisms (Penguin Classics) by Arthur Schopenhauer
This is Not a Pipe by Michel Foucault
Philosophy in the Boudoir by The Marquis de Sade
The Prince by Niccoló Machiavelli
The Gay Science by Friedrich Nietzsche

Literature

The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera
Niels Lyhne by Jens Peter Jacobson
The Immoralist by André Gide
A Hero of Our Time by Mikhail Lermontov
The Devil’s Arithmetic by Jane Yolen
Saturday by Ian McEwan
Ignorance by Milan Kundera
Venus in Furs by Leopold von Sacher-Masoch
Life is Elsewhere by Milan Kundera
The Kreutzer Sonata by Leo Tolstoy
The Plague by Albert Camus
Night by Elie Wiesel
The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll
Siddhartha by Herman Hesse
Wuthering Heights by Emily Bronte
The Dubliners by James Joyce
Gilgamesh
Notes from the Underground by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Miscellaneous

Mythologies by Roland Barthes
Civilization and its Discontents by Sigmund Freud
A Natural History of Latin by Tore Janson
The End of Faith by Sam Harris
The Greek Way to Western Civilization by Edith Hamilton

Drama

Exiles by James Joyce
Volpone by Ben Johnson
Murder in the Cathedral by T.S. Eliot
Death of a Salesman by Arthur Miller
Phadra by Jean Racine (Wilbur Translation)
Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
The Piano Lesson by August Wilson
The Way of the World by William Congreve
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Alcestis by Euripides
The Persians by Aechylus
Seven Against Thebes by Aeshcylus
Prometheus Bound by Aeschylus
The Emperor Jones by Eugene O’Neill
The Two Noble Kinsmen by William Shakespeare
The Second Shepherd’s Play
Electra by Sophocles
Philoctetes by Sophocles
The Mandrake Root by Nicolló Machiavelli
Dulcitius by Hrotswitha of Gandersheim
Timon of Athens by Shakespeare
Cyrano de Bergerac by Edmond Rostand
Our Town by Thornton Wilder
Miss Julie by August Strindberg
King John by William Shakespeare
Casina by Plautus
The Mother in Law by Terence
Undecided Arsitophanes
Undecided Henrik Ibsen
Undecided Euripides (more)
Undecided George Bernard Shaw

Already Read

Rosencrantz & Guildenstern are Dead by Tom Stoppard
Women at the Thesmophoria by Aristophanes

Ranked List

2008-04-27T22:50:00.009-04:00

Seeing as I have an obsession with making lists, I have updated the list from two posts ago and ranked the books that are most important to me. I will be updating this list henceforth. (Can one end a sentence with henceforth?) Enjoy

Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer; Friedrich Nietzsche
Hamlet; William Shakespeare
Ecclesiastes
Poems of Eliot
Poems of Keats
The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals: Immanuel Kant
The Unbearable Lightness of Being; Milan Kundera
The Great Gatsby; F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Trial; Kafka
Beowulf
King Lear; William Shakespeare
The Odyssey; Homer (Fitzgerald)
Niels Lyhne; Jens Peter Jacobson
Candide; Voltaire
The Night Torn Mad with Footsteps; Charles Bukowski
The Anxiety of Influence; Harold Bloom
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; James Joyce
The Merchant of Venice; William Shakespeare
The Three Sisters; Anton Chekhov
The Frogs; Aristophanes
Night; Elie Wiesel
The 100; Michael H. Hart
The Prophet; Khalil Gibran
The Aeneid; Vergil
Ethan Frome; Edith Wharton
The Stranger; Albert Camus
Slaughterhouse-Five; Kurt Vonnegut
The Short Reign of Pippin IV; Steinbeck
The Fall; Albert Camus
The Literary 100; Daniel S. Burt
Animal Farm; George Orwell
A Farewell to Arms; Ernest Hemingway
God Bless You, Dr. Kevorkian; Kurt Vonnegut
The Panther and the Lash; Langston Hughes
Washington Square; Henry James
The Art of Reading Poetry; Harold Bloom
Great Expectations; Dickens
The Iceman Cometh; Eugene O’Neill
The Bacchae; Euripides
Peer Gynt; Henrik Ibsen
The Sorrow of War; Bao Ninh
Mother Night; Kurt Vonnegut
Cymbeline; Shakespeare
Naming and Necessity; Saul Kripke
The Elegant Universe; Brian Greene
Notes From the Underground; Fyodor Dostoevsky
Deep River; Shusaku Endo
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus; Ludwig Wittgenstein
No Exit; Jean-Paul Sartre
Life is Elsewhere; Milan Kundera
The Strange Case of Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde; Robert Louis Stevenson
,Said the Shotgun to the Head; Saul Williams
The Painted Bed; Donald Hall
Oxford History of the Biblical World
“Master Harold”…and the boys; Athol Fugard

UChicago

2008-04-18T23:27:00.001-04:00

I have been admitted to The University of Chicago as a transfer from Brandeis University for the fall quarter, 2008. I will begin my sophomore year there.

Heretofore Essential Reading List

2008-04-05T21:14:00.006-04:00

A Few of my peers have inquired as to what I would consider my essential reading list. Granted, there are countless works that I have not read, e.g. Don Quixote, that would merit a spot on any list of books. But this is a list of suggested readings, that for one reason or another I have recommended. I do not want to get into the specifics of why I have included them, but trust me that I have good ones. After a point they are ordered in the order which I have read them, I believing beginning with Hart's The 100. So enjoy, and I will be adding to this list as I read more.

The Merchant of Venice; William Shakespeare
Animal Farm; George Orwell
Beowulf
The Short Reign of Pippin IV; John Steinbeck
The Great Gatsby; F. Scott Fitzgerald
The Trial; Kafka
The Prophet; Khalil Gibran
The 100; Michael H. Hart
The Elegant Universe; Brian Greene
Where Shall Wisdom Be Found?; Harold Bloom
Freakonomics; Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner
Ecclesiastes
Ethan Frome; Edith Wharton
Intro to Mathematical Philosophy; Bertrand Russell
Washington Square; Henry James
Atheism: The Case against God; George H. Smith
A Farewell to Arms; Ernest Hemingway
Hamlet; William Shakespeare
The Sorrow of War; Bao Ninh
Mother Night; Kurt Vonnegut
The End of Poverty; Jeffery D. Sachs
Deep River; Shusaku Endo
Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer; Friedrich Nietzsche
The Night Torn Mad with Footsteps: New Poems; Charles Bukowski
The Bacchae; Euripides
Cymbeline; Shakespeare
The Anxiety of Influence; Harold Bloom
Talking Dirty to the Gods; Yusef Komunyakaa
The Cherry Orchard; Anton Chekhov
Candide; Voltaire
The Aeneid; Vergil
No Exit; Jean-Paul Sartre
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; James Joyce
Eats, Shoots & Leaves; Lynne Truss
The Stranger; Albert Camus
The Fall; Albert Camus
The Unbearable Lightness of Being; Milan Kundera
The Pig that Wants to be Eaten; Julian Baggini
Poems from Guantánamo; Marc Falkoff
Naming and Necessity; Saul Kripke
The God Delusion; Richard Dawkins
The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals; Immanuel Kant

Cardenio

2007-08-02T01:26:00.000-04:00

After writing this poem, I realize that it had more symbolic elements than I had origionally intended; so I worked a little more into it, but it is mostly my first artistic vision- enjoy.

Cardenio

A place where I have
Always found solace;
A place where
I am at liberty to
Utilize fully the
Storied athletic gifts of my
Ancestors:
The hardwood.
A Mecca for the recluse-
Either to play with fellow
Man
Or not to play.
A haven for the thinker
Who does not want to
Get too fat;
A place for one and all.

Here is where I find myself
Shooting by my lonesome,
Guarded only by the
Air, sunlight and solidarity.
I can play free of judgment,
As I have little formal training
In the sport of men with
Trampolines for legs;
But hell,
I have little formal training
As a writer.

So I shoot and miss,
And shoot and miss,
Being booed and cheered
By a crowd of nothingness.
Then, out of nowhere,
I sink a perfect shot
In one moment I am
Larry Bird, Michael Jordan
And Ray Allen;
I made the perfect shot.

But nobody cares:
No one saw my moment
Of perfection.
I might as well as
Never have taken the shot
To begin with.
Then I try a second attempt
At glorious perfection- brick;
And a third- air ball;
And a fourth- brick.
I hear someone walking in
So I try a last attempt at
Recapturing my erstwhile
Perfect- brick.
So I take my ball and go home,
Passing by the man oblivious
To my greatness,
And try to write
Something that I can
Share with the world
And will not go unnoticed.

Leisure

2007-07-29T01:05:00.001-04:00

Leisure

It is difficult to engage
In trivial undertakings that
Do not directly help me become
The great artist of words that I
Should be.

But then I think about Hemingway
Sitting on his boat fishing;
Fitzgerald getting shitfaced at
Some shindig in Paris and
Possibly cheating on Zelda;
Twain sitting in his rocking chair
For all hours of the night just smoking
And
Einstein playing his violin until he
Lost the feeling in his hands.

So I take out my recycling,
Do my laundry, eat a bagel
And pick up my basketball
And go outside;
Yet I make sure that my
Computer is turned on
So I can turn my thoughts
Into art when I finishing
Playing.

Untitled Poem

2007-07-18T13:04:00.000-04:00

I am fully aware that I have not been posting nearly as much as I had been, but I have been incredibly busy, and working on some extended prose works that will be even better than any short works I can produce.

This poem is inspired by my girlfriend, with whom I argue tirelessly about grammar; she hates some of the things I use in my writing. I don't fully believe that I'm saying in the poem, but hell, poets lie all the time; enjoy.

I'll come up with a title eventually

No matter how hard
I try to stop using the
Little devil that keeps
My thoughts going and
Allows me to continue
Creative endeavors I cannot.

I must admit my addiction;
But as soon as I try to stop
I get pulled right back in.

My brain tells me to keep using;
But moderation is not in its
Vocabulary; so I am left to
Use and abuse, with no end
In sight.

What is this cruel devil, you ask;
Only the greatest plague man
Has heretofore invented: the semicolon.

My Toil

2007-05-25T18:44:00.001-04:00

I would like to meet the
Deity that decided that
I would spend my life
As a Sisyphus in
Purgatory, trying to be
Joyce, Kafka, Fitzgerald, Hemingway,
But not even coming close.

Not to mention
Bard, Dante, Vergil.

But no, I will futilely try
Until I die,
To be one of those guys,
And one cannot deny
That while I
Will write until my pen goes dry
And while I will barely get by
And the odds try to defy
That I may be esteemed so high
To be among those gods above the sky.

Going to Waltham

2007-05-14T16:27:00.000-04:00

The college application process is completely over, and I will be attending Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts. I suppose that I am pleased with this fact, but I am unsure of how this will impact my future as a writer/academic. Regardless, Brandeis is a decent good with a pretty good reputation, and I am hoping to make the most of the opporunity. Granted, there a few schools that I got rejected from that I do not think I will ever go over, and I am considering transfering to a top top school, but overally I am satisfied with Brandeis.

I am also working on an extended prose work, and I am considering posting some of the details. AP tests are over at the end of this week, so I will have more time to blog soon.

This Is Why I'm Hot

2007-04-27T21:08:00.000-04:00

It is no secret that I have very eclectic tastes in music; my favorite musicians are Tupac, Beethoven, Subliminal, G-Unit and I am becoming fond of Amy Winehouse for she reminds me Dylan Thomas and Charles Bukowski, and not just for her love of alcohol. I have always defended rap/ hip-hop music when it has been called “non-art”, “the death of art” or anything negative like that. I have been critical of what I call “rap culture” or “the philosophy of mainstream rap.” Regardless, that is another post. But from listening to a very popular song, “This is Why I’m Hot” by Mims, I was taken aback and I must admit that this is a warning sign of the death of English. This is not to say that Ebonics is itself a language, it is a manner of speaking ENGLISH. But I digress. The reason for writing this is that the chorus of the song has no meaning linguistically. Whenever I listen to it I hear Wittgenstein turning in his grave. Granted I am not too well read in Wittgenstein, but he dealt with meaning in language.

Here is the chorus of “This is Why I’m Hot”

This is why I'm hotThis is why I'm hot
I'm hot cause I'm fly
You ain't cause you're not (Mims)
This is why
This is why
This is why I'm hot

As it stands, the word ‘hot’ deals with heat. My favorite dictionary site lists twenty-two meanings for the word, and most of them deal with a positive, fast, heated entity. It is obvious that in conversation ‘hot’ has seemingly limitless uses, to describe abstract things such as physical appeal, something popular and something new, to name a few. However, it is not clear what the word ‘hot’ means in this context. Luckily, Mims goes on to describe why he is hot, and an unnamed individual is not. So for now allow us to assign ‘hot’ with the letter x. Mims is x, or so he claims.

Mims says that he is x because he is ‘fly.’ Again, ‘fly’ as an adjective has no definitive meaning. In American (used almost exclusively by adolescents and young adults in such a manner) ‘fly’ is again a positive adjective and even has a connotation of being fashionable. However, not once in the song does Mims mention anything about his style of dress. He namedrops with famous geographic locations in the US, his car collection, his rapping skills and his way with women, but not anything that would constitute being ‘fly.’ So let us affix the variable y to fly. Mims says he is x because he is y, but it is very unclear as to what x and y constitute.

Alas Mims does give a counterexample, and discusses an individual who is not x or y! Yet his justification for this mystery individual not being x is because he is not y. So M (Mims) = x = y, and Other Individual (B) ≠ x ≠ y. So why is Mims ‘hot’ and what is ‘fly?’

Towards the end of the song, Mims states

I keep it so mean the way you see me leanAnd when say I'm hot my n*** this is what I mean

No Mims, you do not tell us what you mean. You have given specific examples of what you are, but is that the criteria for being ‘fly’, and in all cases if I am ‘fly’ am I also ‘hot.’ What if I am hot, but not because I am ‘fly’ because I am ‘dope?’ Are all ‘fly’ people hot, and are all ‘hot’ people fly? Again, the versatility of ‘hot’ makes this even more difficult. Jessica Simpson is hot, but I wouldn’t consider her ‘fly.’

Clearly, Mims does not fully explain why he is hot, and the nature of being fly. Linguistically, the chorus of his song has no meaning, and it is not catchy. I am a huge fan of rap music, but overall this song is literally meaningless.

Other Stuff

2007-04-22T21:56:00.000-04:00

I have been spending most of my free time writing an extend prose work, studying for AP Tests, and trying to get into college. More writings to come.

Rejected from Most Places and a Poem

2007-03-26T20:15:00.000-04:00

As of now it appears that I will be attending Villanova University, barring some unexpected good news from a school at which I was wait listed. Here's the poem.

Nights

The optimal time for creative endeavor is
Clearly when Ra is no longer on duty
And one is free for to express himself
Artistically as much as he wants.

While fellow man is among the revelers,
And most are no longer productive,
My muse summons me to highest duty.

The ideas flock to my brain,
Rushing down my nerves
Forcing my fingers to type
At lightning speed,
Completing the desires of my heavenly inspiration.

Darkness abound, my nocturnal muse
Compels me to compose
Lyrics of flawless beauty and incessant delight.

With my subject and meter in mind,
My ammunition is set and I am
Prepared to do what I was born to do.

Nietzsche and I

2007-03-18T17:23:00.000-04:00

Since my last post I have composed around three or four new poems, but at this point I do not want to share them on by blog. I have been more than nervous about getting accepted to even one college, and at this point I have not gotten in anywhere. I find it unlikely that this late in the admissions game my blog will be checked, but what do I know. I have been reading a lot of Nietzsche and Shakespeare lately, and decided to write a short essay comparing our thought. Note that I am not a philosopher yet, but I still have my own take on life. I plan to add to this essay, but having been light on my posts lately I felt that it behooved me to publish.

1

I make it a know fact that Friedrich Nietzsche is my idol, or my second idol (Shakespeare being the other candidate), but the fact remains that Nietzsche is actually different from me in critical areas, and similar to me in others. Note that I will be using Nietzschean philosophy and Nietzsche as the same term, and I will use “me” to stand for my own brand of philosophy. Note that I am not comparing myself to Fred in terms of intellect, writing ability or anything of that nature, but comparing our philosophies and attempting to see where I am influenced by Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is first and foremost a philosopher. He is secondarily a historian (specializing in classical history), and then a critic, musician, poet and political thinker. I am a critic, poet, philosopher, historian and political thinker, with no talent in music whatsoever.

2

A good place to begin an examination of Nietzschean philosophy and my philosophy (I do not believe that I have earned the term “Hillmanian philosophy”, so shall not use it) is our idea of god. I am still skeptical of Nietzsche’s atheism; shocking! Nietzsche the philosopher clearly does not believe in god (by god I mean any divine being, creator being, et cetera) but I still feel as if Nietzsche the man may believe in god. A piece of anecdotal evidence for this fact was his alleged plan to become a Lutheran minister! Yes, the most famous atheist of all time (for now) may have deep down believed in god. This is not to say that he believed in organized religion, but the fact that god was dead was clearly troubling to Nietzsche. I have not textual evidence of this, but considering the events of Nietzsche’s life it is probable that pure atheism is not something that he was comfortable with.

My atheism is different. It is derived from a life with scientific knowledge that Nietzsche did not have access too, a life of reading, and an upbringing that never forced me to believe in God. Of course deep down I fear that I may be destined to a life of damnation, but if I had to bet money on the existence of a divine or supernatural being I would hedge it on the lack of existence. I feel that I belong to a purer brand of atheism than Nietzsche.

Nietzsche believed that religion had no place in the modern world, and may have believed that religion would be phased out just as the belief that the world was flat no long holds any merit. Either this or it was very wishful thinking. It is my belief that religion is here to stay, and the negative and literal interpretations of religions would become the extreme, and the majority if people who look to religion will ignore the “proclaimed religious truths” and if one believes in god it will not be an entity of consequence. This change is evinced by a shift in world-wide thinking, and god is not even an integral part in the lives of most people all over the world. Granted, there is a backlash and a shift to the literal interpretation of religion, but overall most religious believers are become more open to modern interpretations of religion. I agree with Marx in his famous quip that it is “the opiate of the masses”; it quells and placates them, and makes their lives more tolerable. It is very susceptible to addiction and abuse, and wars have even been fought over it, but that is the reality of religion.

3

Nietzsche’s next critical idea is his morality. He is obviously influenced by Kant, despite his denial of this fact. In terms of his ethics, Nietzsche was beyond moral judgments, even subconscious ones. I am almost Kantian in my ethic, with a belief in moral obligations; my god is the categorical imperative. However, neither of these ethics is completely air-tight, and there are some serious gray areas. Yet overall both systems are not derived from what moral judgments to make, but how to make them. They are descriptive as opposed to prescriptive. Of course they are used in making decisions, but the classifications are taken in that manner.

To elaborate upon the systems themselves, a deontological ethic is based upon a priori moral obligations, and possibly even moral absolutes. I would not say that moral absolutes exists, for paradoxes, quandaries, and impossible situations exists, e.g. kill or be killed. Deontological ethics will not help ones in such extremes, but the majority of us are not faced with such moral conundrums daily. A deontological ethics is not sufficient for settling dilemmas, but overall it is sufficient.

4

It is exceedingly difficult to analyze Nietzsche politically, but it is fair to assume that he had political opinions. It is not however fair to assume that Nietzschean ideals are applicable to politics, outside of how a politician should act if he wants to be elected; and even that is debatable. Nietzsche’s view of humanity views most people are less than intelligent, and choose to live with the herd and in most cases do not think for themselves. This would appear antithetical to democracy, and a democracy in which most of the population comprises the electorate that would be the case. Nietzsche did not however live to see the form of American democracy that we have today, so it would be to extrapolate to say definitively what he would have said with respect to it. Granted, Nietzsche was aware of America, but did not have a great vested interest in it.

If Nietzchean ideals are applied to politics, it would point on into an authoritarian system, for clearly the masses are not intelligent enough to decide for themselves politically. They are easily manipulated and could not be expected to elect the proper candidate into power. Nietzsche may have used Hitler as an example to this, but I need further analysis to get behind this possible claim one hundred percent. Regardless, Nietzschean philosophy applied to politics would present some sort of authoritarian, possibly oligarchic system, but in practicality it would more than likely fail.

My political ideals are even sometimes a mystery to me. I view democracy as a necessary evil, for I know that it would be a travesty were I not allowed the right to vote, but I feel that most of the electorate votes just to vote and are not informed enough of the candidates or manipulated by factors that have no bearing on one’s political abilities; one would not expect a librarian to perform open heart surgery, so why should the uniformed decide who is appointed to political office? But no system in practice is better than democracy, so I must admit that my ideal political system pragmatically is democracy, but I cringe at the fact that people vote just to vote, without seriously understanding the issues at hand.

5

Because Nietzsche was such a complex think, there is no limit to the topics that he can be compared to my philosophy. The next idea is his concept the overman. I shall refer to it as Übermensch whenever possible, but changing to overman for stylistic reasons. There is no “best” translation for Übermensch, but overman is my favorite. Regardless, the Übermensch is Nietzsche’s concept of the best possible man in his society. I hesitate to call him the ideal man, rather the ideal man for Nietzsche’s time. I find it hard to believe that Nietzsche, Wagner, Schopenhauer, Socrates, Democritus, Goethe or even Jesus was an Übermensch. I disagree with the ideal, because at its core an overman must succumb to nihilism to overcome it. While this is paradoxical in nature, there is some truth in it. I propose that one must understand what nihilism is to overcome it; not fall victim to it. And nihilism isn’t a necessary symptom of atheism, for the record, I would argue that atheism leads one away from nihilism; a purpose in the world is not predetermined; there are infinite possibilities for a purpose in life. Granted, many atheists succumb to nihilism, but don’t overcome it. Regardless, the Übermensch is an interesting idea, but it is somewhat pointless and impractical.

6

It is undeniable that I am more influenced by Nietzsche than any other philosopher; above Sartre, Kant and Russell. However, we have fundamental differences on the nature of morality, humanity and religion. There are certain parallels that cannot be ignored, but while I have the utmost respect for Nietzsche, I am probably not a Nietzchean at heart.

If you are reading this and are not well versed in the writing of Nietzsche (shame on you!), almost every introduction to Nietzsche I have read has been more than sufficient for a brief overview of his thought. For a great Nietzsche text, Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer is not only my favorite work of his but one of my favorite books of all time. Beyond Good an Evil is good as is The Anti-Christ. I was disappointed with Human, All too Human and his other works, Genealogy of Morals, Ecce Homo, etc. are good as well.

In sum, Nietzsche is one of the most fascinating philosophers of all time, my favorite philosopher, and while he is my greatest inspiration behind Shakespeare we are by no means similar in terms of philosophical content.

The Youthful Scholar

2007-03-08T19:12:00.000-05:00

In the past month or so I have written a few poems, a couple essays, and have read as much as I could. My weekends were busy and I had prior obligations but I did my best to hold true to my occupation as an amateur scholar, philosopher and poet. My poems are in a state of being edited right now, and I am nearing the point where I may look to show them to people who could help me publish one or more of them, or just a general way to get published. I have been hesitant to post them, but I may post one or two in the coming weeks. The last order of business to discuss is my anxiety over college. I should be informed of my acceptance, rejection or other for most of my schools in two and a half weeks to a month, and I am quite nervous. I believe that most of my colleges have either neglected to look at my blog or have already looked at it and posting this will not effect their decision. As of right now I have not a dang clue where I want to go, and I am saying that with complete honesty. Unfortunately, I doubt that I will be accepted to any of the ones I applied to, but nightmare scenarios can wait.

As I have been reading Nietzsche lately, I was inspired to write a piece in his style. I entitled it, The Youthful Scholar. I am unsure if I will continue writing little essays in this style, but I fear that it is not dangerous to publish this.

The youthful scholar. Man at his most learned is a scholar. He is not only a repository for knowledge, but the most analytical of thinkers. A scholar must be well versed in the greatest text heretofore produced by man, and but be able to remove himself from his society enough to be as objective as possible, but still give a contemporary perspective on what he (or she) is reading. He must not use scholarship to his own personal ends, especially political. This is not to say he shouldnÂt attempt to make a living on his status as a scholar, but he should not corrupt prior text to achieve his own ends.

The youthful scholar must be wise beyond his year, and make up for time he was not allotted. Becoming a scholar is a process that takes complete devotion and a lifetime of reading, discussion and writing to achieve status. He must not be distracted by the distractions and indulgences of the world, and work to be among those who have had more time to read, write and discuss.

He is not the rarest breed of human, but in today's culture he is clearly among the rarest. He is not nobler than any other man, but the young scholar is learned beyond his years and in many cases also wise beyond his years. Note that these do not always go together, but history says that they tend to. The young scholar has unlimited ambition, and wants nothing more than to read, write and discuss his subject.

Some Orders of Business

2007-02-12T18:43:00.000-05:00

Last night I was contemplating the state of some of my poems. I realize that many of them are not completed, and some of the better ones will be submitted for future publishing. I have more than a handful of poems that I have finished, but have not blogged. At this point, I am taking off some of my poems, to edit them and publish them later on my blog, or (ideally) in another form. If you actually read this and would like to read them, inquire within.

If you have any suggestions for poems or poetry to read, please inform me; if not, enjoy my poetry and essays, or just laugh at my lack of skill. If you are a college admissions person hoping to see if I actually use this blog for the intellectual pursuits that I expressed in my applicaiton; partially for that reason I left some of my poems on this blog, but I still want to save and perfect some of my best works. But fear not, I still plan to use this to share my works with the world.

Ezekiel I

2007-02-11T21:39:00.000-05:00

Lately, I have been (in between worring about college and if I have even the slightest bit of writing talent) reading a lot of twentieth century English poetry. The past few days, it has been my old friend Bukowski, and I have been writing in his style. Unfortunately, I feel as if it is slightly immature, but still brillaint and incredibly effective, yet I think that I prefer a more structured work.

So, last week I read a book of "modern sonnets" entitled Tea With Osiris by Paul West. It was very well written, but I expected more of a discussion about Osiris. Upon completion, I got to thinking "who is my osiris. Of course, Fred came to mind, but that is too cliche; I needed an older figure. So I realized that the prophet Ezekiel was one which I was fascinated by, and he is my Osiris. I had a vision of a book of poems dealing with Ezekiel himself, but I am by no means ready to undertake that; wait about five years for that. However, I was inspired to write a poem about him, in that same Bukowskian style. At this point I have no title, but I plan to find one; most likely a quote from Ezekiel.

Ezekiel I

I wonder if
Ezekiel ever
Woke up in the middle
Of the night,
Wherever he was sleep;
Albeit in a cave, or
On the ground or
In the house of
A friend or
In a temple or
Wherever the hell
Else he might be
Staying
And wonder
Why the masses
Were so blind to
The truth and
Themselves
And ask why they
Wouldn’t just
Follow his lead
And act
Righteously.

How painful it must
Have been for him
To have such knowledge
And have such a burden
Placed on by some
Supreme power,
And still see the
ignorance of mankind.

No; they deny your
Categorical imperative;
Yokel-like and moronic,
Refusing to heed your
Wisdom.

Editing and a Poem

2007-02-10T21:36:00.000-05:00

Lately, I have been working on schoolwork, studying for AP tests, reading and editing my previous poems. I have written a few others, but I do not want to blog them at this time. Expect edits soon, and maybe one day I'll just say the heck with it and publish cavalcadenous (I haven't seen that word before, so I invented it) amounts of poetry, but at this point they shall reamin on my desktop, as opposed to on my weblog. I did however write this short poem while reading the Bukster. Granted, it is not a "poem" per se, but if you've read some William Carlos Williams or Ezra Pound, you'd know that just because a piece is short on text it isn't necessarily short on poetic prowess.

The Bukster and I

All I have on
Bukowski
is that I am
slightly more handsome
and have a
better liver.

What I Am Up To

2007-01-24T16:04:00.000-05:00

Currently, I am working on writing a few poems; especially one entitled “Deplorable Habituations”, which I am undecided if I am going to post it or not. I have been having a lot of college interviews, examinations as well as other distractions (e.g. actually convincing a college to accept me), and I have not been able to write anything worthwhile. I would like to list here some poets that I have been reading lately, and that may be influencing my writing. Note that some of them are old favorites, and others are writers I have recently come across. I plan to read more of these authors in the very near future.

Sylvia Plath
Charles Bukowski (of course)
Hart Crane
Anne Sexton
Federico Garcia Lorca (in Español and in English)
T.S. Eliot
Ted Kooser
Ezra Pound
Louis Zukofsky
Shakespeare (Narrative Poems)
Carl Dennis
Vergil
Andrew Marvell
Paul West

Old, Learned, Respectable Bald Heads

2007-01-05T21:18:00.000-05:00

Old, Learned, Respectable Bald Heads

As I sit at my desk,
Pouring over texts from long ago,
Written by old, respectable learned white men
I find myself at a crossroads.
To be a scholar, or not to be as scholar?
Is this the life of for me?

Am I to join their ranks
And read their books
And learn at their academies
And comment upon their works.

To dream their dreams;
To read their masterpieces;
To contemplate their ideas;
To live as they did.

Is it worth living that life?
Spending many a night dreaming to go
Where fun goes to die and I can find
Enrichment from knowledge
Or where I can find
Truth or
Light or
Flourish Under God’s Light.

I know not if ‘tis the life for me
To be a scholar and study
The works of the ages
And the wisdom of the sages.

Or to be a writer of poetry
Escaping perpetual melancholy
And reinforcing my exulted felicity
Creating verse for all eyes to see

Oh to be an artist with paper as
His canvas and language as his paint
And his pen as his paintbrush-
I have not seen anything so beautiful, heretofore.

To through my mind or live through my quill?
Which way would Eliot walk?

Some Intellectuals who Have Influenced Me and Who I Admire

2007-01-02T21:38:00.000-05:00

As one who tends to “name drop”, I would like to discuss a few intellectuals who have influenced me and who I see myself in the most. The fitting figure to begin with is Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche was first a philologist, and then became a musician and philosopher, with some political musings from time to time. I find that I am strikingly comparable to Nietzsche in our philosophies (note that neither of us are Übermenschen), but I am a Kantian in ethics. I have studied classics for four years now, and will definitely continue that study through university, and possibly even more. I do not nearly the same love or talent for music that Nietzsche does. But the fact that we both have backgrounds in philology and philosophy, coupled with our views of society makes Nietzsche a figure I admire and aspire to be like.

A second scholar who I see a lot of myself in is Bertrand Russell (1872-1970). He was a Cambridge mathematician, philosopher and political activist, and there are some striking similarities. To begin, our childhoods were both filled with a fascination with mathematics. Granted, I am not the genius that Russell is by a long shot, but we still have the same passion for the subject. We both saw no room for god in a world run by mathematics, and moved on to a love of philosophy. But politically we differ; Russell is a socialist and I would rather be stuck dead than live in a socialist country (sorry Laos). I would give almost anything to study at Cambridge or Oxford, which has been one of my chief goals since I grasped what those more than glorious institutions represented, but not to get ahead of myself. Russell’s love of mathematics, his rational atheistic philosophy, and his ethic make me admire him, and the influence on his writings cannot be ignored. Granted, I a tenth the ladies man that Russell was.

The next two scholars that I would like to discuss are inevitably linked together, but I find myself drawn much more to one as opposed to the other. These two scholars are also poets; Thomas Stearns (T.S.) Eliot (1888-1965) and Ezra Pound (1895-1972). Eliot is both a philosophy scholar (PhD, Harvard) and the titan of modernist poetry. I am not incredibly well read in Eliot, I am sad to say, but I have read his most important works and am very intrigued by what I have read. Regardless, his background in free-verse and philosophy makes him a scholar I have great admiration for.

Pound and Eliot both use classical languages in their works, and as a budding classicist myself this draws me to them. Pound is lord of the cultural reference, and I use an abundance of them in my writing, even if they are lost to most readers. While I do not agree with Pound’s political views, or views on the Jewish people, I am greatly enamored with his writing style and dense lyrics. I have not yet completed reading The Cantos, but I plan to in time. Pound’s blend of languages with elevated poetry and great scholarship makes him an intellectual that I admire. (I am also applying to Pound’s alma mater, Hamilton College, and one of my best friends is going to be enrolling there starting next year).

Umberto Eco (1932-) is an Italian novelist, philosopher, linguist and literary critic with a specialty in medieval historical fiction and history. He is a glorious amalgam of my interests, and he is a driving force in modern literature. Eco is a great scholar, and I find myself to be drawn to his linguistic works. I have not been fortunate enough to read any of his novels, but I plan to in the near future.

A last intellectual who has had great influence on me is Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980). He really doesn’t need an introduction, but his brand of existentialism and literary pursuits make him exceedingly admirable. I find myself standing up and pumping my fist in the air while reading Sartre, for I have felt the same anguish and ideas (this is an experience I find myself having while reading Nietzsche as well.) I have held off on reading his fiction, for I believe that language is an essential part of literature and I cannot read French as of this point. If I become a linguist (which his very possible) I will learn French enough to read his works as well as other great French writers.

I would lastly like to give a list of some other intellectuals whom I admire, but I choose not to discuss here. James Joyce (1882-1941), Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924), Stephen Hawking (1942-), Jeffery Sachs (1954-) and Roger Penrose (1931-) all have a special place in the hall of my favorite academics, intellectuals and scholars, and I would like nothing more than to be a scholar and writer as the greats that I have listed in this post.

My Literary Tastes

2006-12-22T21:50:00.000-05:00

As I have expressed before, I am a recovering literary elitist. The cliché greats, e.g. Kafka, Dickens, Shakespeare and Keats tickle my fancy the most. However, I have found that I am now seeking out the “lesser known classics.” For AP English, I was assigned Shusaku Endo’s Deep River, and was blown away. It is a little known Japanese novel, but centers upon a study of Christian morality and world culture, plus the style (although translated), was quite intriguing. So while I will never quit Hemingway, Faulkner and Joyce, I still look for lesser known classics.

To successfully search for these “hidden classics”, I had to research world literature. Some of the classics that I have found are Julien Green’s Moira and Kurt Vonnegut’s Mother Night. Granted, Vonnegut is a popular name in American Literature, but the work in particular is not one of his better known novels, and I found it more pleasing than both Breakfast of Champions and Cat’s Cradle.

So as far as novels go, I have come to the conclusion that I will more or less read anything, but I tend to go for the works with most popular names. In terms of poetry, I am sad to say I am still an elitist. I have read a lot of poetry by less reputable authors (I do not want to name names), and with the exception of Charles Bukowski who is my anti-hero, I have not found many of them pleasing. Only Keats, Yeats and the like satisfy my desire for poetry. As I am beginning to write poetry, I am light years away from their level of greatness with verse, but I it is not going to stop me from trying (just bear with me until I get it right!). It may be that I still need to read more of this “great” poetry, to be able to see that other poets are close to the same level, but I cannot break the spell that Wordsworth and Donne have on me.

While it may be unfair, I have a great taste for poetry in other languages, namely Hebrew, Latin and Spanish. (I am working on my study of Koine Greek, but I am not advanced enough to read poetry in it). The study of Virgil (I am unsure if I prefer ‘Vergil’ or ‘Virgil’) has greatly expanded my tastes in poetry, and even one word from Vergil (‘vitiossimus’ for example) have inspired entire poems! While it may be unfair, I find the poets in those three languages most likeable, for it helps me with my study of languages. However, "Gloriossimus", my potentiam magnum opus is on hold, for I do not feel as if it deserves to be completed, considering my current prospects for education in the next year.

Overall, my taste in literature is still for the greatest of the great, but if I can read a lesser known author in their common tongue, I will read that as well. I am always looking for that classic that skipped the clutches of literary critics for the most part. Any suggestions for works are appreciated, except Treasure Island. Most importantly, I incorporate what I read into my writing, even if I do not notice it. So if you find some Virgil, Keats or Faulkner mixed in with the inferior writings of Brian Hillman, it is because I have read them so extensively.

I Haven't Pleased the Gods Sufficiently

2006-12-19T15:11:00.000-05:00

So today I was deffered from the University of Chicago. I am not exceedingly surprized, but I am dissapointed. It was one of the top schools on my list, and I would have liked not to worry for the next three months. I fear that this shrieking harbinger will be the pattern of my future, but what do I know? Actually, I know I am applying to 11 other fine institutions, and I hope that I can impress one of them. The idea of going to Chicago is not over, but its done for right now. I can attempt to feign optimism but at this point I wonder if I'll ever go to college and become the reputible scholar that I hope to be.

What I Want out of Life

2006-12-18T21:53:00.000-05:00

I feel that it behooves me to clarify what I actually want out of life, and why I do some of the things I do. First and foremost, I want to be a writer and a scholar. For as long as I can remember (or at least since I realized I was not going to the NBA), I have been driven by intellectual pursuits and have found exceedingly great joy in these activities. I have had this preoccupation with where I go to college becuase I want to attend an institution that will give me the opportunity to achieve those goals, and in an enviornment that promotes such activities.

My first intellectual love is mathematics. Yes, I know I am not the best at BC Calculus or AP statistics, but there is something comforting about mathematics; the world makes sense! Mathematics is the most comforting of all the intellectual pursuits, and while I am very tallented with the integers, I never got the hang of taking mathematics exams. So I have accepted the fact that I am not the next Riemann, and turned my pursuits to literature.

Literature is my favorite form of art, and I believe that I have some talent from it. (While some may knock the last poem, it is Bukowskian, and while it is fragmented I am satsified). Literature also breeds a great amount of scholarship and intellectual argument, and I feel that I can contribute to it.

Philosophy is my third love, but philosophy is exceedingly frustrating. However, I believe that I am a talented enough thinker to be a sucessful philosophy scholar, and I want to pursue that.

Lastly, I have a great fascination with language and linguistics, and things that others find tedious I find fascinating.

With these interests, (math, literature, linguistics and philosophy), I believe that I am a fairly unique and diverse intellectual, and I want to pursue my scholarly endeavors in said disciplines, save for mathematics. I want to attened a top-tier institution, for I beleive that it will expose me to like-minded students and professors, that share in my "boring" intelllectual passions. All I want out of life is to be a respected scholar in whatever field(s) of study I enter. Of course I would love to be a published philosopher, poet, novelist and essayist, but who wouldnt?

Another Day of Waiting

2006-12-15T14:43:00.000-05:00

So for some reason or another the notification date for The University of Chicago is not today. I do not know what sort of misunderstanding went down between myself and the illustrious university. I should be finding out next week, I appologize to all those who have had to go through this process of waiting and anticipation, and will have to deal with it until I am notified. I shall post any sort of update. Thanks, and I am sorry for whatever misunderstanding went down.

Watching Troy Fall

2006-12-08T20:59:00.000-05:00

I am still working on Gloriossimus, but when you find your muse, you mustn't pass up the opportunity to write. I am still beyond nervous about the University of Chicago, and I would like to congratulate those who have successfully gained entrace to the institution of their choice; hopefully, I will soon be joinging your ranks, but if not there are an abundance of other ones which I would love to attend, and if it isn't meant to be, the institutions which reject me are passing up a commited student, intellectual, scholar and writer. (I need to stop using run-on sentences, or stop letting Faulkner influences me.) Here goes the poem.

Watching Troy Fall

How I am saddened by this impending, inevitable apocalypse
And how I feel like I am the culprit of such a grave calamity.

I could have saved Troy,
But now I stand far atop the hillside,
Waiting for the last stones to fall,
Brick to crumble, and embers to burn.

My hopes are the Trojans,
My dreams the Teucrians,

And no ocean could extinguish the
Flames consuming the city.

For lo!, I could have saved Troy,
But now I am the only one left to watch it fall.

Mildly Haughty

2006-12-02T19:24:00.000-05:00

In attempting to execute the plan stated in my previous post, I found my muse once again and wrote this poem. I am not exceedingly pleased with how it came out, but its good enough. It may be revised, expanded or both, but for now I deem it postworthy. I am unsure of a good title, but it is a mildy haughty poem, and shall be title such, at least temporarily.

A Mildly Haughty But Honest Poem

As the days pass,
The tides come and go,
The trees die and come back to life,
I sit in my chair
Listen to Beethoven
Read Vonnegut
Drink Iced Coffee
And try to pen the next
Great work of art.

The world changes,
Friends come and go,
And I try to be the next
Fitgerald, P. Vergilius Maro or
Bukowski sober.

And 99 percent of my friends,
Acquaintances and enemies try
To become the next businessman,
Lawyer, doctor, or high school teacher,
And
I try to become the next
Tennyson, Yeats, Dante.
And my closest friends died
Before I was born,
And never knew them.
And they find their
Friends in neighbors, classmates et cetera.
Sometimes I wonder if it would be
A favorable existence to live
The other way,
Then I realize that I am not being
True to myself.

A Poem, Forthcoming

2006-11-30T22:04:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking about writing a poem dealing with the nature of glory. However, I have not until today found out how to write it. I am working on a poem entitled "Gloriossimus" (exceedingly glorious in Latin) and it is in the same style as Beethoven's "Ode to Joy." I am working through it, and it is rather difficult, but I expect a good finished product. I applogize for not being as porilific as I was two weeks ago, as I am very busy with school and SATs, and I am feeling some anxiety about college. Regardless, I wanted to state my plan for my poem, and I hope it comes out well.

I also want to explain that the poems I have written have an abundance of Classical refernces, that unless one is a classics scholar, or has a random love of classical literature and language, they may be missed. But alas, every line of my poetry was deliberately written, that is why I have embraced the free-verse style.

Remembrance of Things Passed

2006-11-13T17:55:00.000-05:00

As I find it best to work though my anxiety by means of attempting to find my own poetic voice, I have composed another exaggerated work about being rejected. Again, please do not take this literally, I am just quite nervous about the cataclismic event that will take place on December 15. I will pick up the pieces and move on, and I have been working on other options, but I think that I have met my match, and to lose this opportunity due to my own sub-par performance on examinations would be a shame. I hope that writing semi-depressing, over dramatic verse does not jeapordize my chances of acceptance, but I am attempting to develop my own voice im poetry, and this is the best outlet for my thoughts, feelings and writings, and this is the premier way to recieve feedback and publish my works.

Remembrance of Things Passed

Since having stood in your presence,
Seen you high walls; felt your breath on by
Face, and held you in my arms,
I have lost my passion for life.

To so boisterously expressed my desire to
Become your partner,
And be cast off as a fly on a mountain.

HOW MY HEART BURNS FOR YOU!
WHAT I WOULD GIVE, WHAT I HAVE GIVEN
FOR YOU, and to disregard me!

I used to be moved by competitive endeavors
And beautiful things,
But having seen true greatness,
I am apathetic to the world.

In my previous years, I loved all the beautiful things of the world-
The symmetry of nature,
The enigma of the physical world,
The perfection of mathematics,
The aesthetic beauty of woman,
The ecstasy of competition,
The hope for a better world.

But all that has escaped my spirit.

Having been rejected by my better half,
And unwanted by the forbidden object of my desire,
I see not the utility of being.

How futile are all the other gods when compared to you!
How I have longed for you, and
What you do to my psyche.

Oh, I had the passion for existence,
And saw the glorious indulgence in the
Pleasures of the world;
But now those might as well not exist,
Without my pulchritudinous queen.

The Plague

2006-11-12T20:50:00.000-05:00

I have found that my excessive nervousness about college, school, being a successful writer (quell the cynic in you from saying that the last one is an impossibility) and how I am seocnd guessing myself on my Chicago application. I wish that I could have touched more upon the fact that I have a fair amount of anxiety, and that maybe I should not have used the same content for the big essay. I also found a few minor inconsistencies in it, and I am exceedingly nervous. I have been contemplating writing a poem like this for a while, where I list the entities I discuss, and end with a shocking resolution. I hope that it turned out well, but I may revise it. And please, do not read too much into it.

The Plague

What have I done to deserve this curse!
What heavenly minds have I offended?
What transgressions have I committed?

Who have cursed my soul that I must bear this hardship?
To live with this syndrome is an agony almost unbearable.

The symptoms of this wretched disease include
Depression, hatred, susceptibility to bleeding, susceptibility to disease,
Weight gain, hypertension, dizziness, drowsiness, shortness of breath,
Anxiety, nausea, headache, insomnia, and the disease is always fatal.

I see those who have overcome this disease,
Quelled the symptoms and side effects,
And kept the demons to a minimum.

Are they superior beings, to not be affected the curse,
Or are they ignorant cretins, unaware of their true reality?

How horrid this disease is,
How I would never want to contract this, and
How bad I would feel for one that had this vile malady.

Well let me tell you that YOU have this plague-
Being alive!

To Waiting

2006-11-10T21:06:00.000-05:00

As I have hitherto stated, I applied early to The University of Chicago. I havew an exceedingly great desire to be accepted, but due to the fact that I tend to worry and worry and worry about the future, I have found myself very on edge lately. It is surreal to think that college looms just around the bend, and it is a concept I am struggling to grasp. I am second guessing myself on how I presented myself on the application, and I feel as if I may have blown my chances. Anticipate another post akin to this one as decision time nears (December 15). I feel as if I am qualified, the right type of intellectual, but at this point I have no idea.

About the poetry I have been writing, please realize that I am being slightly overdramatic in my verse. Likening where I go to school to the verdict of eternal fate is pushing it even for me. I have found that I can be
effectively overdramatic, but to those who read it please do not be too deeply affected by it. I am fairly pleased with how I am developing my style in this blank verse poetry, but I have light years to go.

To Waiting

What a plague is this wait,
In anticipation of a climactic action.
How it sets my nerves ablaze and causes
My blood to boil.

The minutes past painfully slow,
It is as if a parasite is slowly eating away at my flesh.

Oh divine judge-

Send me a sign if I shall be
Lifted up with a favorable outcome,
Or if I shall have all my desires dashed
By this verdict of cosmic importance.

What cruel beast forces me to remain in this purgatory?!
Not knowing what will befall me.

To count the time away,
In a manic state, void of productivity.

What evildoings have I committed
So that my fate is thus?

My mind is weighted down by this eminent pronouncement.
My thoughts are drowned by this elephant in the room, and
My nightmares are overcome by this demonic presence.

What heartless creator made man with this self-consciousness?
To know the magnitude of future events,
And to be so overcome by them,
To lose the ability to survive in the present?

How I abhor my nervous and my wandering mind
That is obsessed with the future, and leaves my present behind.

I Hope The Gods See My Soul

2006-11-07T21:16:00.000-05:00

I have applied to the University of Chicago, a school that I believe that I was born to go to. I am very nervous about getting accepted, and I will find out on Demeber 15th. I am doing my best to channel that nervous energy into creative energy, but nervous energy (Ne) > potential creative energy (PCe) says the Hillman law of nervous creative energy. I am doing my best to "hang in there" but I am rather nervous, I am not going to lie. Here are the fruits of labours.

I Hope The Gods See My Soul

I see not the logic in this lunacy,
This flawed system of ranking.

How inefficient we humans are,
Demeaning ourselves into a set of numbers,
Where the subtlest of differences sets us apart.

We are not living creatures to the gods!
We are merely faceless letters and numbers.

Why don’t they see our souls?
They only see poor indicators of ourselves!

Am I to be judged by these faulty marks?
Under an über-secrative criterion?

How faulty is this process!
What this does to our sanity!

Are my scores pleasing to these divine beings?
Only time will tell, if I have survived this criterion.

But how much more than these indicators I am!
I am a writer and a scholar and a mind.
I am not just a mindless, faceless, page of scores.
I cannot help but feel that this process is pedantic and donnish,
And given the chance I would alter this touchstone
So that the heavenly minds would see the heart and soul of the mortal,
And I fear that the Status Quo may not reflect that.

I now know how Ginsberg and Thomas Felt Half of the Time

2006-10-31T21:20:00.000-05:00

To have the desire to sing a beautiful song,
But not be able to find one’s voice is an agony
I have felt many a time, and I am in that same funk as I sit
Here, scribbling in my notes.
The beautiful poetry is deep within my soul,
But my constipated brain cannot find the right
Path to send the lyrics to my hands an let this
Music that burns inside me out on paper.

I have tried and tried and tried again
To free myself of this-
I feel as if I have a poem in me,
But all that comes is random nonsense.

Vanity and Vexation of Spirit

2006-10-26T22:07:00.000-04:00

Vanity and Vexation of Spirit

Ecclesiastes (1.14)

I

I have seen the finest minds of my adolescence,
Destroyed by that madness that is the college admissions process,
Made hysterical by the unforgiving system.
What lies they spew, what lies!
“Apply, apply”, they shout as they wave their banners,
Send their propagandized fliers,
And convinces you that you are the right candidate for x institution.

At this point, I do not know who I am to trust.
I am like prey, trying to find a safe route.
I have been sucked into the trap of committing myself to
A particular place and I still have not quit that drug.
I am enslaved to that cruel master.
Having attempted rehabilitation a multitude of times,
I am no closer to sanity than I have been before.

Walking the halls to an abyss,
Where the elect are prenatally chosen to a life of
Prominence and we poor common souls are
Faced to dwell in the depths of the underworld
Conjuring up stories of the celebrated existence of the chosen.

And the electorate is not innocent in this matter’
Nay, they are the true culprits of this existence.
How we are not mortals to them,
We are merely a jumble of numbers,
Making it easier for them to make rash decisions,
And with a faulty criterion.

Such a wasteland my generation is becoming,
With the few blessed exempt from this existence.
From New York to Boston to Chicago to Pennsylvania,
We are all of the same mold! We all lead the same life,
And we all, more or less, in the same pickle.

BUT WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME!!!
We share the same customs, same country, and are of similar ability,
But we are unique souls, a fact that these face-blind gods overlook.

This fact those cloud-dwellers don’t seem to understand,
And we, the youth, suffer.
So where do we turn?
Our fate is not in our hands anymore,
And the corrupted souls of my graduating class fall into the bottomless
Put that is hedonistic behavior.
How lamentable this is, and how devoid of sense these actions are!

What must we escape from?
How do these misguided individuals find solace in such disgraceful activities?
I do not understand it, nor do I condone it, yet I feel compelled to investigate the former.

These putrid souls, misguided by this Western culture are content to spend their weekend nights in a state of inebriation, sheltered from the unforgiving realities of life.
Sometime I wish that I too could succumb to this escapism,
But I have this gift/curse to be above that nonsense.

II

What has driven these beautiful minds of my adolescence to this madness?
Is it the universities?
Is it the parents?
Is it the teachers?
Is it the television?
Is it the musicians?
Is it the magazines?
Is it the newspapers?

It is them all, and ordered as such by influence!

What a waste of such talents;
That is the real crime!!!!

We are intoxicated with this anxiety, another drug I am enslaved to,
And we did not choose what society we are born into,
We only decide what society we die in,
And the lot of us is not at this latter stage.

Such talent, spent on mindless adventures,
And cast off by the wayside by those who look at these people as
Numbers, and care only about their own ranking?

Is life a competition for who is better?????????
Social Darwinism isn’t dead, it’s as alive at is has ever been!

And I spend my nights,
Howling at the moon and the sun and the planets and the stars,
In a state, intoxicated by my drugs of choice,
With the best minds of my adolescence,
With the acceptance rates of our futures staring down from
That celestial realm, judging us, watching our every action.

I’ll be with you in Princeton, where god hands out
Numbers and we see which line we will stand in, thus determining our eternal fate.

So this waste land of a generation,
Overtaken by madness derived from the societal structures
That determines our fate whence we reach the age of no return.

Oh Diabolical Temptress!

2006-10-24T20:20:00.000-04:00

Note that a literary reading of the poem is impropper.

Oh Diabolical Temptress!

Oh divine being, how unfathomably beautiful you are.
Oh diabolical temptress-
Your pulchritude is unmatched by all the others,
And you have a presence that is wonderfully unique.

When I first learned of how stunning you were,
I was skeptical,
But having since been in your presence
I agree with the consensus verdict.

How tall and gorgeous you are,
Shapely where it is symmetrically perfect.
Upon seeing you, I have not been able to think of anything else.
You have my entire mind and soul!

Oh yes, I have eaten the forbidden fruit that is to look upon your beauty,
And I desire nothing else- the serpent hath tricked me!

How perfect your exterior is, and your mystique is equally impressive.
What an enigmatic specimen you are!
Indeed, your inner beauty is unmatched in the history of the universe.

And your lips- what mind-blowing ideas have come out of them, and what I would give to touch those jewels so heavenly.

What I would give to dwell in your cavernous hallways,
Even though I am unworthy of the souls that have heretofore spent time in you.

What obscene fantasies I have had, spending my nights, dreaming of being with you!
But no- you only allow an extremely select few lie with you.

What a cruel creature you are-
What a tease, what a tease!

Oh dame so comely, such madness you inspire-
How like Werther I am in you presence!

I see not the reason in this perfunctory selectivity,
And I pray that you would see how inane your exclusivity is.

An Ode to Mathematicians

2006-10-21T18:56:00.000-04:00

That fearful symmetry spoken about by Blake
Can make men cringe and lie awake
Many a night and run equations through their heads
Never finding slumber in their beds.

It is the perfection that they crave,
That can be found in those masterpieces called numbers
They work with these things until they meet their graves;
Such glorious thing of never ending wonder.

What I would do to be among the elect,
And reach that kind of immaculate genius
To those brave souls I have the ultimate respect,
They control the patterns of nature that deceive us.

To know the language of the gods so intimately
And to know poetry so beautiful it cannot be grasped by the common man
If I could have this gift given to me,
I would trade my fingers and my entire hand!

I would trade all my gifts of words,
To be one of those geniuses of codes,
For their vision of reality is not at all blurred
And they have inspired me to sing this ode.

Sing Not In Me

2006-10-19T21:12:00.000-04:00

Don't ask, I dont even know why, just read and laugh at my lack of skill, or revel in my references of classical culture.

Forbidden Object of My Desire

Sing not in me oh muse, if I am not to be among the heroes who have come far and wide to that glorious lyceum!

For what use is a muse, just to tempt, to create poetry, the wine of the gods,
If not to have the desired nymph after composition.

Oh forbidden object of my desire, why dost thou tempt me so.
You tell me that I have a shot to dwell in your presence,
But yet you make me wait and give me misleading signs.
Why must you be so cruel?
Was it the data fata?
Is it that some men have mediocrity thrust upon them,
When they desire greatness?

Such agony I have felt, for I have heard the beauteous music of the Sirens,
Yet I am tied to the mast, and those with the strength to untie me are
Deciding if I am worthy or not.

What kind of existence is this?
Is it the path the gods have chosen?

What I would give for an insight into the admittance hall on Mount Olympus,
And to know what cavalcade of events will befall me in the coming weeks!

For lo, the fates are cruel beings,
And they care not about what their power can do to us mortals!

I Dare You, Poseidon!

2006-10-18T21:41:00.000-04:00

Going along with the theme of the previous post, I have written another poem to try to console myself with this stressful time of applying to colleges, especially applying early to The University of Chicago. I know I am not a poet, but at least this poem ends on a positive note.

I Dare You, Poseidon!

How canst thou be so cruel,
Oh rulers of the heavenly realm?

Why must we remain in this purgatory,
Not knowing if we are saved or not?

Porque debo que vivir como esto?
Sin conociendo si o no yo iría al reino celestial!

The anxiety is enough to tear the souls out of men’s’ hearts.
What sense this world is lacking!
Who decided that so few men are saved, and the majority are banished to a life of shame?

Oh cruel master, what transgressions have I committed to deserve such fate!

Erasmus felt my same anxiety, while
Luther said that only true faith can save one, and
Calvin said that we are predestined to be saved or not.

I am Erasmus, waiting out my days of unproductivity,
Unable to be of any use to mankind!

My talents are great, but what good am I if I am not among the elect?!

Oh to waste the fruits of the lord, obsessing over if I will be let into his kingdom?
Heavenly rulers, do tell if I am to dwell in your kingdom or not,
Or am I wasting all of this time and energy?

If only this anxiety could inspire great poetry,
But no, my powerful thoughts do not translate into words.
What am I turning into?

But is Erasmus right???

Must I remain in between, or follow the wisdom of Luther, and have faith that
Those heavenly minds will smile upon me, when they come to my name in the book of life?

Oh, but I can see the impending winter of discontent,
Whence all I can do is done, and I must wait for my fate?

By the power of verse, I have worked it out!Be gone, you accursed lords of the heavenly realms!

You cannot contain my will!

I am Odysseus, challenging Poseidon and with great power ending up as the victor!

It shall be made glorious summer, and a glorious four years, which lead to another glorious four years! Oh rulers of the heavens, I dare you to deny me access into your realm!

Erasmus is wrong!
Calvin is wrong!
Luther is wrong!

But collectively, you are on track. Oh Erasmus, heed the wisdom of Luther and believe, and if given the potential that Calvin spoke of, you shall be great!

So I invoke you Poseidon- I dare you to keep me down!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here I Go Again...

2006-10-16T22:53:00.000-04:00

So I suck at poetry, but I was nervous about college and so I wrote another one, and I do not care if it is horrible I did it and you can kiss off if you hate it; don't get self-rightous, I know I'm not good yet, but whatever, it's my weblog and I shall post what I want to post.

Oh how the tribulations of life weigh on my soul,
With my eternal fate no longer in my hands.

Oh, why must I worship those in the house of acceptance
And forced to stay in a state of purgatory, wondering if my name
Is written in the book of the lord or not?

What have I done in my past lives to deserve this fate?
What sick creature has forced me to wait, and put me into a life of exile,
Taken away from the house of the lord.

Oh what I would do to go back when I could have my fate
What I would do return to the time of innocence, before this sick, gruesome test.

Am I worthy to stand among the gods, in the great land to the north?
Oh, for heaven’s sake, please tell me if I am doomed to a life of exile in purgatory,
Or have I done what the great overmen desire?
Have I pleased the gods enough, or am I doomed to eternal banishment?
Tantaene Animis Caelestibus Irae?!

Oh how overwhelming this time is, for I can no longer hold my own weight.

Oh what a tragic pity it would be, to have squandered the chance to live with the gods,
And spend an eternity among mindless beasts.

Do I control my own fate- not any more.
The time has passed, and I am at the mercy of the gods!

A Reevaluation of the Classics of Literature

2006-10-12T18:41:00.000-04:00

Being as I consider myself rather well-read for my age, I am beginning to think that we must reevaluate what we literary critics consider the greatest works of world literature. As Nietzsche called for a grand reevaluation of values, I call for a reevaluation of greatness- are some of the “classics” a matter of timeliness and not sheer greatness. I am calling to use critical methods, to determine of those considered great are indeed great, and are to be considered great in the context of world literature today.

We have all been assigned a novel that we read begrudgingly for an academic class, and upon completion we wonder why on earth this was assigned. “Surely they could have chosen something better!” we exclaim with discontent. But the professor voraciously defends the work, claiming that we are shallow critics, and have a lot to learn about literature. I am calling for a recount- we must look over what we hail as “classics”, and sort out all those that do not belong.

In clarification, I am not saying that we should throw out all that we have ever thought about literature- god no! But what I am saying is that we must reexamine what we have regarded as classics. I do not think that all of those works included in the conversation of great literature do not belong, and that new classics have been written and discovered, and ought to be included in the conversation. I have read some so-called classics, and felt like my time would have been spent better sitting around, twiddling my thumbs for the duration of time I spent reading it. We must make a distinction between what is historically significant, and what is actually a classic work. I also wish to give new writers a chance to create a great work.

I would like to state a laundry list of works that I have read that need some reconsideration: Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Billy Budd, Foretopman, Moira by Julien Green, The War of the Worlds by H.G. Wells, Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradburry, King Lear, and Deep River by Shausaku Endo. Some of these are undiscovered classics, and others may not deserve the acclaim they have heretofore received.

There are classics to be discovered and other works that must be left in the dust of literature. This is the reevaluation of classics!

Turn Left

2006-10-07T21:34:00.000-04:00

Apparently, Bukowski has had an effect on me. Tonight, I had an experience going home that screamed Bukowski. I do not care if everyone that reads this hates it, but it cannot be said that it is anything short of Bukowskian (don’t tell me it isn’t a word). I do not anticipate writing anything else inspired by Bukowski or any other poetry for that matter (and you know who I am not stepping on your toes, you're much better than me), and I am by no means a poet. I copied Bukowski’s style exactly, but I felt that I wanted to write it, and I felt like blogging it. Love it or hate it, here it goes.

Turn Left

as I walked into
the convenience
store,
I saw the man from
Arkansas
asking for directions

the old lady wearing
pants too
tight
and make-up
too much
is
clueless

“Where do you
need to go”
I inquired

Aspen Glen Drive

says the man
from
Arkansas

“I used to
live there.”
I respond

so I go over
the directions
3 times

starting over 8
times with

“turn left outta here”

I tell him to
drive past the

tire store, middle
school and yield
sign.

I gave him directions
down to a t

as I leave
the store,

with my diet
Dr. Pepper
because they
were all out
of
regular Dr. Pepper

I feel good about
myself for giving
the poor, lost
man from Arkansas
directions

As I climb into my
car and turn it
on I see
the man from
Arkansas
turn right
out of
the parking lot

“shit” I say

and now my
Dr. Pepper
looks worse than
it did 2 minutes ago.

Nietzschian Morality

2006-10-01T14:08:00.000-04:00

In reading one of Nietzsche’s masterpieces Twilight of the Idols: or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, I have found some things disturbing that conflict with my own personal philosophy (if I may use the word of the ages in that sense). He states:

My demand upon the philosopher is known, that he take his stand beyond good and evil and leave the illusion of moral judgment beneath himself. This demand follows from an insight which I was the first to formulate: that there are altogether no moral facts. Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities. Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena—more precisely, a misinterpretation. Moral judgments, like religious ones, belong to a stage of ignorance at which the very concept of the real, and the distinction between what is real and imaginary, are still lacking: thus "truth," at this stage, designates all sorts of things which we today call "imaginings." Moral judgments are therefore never to be taken literally: so understood, they always contain mere absurdity. Semeiotically, however, they remain invaluable: they reveal, at least for those who know, the most valuable realities of cultures and inwardnesses which did not know enough to "understand" themselves. Morality is mere sign language, mere symptomatology: one must know what it is all about to be able to profit from it.

(taken from The Nietzsche Channel, http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel

/twi.htm) Published 1889Based on the translation by Walter KaufmannText amended in part by The Nietzsche Channel.

If there is any problem in reprinting this text on my blog, please alert me, and it shall be removed.

I fear that Nietzsche has missed the point of morality, and by this time he was under a year from his infamous mental breakdown. It appears that Nietzsche has missed the fundamental point of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, which is my God, de facto. He has no sense of morality for morality’s sake. It is possible that Nietzsche associates all ethics with religion, and sees no reason for morality once God has died. But that is to miss the point of the functioning society, and even to undermine one’s own conscience. He refutes morality to begin with, but on what basis? What Nietzsche is saying, I believe, is that we ought not to look for a human code of ethics, but more to examine how we treat each other, but not to judge them. However, to examine and not to judge is to be a historical sociologist. It is to look at the past, but not do anything about the future. I am not for being above good and evil, and I think Nietzsche errs in this fact.

Nietzsche’s flaw is he doesn’t seem to comprehend a morality system that isn’t based in punishment. The Christian morality system is, especially at that time, based on a punishment system. He saw that the fear of damnation made one act a certain way; it is important to note that the punishment of hell outweighed the reward of heaven. I think that Nietzsche either didn’t grasp or refuted being moral for morality’s sake. It’s this conception of morality that I believe is flawed.

A major point to my credit the concept of conscious guilt. Nietzsche is attempting to argue that morality is a social (and religious) construct, and it is relativistic. I argue that while the exact code differs among cultures, there is still the concept of inner guilt that no one is beyond. It is the fact that we have the capacity to reevaluate our decisions, and that we are programmed with guilty consciences shows that morality is not a fabrication. We must be moral; we want to be moral! Nietzsche went to far in his reevaluation in values by discounting morality itself, and I am not one to stand by and allow this. To ignore morality is to ignore human nature, and the inner desire to do what is right. Nietzsche had "had it up to here” with Christianity, but he associated all morality with religiosity which is a mistake. You cannot rise above the herd if you do not realize any sort of contact of action. Even Nietzsche isn’t above the categorical imperative, and my immense admiration and respect for him still exists, but morality is an entity unto itself, not a piteous human construct.

Confessions of a Literary Elitist

2006-09-23T17:21:00.000-04:00

When it comes to the entity that is literatue, I have gone changed my stance as many times as I change my undershorts. In this dynamic transitition into where I stand today (and I may change my mind again tomorrow), there have been two periods in my life: I started out as an extreme literary elitist, and now I have learned to appreciate good literature. For anyone who has met the poor soul who refuses to read anything besides the best, it is a struggle to talk sense into them. And when I say the best, I mean to best- only the finest, e.g. Shakespeare, Vergil, Geothe and Scott O'Dell would do. For the uber-elitist, it is difficult to find someting to read on a daily basis.

I believe that my extreme literary elitism came when I discovered Steinbeck, then Shakespeare. It happened in two stages. First, when I read Steinbeck in seventh or eight grade, it was head and shoulders above anything I had heretofore read. I thought, "this is what literature is." All that crap about the theme, plot and essential literary elements came to light. I had gotten my first taste of good literature, and I wanted more. Little did I know that literature was like crack in the sense that once you had it, you craved it maniacally and would not settle for anything but the best. For better or worse, I met The Bard next.

I still have respect for Steinbeck, but he is not worthy of wiping the behind of Shakespeare, but to his credit few are. Note here that I believe that the finest works of "William Shakespeare" were actually written by Edward de Vere, the seventeenth Earl of Oxford, but that is discussed in an essay I have hitherto written but it is not yet blogworthy.

So I moved on to Shakespeare, before I may have been ready. It has been a blessing and a curse. My middle-school self deemed it the appropriate time to read Hamlet. I appologize if this is making some readers sick to their stomachs, but I went for it, regardless of how utterly cliche' it was.

In reading Hamlet, which was not an easy task, I was stunned by the incredible language, and the construction of dialogue. From reading it I learned a skill that has been exceedingly beneficial to me as a writer- I have this system of taking the dialogue, and running it through my head in a specific voice, and it allows me to determine emotion and if the dialogue is realistic. Note I know I am not special in this regard, but I do now posess the skill of writing halfway decent dialogue. I also learned what a truely great masterpiece is. I did not at the time appreciate it, but upon completion of Hamlet I knew that I held some form of greatness in my hands.

After reading the text of the play, I went on to read Shakespearian Scholarship, mostly Harold Bloom. Professor Bloom has probably shaped my view of literature more than I know nor would admit, but his immaculate criticism and praise were so profound that his writings themselves border on great literature.

Freshman year I emersed myself in some more Shakespeare, specifically The Merchant of Venice, The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Romeo and Juliet, some of The Sonnets and The Poems, and A Midsummer Night's Dream. That, coupled with Bloomian criticism lead me to be an elitist before I was ready to be one. Granted, I was exceedingly well read for my age, (as I still am) but I did not have the fifty years of reading under my belt that Bloom had. Also, I had not written enough works on my own to be able to make such judgements.

Sophomore year, I was still the same elitist that I had been the past year. I will not discuss the nature of my English class or the professor, but I will say it was not me at my best. Regardless, I came across two novelists critical to my development as an intellectual and artist- Kurt Vonnegut and Francis Scott Key (F. Scott) Fitzgerald. The former is by no means one of the greatest of all the time, but as a second teir literary master he is qualified. The latter produced my favorite novel of all time, his immortal The Great Gatsby. This was the first time that I had encountered a work that was beautiful that was not overwritten at all, as some of Dickens and Shakesepare is by contemporary standards. Upon reading Gatsby a second time, I grasped its greatness, and as I am in the process of writing my own work of fiction I feel as if I am an heir to Fitzgerald. (It is this mindset that allows me to overcome my exteme anxiety and self doubt and lets my pen/keyboard do the talking. As a sidenote, I have found that musically, the best muses are Beethoven, Mozart, Juanes and Schubert- don't ask me why). Fitzgerald and Vonnegut shaped my view of literature, and allowed me to appreciate the novel to a fuller extent.

Since then I have read a fair amount of novels, and I see myself reading a few more novels in the next few months. My English class this year is Comparative Literature, and we do not read any novels for a short while, being scheduled to focus on some poetry and Homer's Odyssey. In Latin class, we are translating Vergil's Aeneid, which is something I have been wanting to do since I began studying Latin. See my post, "Diez Libros Leer" for a reading list.

Since I have dropped my view as a super-elitist, I have found some highly credible works of literature. Some of the hilights include Kafka's Trial, Wharton's Ethan Frome, Hemingway's A Farewell to Arms and Faulkner's As I Lay Dying. Unfortunately, I have also met some "less than stellar" works, e.g. Clemens' Huckleberry Finn and Hurston's Their Eyes were Watching God.

Over time, I believe that this shift in elitism is due to my dynamic definition of literature. At my most arrogant, literature was the finest and most reputable works of fiction the world has produce. Now I believe that literature is a work of fiction that has elements besides the plotline and is more complex than a short analysis of the plot. It is imperative to understand that all literature is not good literature. Good literature is much more difficult to define, and I am not ready to define it at this point in time. Regardless, I have come to appreciate all literature and I am now seeking out other works than just the immortal works to read, and contribute to my own personal style and understanding of written art.

Diez Libros Leer

2006-09-22T23:11:00.000-04:00

As my last year a before I enter the semi-real world of University, I am inspired to make a vow to read ten wonderful works of world literature. I have been considering reading some of these works for a considerable amount of time. On a whim, I have decided to make a list of ten books to read by the end of the year. Here is my list:

1. Faust 1 and 2 or The Sorrow of Young Werther by Geothe
2. The Brothers Karamazov (finish) by Dostoyevski
3. The Odyssey by Homer
4. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
5. Thus Spake Zarathustra by Nietzsche
6. The Sun Also Rises by Hemingway
7. The Three Sisters by Chekhov
8. Wuthering Heights by Bronte
9. The Sirens of Titan by Vonnegut
10. The Sound and the Fury or Absalom, Absalom!
I am asking for more suggestions. I refuse to read Treasure Island by Stevenson, in order to spite my father. He has been attempting to persuade me to read it for some time, but I refuse. Hahaha.

Was Nietzsche an Ubermensch?

2006-09-19T20:42:00.000-04:00

In the course of reading my favorite author, Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche, I have come across a point that strikes me as paradoxical. Is Nietzsche an Übermensch? Is he this superman that he hopes to be, and encourages the intelligent of the masses to become. In reading his Twilight of the Idols: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer, there are points where Nietzsche stoops down to the level of the crazed religious fanatic, and points out the flaws in their way of life. It is as if he picks a fight with a child, over something the child has no control over. Nietzsche was, in some cases, just as fanatical as the religious fundamentalist! He can be described as a fundamentalist atheist, which is (probably) not any better than being a fundamentalist religious person.

The most telling argument is in Nietzsche’s mental breakdown. If he did indeed live by his own categorical imperative, and that lead him to spend over a decade of his life (and possibly more had he not passed away) unable to produce anything beneficial to society, does this negate his candidacy for being an Übermensch? How can he overcome the slave mentality when he was essentially functioning as an infant as a middle aged man? Would this lead one to believe that Nietzsche’s ethic is convoluted nonsense that leads one spiraling into a crippling depression? This is exceedingly troubling to me, and I see much of Nietzsche in myself and vice versa. I am BY NO MEANS the genius that Nietzsche was, but if we follow the same ethic are we doomed to the same fate as slaves to our own minds?

In ending, can Nietzsche be considered an Übermensch in his own sense of the word? I do not propose an answer to this, at this time, but I must say that I am shocked by the evidence that Nietzsche might not be the Übermensch, something he had spent his whole life trying to become, and may have not succeeded at it.

A Modern Version of Raphael's School of Athens

2006-08-20T20:47:00.000-04:00

My single favorite painting in the history of art is The School of Athens by Raphael. It is a masterful amalgamation of philosophy and art, and it is a staple of western art. While I was contemplating this painting, the idea popped into my head; what if this painting was created with modern figures? I took this idea a step further, and I have found that some of the figures of modernism and postmodernism fit in well with the old painting. Note that I am not an art critic, and while this may be considered blasphemous by some, I’m sorry, but it is more of a philosophical exercise, than an art one. It is possible that I have no idea what I am talking (writing) about, but it was an interesting idea, and I’m going for it.

The two most important people are at the center of the painting; Plato and Aristotle. Unfortunately, there are three titans of modernism- Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. I have no way of determining who are the two most important of the three, I went with Freud, for he is the “father” of psychoanalysis and Nietzsche, because I love Nietzsche and am far from Marx’s biggest fan. In the painting, Aristotle is holding his Nichomachean Ethics, and Plato is clutching a copy of his Timaeus. The latter is a somewhat based on cosmology, and the former a work on ethics. Aristotle is pointing outward, and Plato is pointing upwards. In the modern work, Freud would be Plato, and holding a copy of his Interpretation of Dreams and pointing up, and Nietzsche would be pointing out, holding his Beyond Good and Evil. Marx would be in the center, where the character who I have been told is Socrates or Diogenes. Lastly, I would like to state that Plato looks like Michelangelo and Aristotle looks like Leonardo da Vinci.

Plotinus is also in this painting, and, as a neo-Platonist, it was difficult to find a person to take his place, but if Plato is Freud, then it would be fitting for Carl Jung to be in the place of Plotinus. Plato the character will not necessarily be considered Freud for the duration of this exercise, but for this selection it is the best fit. Some have even described Jung as a neo-Platonist, but I have not studied him enough to make a decision.

Zoroaster (Zarathustra) is also in this painting. He was a Persian prophet, and spurned a centuries old religion, that still is in practice today. The two people I considered for this spot were Báb, the prophet of the Bahá'í Faith and Joseph Smith, the prophet of Mormonism. I decided that the former was a better fit, due to geography and creativity, but Mormonism is the “bigger” religion.

Raphael put himself in this painting, so I would select the foremost artist to take his place. Granted, Michelangelo and Leonardo are, in a way, in the painting, but as the artist of this piece, I deem Pablo Picasso the proper choice. Ptolemy is also in this painting, and he is holding an orb. This was an exceedingly difficult choice, because obviously Albert Einstein must be in this painting, but is it better to put him as Ptolemy, Euclid or Pythagoras? In answering this, I decided to assign Euclid and Pythagoras parts, as well as Ptolemy. Because Ptolemy is holding an orb of the world, is decided that Einstein is best in that role, but what to do with Euclid and Pythagoras? For the former, I have chosen Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss, and for the latter I have chosen Leonhard Euler. If Euler is said to be too early a figure for modernism, Gauss would take the place of Pythagoras, and Bernhard Riemann would be Euclid.

The last two western figures are Parimenides and Heraclitus. Both were influential philosophers, the latter slightly more than the former. For that reason, I have chosen Edmund Husserl as Parimenides and Jean-Paul Sartre as Heraclitus. Husserl is credited with being the founder of phenomenology, an important part of 20th century philosophy. Sartre was a major French existentialist. The last major figure in the painting was Ibn Rushd, sometimes known as Averroes. He was an Arab philosopher of the middle ages, and I figured I should use his spot as an important, figure who wasn’t European or American. I have deemed Gandhi (giving a first name is a lost cause) worthy of that spot. Note that I do not love Gandhi, but I believe he is the appropriate person to take the place of Ibn Rushd.

So that is my modern version of The School of Athens. I feel this was an interesting and productive recreational exercise, and I am pleased with the results. Any errors or omissions I made I hope are pointed out by readers, and as always I request it be done respectfully. Thanks, and I would love to go to see the painting in person some day.

Would Nietzsche Have Gone to Harvard?

2006-08-19T12:56:00.000-04:00

All my life I have deemed it a formative step in becoming a worthy human and intellectual in attending an elite school, such as Harvard, Yale, and the like. However, my idol and hero Friedrich Nietzsche would tell me that that conclusion was fallacious, and it would be a faux pas to go to an elite school. I believe that Nietzsche would argue that society tells you that the best people go to Harvard, and you better attend. Society, College Board, Princeton and US News and World tell you that you need an exceedingly high SAT score (which by the way doesn’t necessarily measure your aptitude as a student, it measures your test taking, mathematics, reading and writing skills, and how good you are at taking the SAT), high G.P.A., and to be involved in numerous school organizations. Nietzsche would say that yes, all that is fine and good, and if you have achieved those that is an accomplishment, but doing all that for the sake of trying to get into an elite school is not being the Übermensch (Overman, and Superman are English translations). Granted, Nietzsche attended The University of Bonn, and was a professor at the University of Bassel, which were and may still be top schools in Germany, but the academic culture and application process were immensely different.

Nietzsche, in his quest to become the Übermensch, were he born today, would not have gone to the Harvards of the world. He would have said that society tells one that only the best go there, and Nietzsche would not have had any of it. I believe that Nietzsche would have spent an immense amount of time searching for the proper college, and would have, most likely, settled for a small, liberal arts school in a place where academics were a serious part of the culture. Nietzsche at 18 was resentful of religion, and enthralled by music and philology. I believe that Nietzsche would have looked the middle to top tier liberal arts colleges, not the elite ones, for that would be going with the herd mentality. He would have proven that just because you don’t go to a Harvard, you are not an idiot, and there are other factors that may prevent one from being Harvard material. Note that he had some serious family issues, and began to drink (on Sundays!) at about age sixteen, so his grades would not have been the best. Actually, Nietzsche may not have taken any AP courses, unless he absolutely had to.

In an analysis of Nietzsche Übermensch, I claim that had he been alive today, and applying to colleges (as I shall be doing in a few months, a process I have been dreading my entire life; it has been an obsession, and the bain of my existence for some time now) he would have applied to a mildly prestigious liberal arts college. He would have gone on to graduate school, probably not at an elite institution either, and would silently mock others who did, as the went along with the herd, as he sat back, and became the Übermensch.

Athletes as Role Models

2006-08-02T20:52:00.000-04:00

For better or worse, the youth of contemporary America consider athletes and other figures in popular culture as their “role models” as opposed to intellectuals. As one who is much more of an intellectual than an athlete (although when I get lucky I’m good at baseball and basketball, but not really), I would prefer the latter because I’m elitist and biased. Regardless, I would like to discuss which athletes are my role models.

Before entering this discussion I would like to state that intellectuals are not “better” than athletes. I can think of many a politician and professor who I can barely admit that I am the same species as them. Athletes tend to get a “bad rap” because they are paid much more than the average person, and there is a minority of them that partake in self-destructive and illegal behavior. We are also a jealous species, envious of the physical prowess of the athlete, and we want to be paid to play a game we take time off from work to play, and at a level far below the professional athlete. I am not going to touch this one, but there is an element of racism involved, especially in the National Basketball Association and National Football League, where a considerable percentage of the players are African-American, especially in the former.

An athlete using his “God-given” physical talent to earn a living for himself is just like the brilliant mathematician going to MIT and earning a living as a professor. Jim Brown using his phenomenal physical skill to great heights playing American Football is (somewhat) analogous to Andrew Wiles using his unprecedented mathematical brilliance to (with the help of topology) solve Fermat’s Last Theorem.

While I write and rant about my favorite intellectuals, Nietzsche, Russell, Sartre, Eco and Bloom for example, it is unfair to the other great individuals who I admire not to discuss them, or give them credit just because they aren’t brilliant thinkers or writers. The first of my athletic heroes is a man by the name of Joe Girardi. Girardi was a catcher for the New York Yankees for a number of years, and also played for the Chicago Cubs, Saint Louis Cardinals and Colorado Rockies. He was a coach for the Yankees (my favorite team in all of sports; well, tied with Maccabi Haifa, מועדון כדורגל מכבי חיפה) and is currently the manager of the Florida Marlins. He is one of the youngest managers in baseball, and it is very rare for a player to become a manager so quickly after retiring from playing, and he is doing a wonderful job on a highly inexperienced team. Girardi’s toughest moment as a player was not as part of multiple Yankees World Series Championship Teams, nor being the Catcher of Yankee’s Pitcher David Cone’s perfect game- it came in June 2002. A teary eyed Girardi had to announce to the fans at Wrigley Field that the game had been canceled due to a “tragedy in the Cardinal (their opponent was the Saint Louis Cardinals) family.” What happened was All-Star pitcher Darryl Kile had passed away peacefully, years before his fortieth birthday in his hotel bed the night before. Kile was one of my favorite pitchers, with a devastating curve ball, and was a friend of Girardi’s. Note that the Cubs didn’t have a super star such as Sammy Sosa make the announcement, or a more popular player; no. They chose Joe Girardi, the light hitting catcher. A man among men, Girardi is my favorite baseball player of all time, and a true role model. Oh, and I can say with much certainty that he never used steroids, having hit a measly 36 career home runs! I would love to meet Mr. Girardi and I have the utmost respect for him as a person and athlete.

Another athlete that I admire is David Robinson. He was the center for the San Antonio Spurs for many years, and was an All-Star, MVP, and helped the Spurs to two Championships. He was a superb high school basketball player, and probably could have gone to an elite basketball school such as Duke University, The University of California at Los Angeles or Quinnipiac University in Hamden, Connecticut; but no. Robinson decided to enroll into the Naval Academy, and study mathematics. He was honorably discharged after he became too big (7’1” tall!) for the Navy. David was the first pick in the 1987 draft by the San Antonio Spurs, and was a staple in the paint ever since. Robinson has been a hero to many basketball fans, and he is regarded as one of the nicest, and most respectable human beings ever to survive the National Basketball Association.

Ironically, Robinson’s teammate Tim Duncan is the archetypal “character” player in the NBA. He always has won two Most Valuable Player (MVP) awards, and is one of the greatest power forwards in history. He could have skipped college, and gone straight to the NBA, but he spent four years at Wake Forest.

Before discussing a last athlete that I admire, I would like to briefly discuss some clear role models, who I admire but do not wish to profile at this time. Derek Jeter (Yankees’ Short Stop) is so good at life it is painful. I have not yet met a man who doesn’t, deep down, want to be Derek Jeter. This does not include die-hard Red Sox fans, who I refuse to acknowledge as people (I’m just kidding). Other admirable athletes include A.C. Green, Emeka Okafor, Ken Griffey Junior, Chris Capuano, Bernie Williams, Todd Helton, and Joe Jurevicius. Those are all that I can think of at the current moment, and I am positive I’ve missed some, and I am just unaware of great character players. However, those are some of my favorites and I am sticking to it.

Lastly, I would like to discuss one of my favorite NBA players, Charles Barkley. Barkley said, when he was a player, “I am not a role model.” Barkley took much heat for that comment. He has been characterized as a “jerk” and an “asshole”, and had some problems with teammates. However, Barkely’s play was superb, and is one of the greatest players, and one of the five greatest Power Forwards (along with Duncan) of all time. He was mildly overweight for parts of his career, but he could still play “above the rim.” Barkley later became an analyst for Turner Network Television (TNT), and was known for brutal honesty and keen insight into the nuances of basketball. Barley has authored multiple books, and recently stated his ambitions to enter the unforgiving world of politics. Barkley is not a squeaky-clean individual, but he never got into any legal trouble (it was always problems with the NBA and teammates). Barkley is remarkably intelligent and very socially and politically aware, and even though he is kind of a smartass, I admire that, and Barkley is a role model as an intellectual and a basketball player, but not for his behavior.

While I admire Nietzsche and Gauss and Einstein to no end, I still like sports a very good amount, and athletes are to be admired as well. Any comment and omissions and if I missed anything or am mistaken on a fact please tell me. I am working on an essay on Globalization that I hope will take me somewhere, but I have no time table for publication. Thank you.

Creative Writing?

2006-07-28T20:31:00.000-04:00

This summer I am doing the EXPLO camp program at Yale. It is an interesting experience and I’ve met some cool people from all over the world. To be specific, I made good friends with people from Lebanon, Puerto Rico, Denmark, Oman, Chile and Guatemala to name a few, as well as all over the United States. It is an interesting experience, and I don’t really have anything better to do with my time, except read, write and freak out about college. There are classes with no grades but most of the teachers are damn cool. As I work on an essay on the state of culture now, I would like to publish most of the fruits of period 1 class, Creative Writing 120B. The class was taught by a 20 year-old college student from England via Oregon; let’s call her Gabby. And she’s a smart cookie, having been deferred from Stanford University, and was damn cool, not a nerd like me. The class overall was good, but I wish we had been able to finish more of the ideas we started. There was about fifteen hours of class time, and we experiment with techniques for beginning prose fiction and poetry. I came away having produced three haikus (don’t get jealous, I’m not trying to steal your thunder) and a short story, which I am publishing below. I did not take the haiku exercise seriously, just something to enjoy.

Global Warming

Ice melts into sea;
The water levels rising.
What are we to do?

Seismic Poem

Violently Earth Shakes
People Running Wildly
Oh those damn fault lines!

Screw You Haiku

I don’t like haikus
It is so hard to write them
Stupid, pointless scheme

The Anxiety of Influence

By Brian Hillman

In my former and more productive years, I discovered something that has been deeply distressing me for some time. William Shakespeare is the greatest writer in world history; hands down, no buts about it. He is the apex of literature, with unmatched elegance and creative powers. I am not William Shakespeare.

I am a writer. My name and corpus of works are of little significance now. I have written many a novel, article, story, poem-anything and everything. My works have graced the tops of best-seller lists the world over. But that means nothing.

It all started when I discovered Henry James. I had read the Miltons, Tolstoys, and Heines before, but I did not put much thought into them, and it was before I began having some decent success as a writer myself. Then I found Henry James; titan of the novel, writer extraordinaire. And then it hit me- Henry James was a superior writer than me. There was no getting around it. In the pecking order of great literature, in the pantheon of greatness, James’ works dwarf mine. Then I couldn’t escape him. Whenever I wrote, he could be watching me, judging me. I was forever competing against him, and I would always come in second. That’s when my career as a writer came to an end; sometimes I wish the tragic muse had killed me right then and there.

After James I discovered other greats. All I did was read the masters; Keats, Vergil, Fitzgerald and Hardy; Hemingway, Dostoyevsky, Faulkner and Sophocles. The more I read the less I wrote.

Writing soon became a nightmarish interrogation. Whenever I wrote I could feel Austen and Joyce and Sartre looking at me and laughing. They were ever present spirits, perpetually over my shoulder, getting a sick comedic pleasure out of my inferiority. Every character I ever created, ever plot I ever formulated, every moral I tried to relate was trumped effortlessly by the Gods who were hovering above me, stalking me as I tried to work and get them out of my mind. I tried going to other venues to write. Unfortunately, they followed me wherever I went; to the coffee shop (Ovid loved cappuccino, and he once spilled it on my head!); to the park and especially to the library. So I went back to my study. My Ivy League diplomas were meaningless those ruthless souls- I could not escape them, try as I might.

So I barely wrote anything else. My publisher was furious with me, but I had a clause that allowed me to get out of the two novels left on my contract, granted I never published anything. Needless to say, there were no problems complying with the terms. Writing had become the last thing I wanted to do.

But it was a struggle. I felt compelled to write. I want to go back to the days of oblivion and naivety. Before Kafka, Wharton and Vonnegut. Yet that is impossible. I have eaten the forbidden fruit of greatness, and now I am aware of myself.

The time has come. I have written books, read books, sold books. I have outsold Dante, Yeats and Aristophanes, but I cannot measure up to their enormity.

I must end this struggle. I am done with writing- I quit; I’ve had enough. The fight had been too much to deal with. Am I a writer, or am I not? The answer- I was a writer and I am no longer. Now, as my hands have a date with a power tool, my happy dagger, end with this- scribere vivereque perire est.

Read The End of Poverty by Sachs

2006-07-23T16:40:00.000-04:00

As a person who has an excessive amount of anxiety over almost everything, some things that do not warrant it and some that do (where I am going to college, my driving test, if I am ever going to be a respected scholar, if I am going to die sooner rather than later, et cetera), I am taken aback by the state of poverty in Africa. I recently read The End of Poverty by Jeffery D. Sachs. The book is brilliant, and must be read by everyone. He is a brilliant economist and scholar, and having worked in Bolivia, Poland and Russia as well as other countries with economic policies, to varying degrees of success. However, he has been more successful than not. Sachs' explanations are lucid to the non-economist (I am clearly not an economist, more of a thinker on world affairs) and he presents plans of action for all countries in extreme poverty. I have written before about what must be done, and shockingly some of our ideas overlap. This is due to a shared idealism, perception qualities, and sheer luck on my part. However, I am somewhat taken aback by this fact. I am a naive idealist, and Sachs has been accused of being one. Some of my ideas are unrealistic (for example I would like to see an international organization of human rights) and it is unsettling that he agrees with me. I urge everyone to read the book, and in referece to my previous post, I am working on Globalization right now, and Sachs' book has influenced me. Lastly, I would love to meet Mr. Sachs and, if by some miracle I get into Columbia where he is head of the Earth Institute, I am more interested in economics due to this book.

Consumerism, Globalization and Technology

2006-07-16T21:48:00.000-04:00

I have been reading a lot of periodicals lately, as well as books on current events and I am disturbed by some of the things that I have found. I am going to write my thoughts into three ideas. The three things that I am questioning are the benefits of consumerism, globalization and technology. I am aware that they overlap, but they are very different animals. What I mean by “benefits” is if these things improve society, or would humanity be better without them. I know that these definitions needs some work, but it is what I have now.

Consumerism is something that I have recently found troubling. The fact that I can go buy a Pepsi anywhere that I want is beginning to bother me. I don’t need to go into a museum and have any beverage I want readily available to me, as with a café or a McDonalds. It is highly troubling that some days I eat three meals out of the house. I can drive my Nissan (I don’t have a car but it is for the effect) to Dunkin’ Donuts, then go do some shopping at a mall, eat at the Subway there. Then I can go to a movie and have Pizza Hut for dinner, and if I need some hangers or some juice I can go to Wal-Mart. Is this the picture of the society that I want to live in? Is consumerism beneficial to society?

Next is globalization good for society and the earth? I have no thoughts to expound upon this concept, but I am asking for any ideas. The most complex of these three ideas is if technology is good for society. This is the most complex of the three ideas that I am going to write about and something that philosophers have debated for over two centuries. I am unsure exactly where I stand on these three issues, but I know that I am at least mildly disturbed by them. I plan to write on these topics very soon. Regardless, we as a civilization have to deal with countless social and environmental problems due to these things, and I am unsure what we are to do about this.

In writing this I hoped to present ideas and I am asking for feedback (insulting me is not an option).I want to present the ideas and get anyone who cares enough to read this blog to think about them. I plan to answer these questions when I am more knowledgeable on the subject and have something to contribute.

Nuclear War Scenarios

2006-07-13T21:20:00.000-04:00

Recently I have had some discussions with a few souls whom I deem intellectuals about nuclear weapons in the world today. I do not wish to name names, but those, if they read this, know who they are. An interesting point was raised. I do not know if I thought of it, but out of a lack of a recollection who actually raised the point I do not take credit. The idea was raised about what do we do once a country has developed nuclear weapons? In truth, we cannot do anything. The US has not hitherto had a conflict with a nuclear state, and as with Pakistan, China and North Korea, while they were highly discouraged from creating WMDs, Nuclear Weapons, et cetera, once they had them, the USA has not really done anything about it. For the record the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has had no effect on the world. But what if one of these countries, North Korea, went to war with another, say the US of A, for I am a citizen of the latter.

It is obvious that the USA would not nuke North Korea, under any circumstances, for North Korea, if it still existed, would probably nuke the USA right back, thus resulting in a good chance for total annihilation of the human race, and maybe the Earth. So North Korea, if it is to be assumed that Kim Jong-Il is indeed insane (as I believe, but I have heard many a person who vehemently disagrees with me and say that Kim Jong-Il knows exactly what he is doing) then he would obviously bomb the USA again. However, the US would probably nuke Pyongyang and Kim Jong-Il in the process; but if he were to survive, a nuclear retaliation would be very probably. However, what if he didn’t bomb us back? That would mean that the human race would still exist (or what was left of it) and the USA would have gotten away with another nuclear attack.

This presents a startling scenario. Any country that uses nukes first may have the luxury of not being nuked back, in order to save the human race. So that would give the power into the country which has the fortitude to attack first. What a scary thought that is. One country gets to nuke the other, and then there aren’t any more nuclear attacks for a generation or so, as the scenario goes (this is similar to game theory, I am told). The scenario is startling.

These hypothetical situations present a few striking notions. First of all, a country with nukes can do essentially whatever it wants to do; human right violations, drug trade, even nuke another country! However, no one knows who will be the next idiot (actually I am painfully undecided about what I think about Hiroshima and Nagasaki) to pull the trigger on a WMD. Could it be Kim Jong-Il? Maybe it will be whoever the leader of Pakistan is in the next few years? Maybe China will go for it. Or could it be George W. Bush? Maybe even Ehud Olmert. The fact is no one has any clue who will be the unfortunate leader who goes down in history as dropping the third nuclear/atomic bomb in history. Regardless, countries with WMDs are afforded a luxury those without them are not, and they instill the fear in other countries that those with nukes do not.

For the record I have not raised any new/unique points, but I wanted to present the hypothetical situations in this way, as I am sure others have. Thank you.

Pointless Rant on the Sad and Sorry Saga of Yale and Lack of Productivity

2006-07-07T18:17:00.000-04:00

This summer I have been attending the Yale “EXPLO” program. It is decent. However, I feel a staunch lack of intellectualism, considering it is YALE UNIVERSITY; one of the top five universities in the country! Granted, my expectations may have been too high, but still, at a hub of intellectualism, all people want to do is go to Starbucks or Au Bon Pain and get coffee, and then go to sleep. Granted, I do not speak for everyone, but an overwhelming majority of people do not share the same desire for intellectual “exploration” that I do, and it is distressing. Take this example. The choices for structured activities were, among others, Discussion on Nationalism, Smoothies, or Water Balloon Capture the Flag. Which two do you think were he most popular. I went to the Nationalism one, and it was just the sad soul (who went to PENN and is going to Harvard Law) who had to run it. Half way though another teenager joined, but only because he literally had nothing better to do at the time.

Along with feeling a lack of desire for learning among a majority of the student body, there are also the pressures of college. I have grown up with Yale looking at me, judging me, and waiting for January of 2007 when I send in my application (with the communist $60 application fee) and they laugh and throw it in the trash. When I meet people who are among the elect who go to Princeton, Yale, Harvard, et cetera, and have the ability to smile and mean it for their lives have not been a pathetic sorry waste of good tax dollars and oxygen, it only increases the anxiety and the enormity of the decision. I figure I have about twice to three times the normal person’s chances of getting into the top schools. This means that at a minimum, 3 out of 4 times I am getting rejected, and my application is going in the heap with the other wastes of lives’. It is not desirable by any stretch of the imagination to ask people where they want to/went to college. ‘Tis a lose/lose situation. Either they got into a worthy school (Harvard, Yale, I don’t need to list the other few) and that makes me nervous, for they have more right to oxygen than I do, or they didn’t, and I will soon be joining them among life’s rejects- you went to UConn, great. This sounds very elitist and arrogant, and I am just as much of a loser as those who do not get accepted; maybe more because I spend 80% of my time, thinking, writing, or talking about college. On that topic, I have found that I have been reading and writing less; just worrying about college. At this present time, I am still basing the success of my life on whether or not Harvard and the like accept me, but I am still applying to less worthy schools. A month ago I thought I had a shot at Chicago, but at my confidence level now it looks like Rutgers (about 50% acceptance rate and a top philosophy school) is so far in the clouds I might as well keep my money. My confidence is never consistent, and I may take back this entire rant at some time. The worst of this is college occupies a lot of my time, and most of my decision making. I have found I am painfully less productive than usual, and haven’t finished a book in a week to date! I usually end on a quote from Shakespeare, Nietzsche or the Bible, but I have nothing. I could quote Matthew 6.27, but it would be the antithesis of this piece.

Remarks on Chomsky and Preventive Warfare

2006-06-09T22:15:00.000-04:00

I would like to discuss an idea brought up in the book that I am currently reading, Failed States by Noam Chomsky. For those who are unfamiliar with the man, he is professor of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and most brilliant in the former discipline. I respect the man in his academic achievements, and not only is he brilliant but he is gifted with English prose. This is where my complimenting of him stops. Chomsky is my least favorite political commentator in the world, and I would like to call him a rambling idiot, but he is too intelligent. The facts about this man include that he is a libertarian socialist, a concept I can barely grasp, and has been accused of being a holocaust denier and sympathizing with terrorism. I am shocked when I say that in regards to the latter it is almost understandable, but this is not the essay to discuss that, and that is not an admission that I sympathize with terrorists. Regarding the former, I am appalled that holocaust deniers are the same species as I am, but Chomsky has never said outright that the Nazi Holocaust never happened; yet he never said it did and keeps some ardent Holocaust deniers in close quarters (I have not hitherto read any Finkelstein but I plan to, yet to say I disagree with him wholeheartedly is an understatement). Chomsky is exceedingly controversial, and many are appalled by some of his actions, but as an intellectual and well informed political commentator he cannot be ignored. Note that this is not going to be the last you will hear from me on Noam Chomsky.

An issue I would like to discuss that was raised in Failed States is the idea of preventive warfare. Note that this is not the only place that it is brought up, not in the least, but it is a discussed well and it gave me a reason to give a brief summary of Chomsky. Before I read too far into the book I would like to address my feeling of preventive warfare. Before beginning, it behooves me to state that I am socially liberal (to a point), economically capitalist, and in the middle politically, but leaning towards conservatism (for now, at least).

The idea of preventive warfare is to attack the enemy before they attack you. The idea seems reasonable, if it is obvious that the enemy is going to strike, it is better to strike them before suffering casualties. However, there are many flaws in this design. First of all, it opens up the possibility for a wave of strikes due to preventive measures and a “slippery slope.” This was the excuse for invading Iraq. Hussein had WMDs, and he was going to use them on us unless we removed him from power and instituted a democracy in Iraq. It appeared like an at least semi-logical idea at the time, to some at least; or at least more than agrees with it now, but it was a preventative measure. Chomsky raises the issue that our main reason for going to war in Iraq is that Sadaam had WMDs and he was ready, willing and eager to use them on the United States. Another reason for the operation was depose the evil dictator Sadaam for human rights violations. Obviously oil was involved at well, but how much I am not at liberty to say. Another contention was to decrease terrorism worldwide.

Since the war, it appears that Sadaam had no WMDs. This is not to say that he might not have planned to produce them at some point in the future, but the point is he did not have them and it was our main point of contention. That appears to make the Bush administration out to be a bunch of bellicose phonies, but I am not that quick to judge. Iraq was still a large problem, and I hope/believe that the US cared about the plight of the Iraqi citizens, few of whom like Sadaam. Regardless, that strain of contention appears to be gone. To address oil, since the war the price of oil has gone up, making the war seem counter productive in that regard. Also, Chomsky claims that Iraq is now a hotbed for terrorists, something it was not before. I am not at liberty to comment. So by this, it appears that the only reason for going into Iraq was to get read of Sadaam Hussein and his oppressive regime, in the process creating a civil war. It appears like our plan backfired, and the whole idea of preventive warfare as a reason for attack looks like a bad idea. Not to mention the fact that our economy took a major hit and is now in shambles. Maybe shambles is an exaggeration, but we lost of over trillion dollar surplus and I do not know what the national debt is now.

Yet in this situation it appears that preventive warfare was counterproductive. However, Iraq was probably never any real threat, so it may be a weak example, but at least I got to recapitulate our reasons for going into Iraq. Imagine another scenario. Take North Korea, which I believe will be a major threat to the United States in the not so distant future. It is exceedingly likely that N. Korea has WMDs, and if they don’t Kim Jong-Il sure as hell is working on acquiring them. North Korea has proven to be a belligerent and oppressive nation, and one not willing to compromise with the other nations of the world, especially South Korea or the Untied States. Say Kim Jong-Il produces WMDs, and says that he is going to use them on the US. This would obviously be a massive faux pas, but I wouldn’t put it past Kim Jong-Il. If The US knew that he was going to bomb them, wouldn’t it be logical to bomb him before he bombs us? Not necessarily. However, if he is absolutely incontrovertible in bombing us, we ought to bomb him. But what if he says he might bomb the US unless we do something. I am unsure what it may be, say he forms a coalition with Afghanistan and Iran, and unless we disengage from the Middle East he said he will “use more powerful methods” or something like that. If he gives a sort of warning that he’ll do something, should we attack him before he can attack us? I say no, for right now, but I encourage comments on this point. What if he would nuke us, then it is a good idea. If he is all talk and does nothing, we look bad, but he shouldn’t have talked the talk if he couldn’t walk the walk. However, in a situation somewhat like this, preventive warfare may prove effective.

The biggest problem with this preventive warfare is that it can be easily abused, which may have happened in Iraq. This is a huge problem. However, in an age where most if not all of the powerful nations have WMDs, it may be necessary to prevent annihilation.

I encourage comments on preventive warfare. I admit I have proposed more questions than answers, but I do not the answers. What I do know, is that preventative warfare is a pressing idea, and I find it troubling. My conclusion is only in extreme circumstances is preventative warfare necessary. These “extreme circumstances” must include an obvious inevitable attack. Regardless, it is unsettling and warfare is not going away by any means; it is mutating into a more dangerous entity.

The Greatest Baseball Team of All Time

2006-06-01T15:59:00.000-04:00

While my blog consists primarily of philosophical, historical and political commentary, I have decided to indulge one of my non-intellectual interests; baseball. I have always liked baseball, and was decent at it in my younger years. I can still throw a baseball fairly well, but I could and still cannot hit. The history of baseball is something I have always loved, and seeing as I have been told I have the ‘body of a scholar’ it behooves me to stick to it. Around the time the All-Century Team was released, I made my own list. I have recently tweaked it slightly, and below is my team. The number of players was fairly arbitrary, but it is my team and I can do what I please. If I must take off three players to get down to twenty-five, I would remove Mike Schmidt, Willie Mays, and Warren Spahn. I encourage comments, and I know that it is controversial, but I have done my research, and I believe I know what I am talking about. I do not want to discuss Bonds and the steroids fiasco, and look up Arky Vaughan’s statistics if you have any questions. I have included Satchel Paige and Bob Gibson, but I know that it is controversial. However I deemed them too great that I could not leave them off the list.

C Yogi Berra
C Josh Gibson
1 Lou Gehrig
1 Jimmie Foxx
2 Joe Morgan
2 Rogers Hornsby
3 Mike Schmidt
3 Wade Boggs
S Honus Wagner
S Arky Vaughan
O Babe Ruth
O Ty Cobb
O Barry Bonds
O Ted Williams
O Willie Mays
O Stan Musial
P Walter Johnson
P Lefty Grove
P Christy Mathewson
P Cy Young
P Pete Alexander
P Warren Spahn
P Sandy Koufax
P Bob Gibson
P Ed Walsh
P Satchel Paige
P Roger Clemens
R Mariano Rivera

Notable exceptions

1B Buck Leonard
2B Jackie Robinson
2B Nap Lajoie
3B George Brett
3B Aaron "Bleepin'" Boone
SS Cal Ripken
SS-1B Ernie Banks
OF Rickey Henderson
OF Al Simmons
OF Joe Dimaggio
OF Roberto Clemente
OF Ken Griffey, Jr.
OF Henry Aaron
P Steve Carlton
P Greg Maddux
P Nolan Ryan
P Randy Johnson
P Grover Cleveland Alexander
UT Pete Rose
UT Paul Molitor

A Solution to the War on Drugs

2006-05-29T00:29:00.000-04:00

One issue that I feel very strong about is drug legalization. I am immensely opposed to any sort of drug legalization, and I am horrified at the fact that we are even considering legalizing marijuana. It is wildly disturbing, and I am beyond shocked that America would entertain such a horrendous idea.

At this point it behooves me to say that I have never done any sort of drug, drank any sort of alcohol, except for in my younger years I would have a miniscule shot of wine at synagogue, yet I refuse to do even that now. I refuse to do any sort of drug in college, and I do not care if it is socially crippling. I know that I am naïve and an idealist adolescent but these are my sentiments and I plan to follow through with them. Where my hatred of drugs came from I am unsure; maybe the millions that the government has spent on anti-drug propaganda worked on me. Some may hate me for my anti-drug views, and I need to do some serious character work on stopping judging people who do drugs, and I know that this will cause an issue in college. As I see, slowly but surely, people who I know from school and people who I know well experimenting with drugs and alcohol (note this is a minority of people, but one person is one too many) I feel distressed and helpless, and I fear that the fact that I am so outspoken on this issue it may compel someone to spite me by experimenting.

Now that my personal position is known, I would like to propose a plan of action for what America should do in its war on drugs. What ought to be done is not legalizing drugs but focusing more on the more dangerous drugs: narcotics, crack/cocaine and methamphetamines as opposed to marijuana. Some of the proponents of marijuana legalization claim that it would allow for the US to focus on more dangerous drugs. Yes, the US ought to do this, but legalizing marijuana does not take away the dangers of marijuana. I do not want to address its addictive nature right now, but I heard a credible statistic that it is 14 times more likely to cause cancer than a normal cigarette.

The three classes of drugs (which do overlap) are a larger threat to American than marijuana itself. They are more deadly, physically addictive, and are more of a threat to the economy than marijuana. (I site the drug videos from health class, the history channel, and magazines such as Newsweek and Time for this type of information.) Dealing with the largest threat in the war on drugs is what ought to be done. I propose a shift in federal spending to crack down on the big three, and a new focus placed on them. What this will do to marijuana is unofficially make it slightly less illegal than the others, for it is less dangerous. What this will do is deter the use of the more dangerous drugs for a time, and then cracking down on marijuana can be done in the future, once we have controlled our narcotics, crack and meth problem.

Hitherto all I have proposed for a plan of action is an increase in the percentage of federal spending to the most dangerous drugs so as to isolate that aspect of the problem to, in the future, eliminate the marijuana problem. The next step is to increase the penalties for the manufacturing and possession of marijuana. I propose mandatory sentences of say 15 to life for possession, with mandatory rehabilitation stints during incarceration. For dealers and manufactures, I propose a mandatory 20 years and a sentence of 25 to life for most dealer and manufacturers. The death penalty may be given for some dealers. To quickly address the practicality of all this, taxes must be raised slightly. Ideally, we would take this money out of the money given to the welfare system, but that is another essay.

The second phase of this newly emphasized war on drugs is more extreme. I propose an agreement, throughout both of the American continents to try to catch, and punish drug dealers and manufacturers. I admit that this is fairly idealistic, for it is far from guaranteed that Columbia would agree to this, and all of the countries are not committed to the war on drugs as America is. This will hinder the economy of some of these countries. However, if this were to be implemented the countries would not necessarily need to keep the same drug policies; they would just have to work together to attempt to eliminate the problem. There would be funding provided by all the countries, and obviously the United States and Canada would have to bear more of the economic burden, but it would pay off in the long run due to the improved economy by the decrease in the drug trade. (Here some may content my analysis). If this is a success (which it will be), other countries would be included in this organization, hopefully such countries as Afghanistan and Britain would join this organization. This would grow into a worldwide organization against drugs.

This is my idealized plan. Hopefully, the countries that have a fairly large part of their economy invested in drugs, Peru, Columbia, etc. could use that land for the growth of fruits and vegetables, and those could be sold to bolster the economy. These would be sold in their countries, and world wide, and can help to cure the poverty and hunger that exists in the world. For example, in Venezuela the drug farms could be used for produce, and it could be shipped around Venezuela. In Venezuela there is a food problem, and the socialist economy would be helped by an increase in food produced in its own country. An increase in food production from Latin America could be purchased by charity organizations and sold in countries such as Ethiopia and India. They would not necessarily be sold at the same rate the produce is sold now, and they may be sold just to these starving countries, so as to prevent inflation.

The latter part of this plan is rather idealized, and may not be realistic. However, the first half of it, the shifting of the focus of the war on drugs to the more dangerous drugs so as to eliminate that problem, then focus on marijuana and the less dangerous drugs. An increase in communication between the US and its Latin American neighbors about the war on drugs and drug policy will help the problem, and possibly an organization dealing with drugs could be formed.

The war on drugs is a terrible problem in the US today, and something must be done. Regardless if my plan is incredibly flawed and I am a rambling idiot who knows nothing about economics, politics, or drugs for that matter, it does not change the fact that we are in a dire struggle against drugs. It is unfortunate but this will raise taxes, but I believe that drug control is what our taxes should be spent on, and it is the government’s duty to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens. I have proposed a rather idealized and elaborate plan that may or may not work. Regardless, we are losing the war on drugs and America must act!

An Extremely Belated Post

2006-05-26T19:52:00.000-04:00

I apologize for not writing anything in over a month. I have been exceedingly busy, between school, the SAT and SAT II, the AP test, and my own anxiety about getting into college. I have been writing a little, and I am working on an extended piece that I hope will, at some time in the future, be worthy of publication. I have been thinking on religious matters, and how I view religion, assuming I will become a professor of philosophy, specializing in the philosophy of religion.

As a non-believer, I am hostile towards religion from the get-go. However, I am enthralled by religion and it is a fascinating subject from philosophical, historical, and literary standpoints. I have determined that I do not like the institution of religion, and prefer religion to be something scholarly, not something that is practiced. I am undedicated if the world is ready (to quote John Stuart Mill) “make its descent from religion.” Assuming that anywhere from three to four trillion people classify themselves as Christians or Muslims in some capacity, expunging religion as a practicing institution seems to be an impossibility. I am not calling for the end of religion (at this point, at least) but I am contemplating if it would be a good thing, and if it could be done within the next millennium. So, can an atheistic world function, and if so would it be a place more similar to paradise or hell. Note that I am not hinting at communism. Anyone who knows me knows that I am VERY anti-communist.

I am taking the SAT II World History test June 3, and after that I intend to post much more on this blog, and I have written pieces but have not edited them enough to be published, or it is not the right time.

Ranking Some Novels I Have Read

2006-04-14T23:45:00.000-04:00

I have always had a love of literature, and I consider myself a budding literary critic. In the past four or five years, I have read a fair amount of novels, most of them for school. I admit that I have not read nearly as many novels as I have, and I am familiar with many more than have read, and it is somewhat of a personal embarrassment. I am currently reading The Brothers Karamazov, and I am working on my skill as a literary critic. Do I have some talent for it: yes? Am I good enough to be an English major at a good university: probably not. My grammatical skill before editing something that I have written is fairly weak and I am more passionate about philosophy, history, and even though I am not close to brilliant at it, mathematics. Regardless, below I have ranked SOME of the novels I have read. Those who have attended school with me will recognize many if not most of the titles listed below. However, I have read more than these, but these are most of the novels on my list of books I read, and I encourage comments on the order of it. Note there are hundreds of novels that ought to be on the list, and when one considers that The Short Reign of Pippin IV is on the list it is arguable that there are thousands of novels better (note I liked Pippin IV). Regardless, examine the list, and I encourage respectful comments.

The Great Gatsby; F. Scott Fitzgerald
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man; Joyce
The Trial; Kafka
Great Expectations; Dickens
As I Lay Dying; William Faulkner
The Stranger; Albert Camus
Candide; Voltaire
A Tale of Two Cities; Dickens
Slaughterhouse-Five; Kurt Vonnegut
The Scarlet Letter; Nathaniel Hawthorne
Animal Farm; George Orwell
A Farewell to Arms; Ernest Hemingway
Of Mice and Men; John Steinbeck
Washington Square; Henry James
Ethan Frome; Edith Wharton
Cat’s Cradle; Kurt Vonnegut
The Return of the Native; Thomas Hardy
Deep River; Shusaku Endo
The Death of Ivan Ilyich; Leo Tolstoy
The Sorrows of Young Werther; Goethe
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime; Mark Hadden
The Time Machine; H.G. Wells
Brave New World; Aldous Huxley
Moira; Julien Green
Beloved; Toni Morrison
The Old Man and the Sea; Ernest Hemingway
Fahrenheit 451; Ray Bradbury
Billy Budd, Sailor; Melville
The Pearl; John Steinbeck
A Separate Peace; Knowles
Holes; Louis Sachar
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn; Twain
The Short Reign of Pippin IV; John Steinbeck
The Call of the Wild; London
The War of the Worlds; H. G. Wells

A Political Rant from Me?

2006-04-07T17:35:00.000-04:00

Even though I am a person who is politically more conservative than liberal, and I believe that nations should function as independent bodies, but still have open communications and compromise with each other, I cannot help but feel that the current atrocities occurring over the world should have compelled America, or some other nation to act. My rant here is about the Sudan. Currently in the Sudan, the Darfur conflict is an immense problem. In the western part of the Sudan, the Janjaweed, a militia group, have been committing crimes against humanity such as genocide. It has been reported that anywhere from 70,000 to 700,000. However, the world is not well informed of this conflict; it is not on the news every day. We have a daily update of the goings on in Iraq and Iran, but we do not have updates form the Sudan. This is not to say that we should stop paying attention to Iraq, not by any means. However, when there is a GENOCIDE occurring in 2006, something must be done. Finally, American has sent some peacekeeping officials over to negotiate, and I am not saying that the United States has remained idle during this massacre. However, because there isn’t any oil in the Sudan, and (I hate to say it) the Sudanese are not white, America has not acted as powerfully as it probably should have. However, I am not one to say that a mother should have to send her child off to the Sudan to be killed. Yet something must be done. GENOCIDE!

This raises the question: should the US have to police the world? The answer is no. However, the United States has asserted itself as the policeman of the world, a role that with the United Nations, unfortunately, having no real power when dealing with militant persons the strongest nation in the world must take a stand. This has been for some time America. Yet in this role the good must be taken with the bad. So the strongest nation, police force of the world must be ready to fight for human rights, even when there is no need for economic gain. I am not really criticizing America, and I do support America, and America HAS STEPPED IN TO HELP. However, there have been atrocities done prior to this, and the war in the Sudan has been raging for years. I fear that the miscue in Somalia has made America afraid to go back to Africa and fight for human rights. Yet I believe that America will do something. Maybe I am too much of a naïve idealist and I do not understand politics and I should stick to philosophy and history, but I care about politics and I felt like writing something.

Note I claim to be and have been called politically conservative, socially liberal, and economically capitalist. Note my atheism, and I fear that my history teacher may be rubbing off on me in a negative manner, evinced by this post.

On Religious Epistemology

2006-04-02T17:25:00.000-04:00

I must say that I like my ideas in this essay, but it is choppy and not very well written. Read the examples, and I really do hope to edit this.

A prominent issue in the philosophy of religion is the notion of religions epistemology. Is this term oxymoronic? Do religious truths exist? If they do exist, can they be known by humans?

To begin, the terms must be defined. Religious epistemology is the knowing beyond all doubt a truth about religion. In this definition, truth and religion must also be defined. Truth is a notion that is devoid of all falsity, has complete verity in all parts of the universe, and if something is deemed true, a contradictory notion must be false. This definition is far from succinct, and it is more of a description of a criterion that must be adhered to absolutely. The definition is not perfect, and any help I can get on defining truth is appreciated. Religion is anything dealing with the divine and supernatural, and is taken on faith. This is an even weaker definition, but a definition of truth and religion deserves its own post. I have listened to lectures over half an hour long on just what is religion and what is truth.

So a religious truth is a transcendent fact about a transcendent being, to put it succinctly. I am aware this is flawed, but I assume that most people have an idea about what religion is and what truth is, but that is not definite and it is neither a bad or a good thing if one does or not.

Can a claim to a religious truth be known? This is the central issue. It is best to begin with a religious truth. Let’s start slow, and go with God exists. Can this be known? It is clearly a religious claim, so can it be verifiable? Can I know that God exists? Well how would I know that God exists? (It is best to ignore radical skepticism for this entire experiment, because that is a dead end in this context.) What would be a sign that I could use to verify that God exists? Note that this does not have to be rational, for many things that have been accepted as fact, or almost fact, such as Relativity, seem illogical but in truth are true. So is there any sort of factual evidence I could gather from the world that would tell me that God exists? I say nay.

What would constitute some proof for the existence of the supernatural is if there was an item that could violate the laws of physics or nature. However, this has never been documented before. But what if this is to miss the point? What about religious experiences? What if there are divine encounters only on a God to a single man relationship, or on somewhat of an ‘I and Thou’ basis. What if God only communicates with certain individuals? There are those who seem convinced that they had a religious experience, and a direct encounter with God, but only he was a witness? This would make any sort of scientific proof, or a proof that more than one person could partake in witnessing, but the existence of God is still true.

Having a conversation with God would constitute as a religious experience, and the fact that God communicates with man would suffice as a religious truth. But can they be known? This is the questions. There have been claims that God exists and interacts with man, and in the twentieth century there have been countless instances where people had visions of the Virgin Mary and all sorts of things that appear to defy logic, reason, physics, nature and common sense.

Another supposed religious truth is that bad people go to hell. If this were true, it would be a fact. However, can it be verified by humans living on earth right now? It is an entity that is either true or it is false, but can it be verified as true or false? The answer is we cannot. There have been people who have been pronounced dead, and physically died and claimed to have religious experiences. They usually consist of a white light, and a whole lot of other fanfare, and then they wake up. Some psychologists claim that it is the person remembering their birth, and that is the rational explanation, but that is not even a theory, it is a proposition; not even a conjecture or a hypothesis.

The point is that there are religious truth claims, but they cannot be verified under the current standard for of proof that is required of most conjectures. So, religious epistemology is a fallacious entity. No religious truth claim can be known. This can be proved in the definition of religion, but it was good exercise to examine examples. There is nothing about the divine that can be known by humans under the current standard of truth, and since we are not even sure if God exists it could stop right there.

AP Philosophy Exam?

2006-03-26T12:46:00.000-05:00

It is an immense calamity that a philosophy class is not given, nor is there an AP Philosophy exam, or an SAT II philosophy exam. Why is this? Personally, I have no explanation for the reason why this is so. A possible explanation is the difficulty of the subject matter, and that allowing this class to be taken in high school would show an increase in the suicide rate. However, there is an AP Psychology test, which is while different subject matter, a similar type of soft science as philosophy (awkward wording, I’m sorry, I’m working on it). The

It is possible that philosophy as a whole does not work well on a standardized test. Teaching anyone something beyond elementary philosophy would be very difficult to do in a year, and philosophy is so vast that it cannot possibly be learned in one year to the depth that AP United States history is learned. A course in the history of philosophy is more practical, but even that would take years to be learned.

So if it is not possible to teach the subject in the allotted time, is it possible to teach the subject in terms of complexity. Could the average level 9/AP high school student thrive in a detailed philosophy class? I believe that it is very possible, but it takes dedication. A philosophy class would be structured as a class of small quizzes to ensure the students understand the material, and with a lot of writing. Philosophy is a discipline that requires extensive writing to be able to express all the ideas it desires. Few philosophers are concise.

I suppose that it is possible to teach an AP ancient philosophy class. By ancient, I mean Thales to Augustine. This may include Ancient Eastern philosophy (I do not like calling it ‘Eastern’, but the idea is known to most. It is possible that all of Ancient philosophy, east and west, could be learned in a year. The structure for the West would be, The Hebrew Bible, the Sophists, Presocratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Stoics, Cynics, Skeptics, Epicureans, Cicero, Jesus, Plotinus, Augustine, and I am undecided about Boethius. Ambrose and Jerome may be covered, as with the Pirkei Avot. For the East, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, and Zoroastrianism would be covered. Zoroastrianism may be covered in the West, and Jainism and Shintoism could also be covered. This is a fair amount of work for an AP class.

If there is an ancient philosophy class, there probably should also be an AP Medieval and Modern Philosophy Class. However, the latter may be too much material to be covered in a year, if it is to be assumed that it begins with Bacon, Descartes, or the Humanists. Well, I guess when compared with ancient philosophy it is not too much more, if philosophy ends at Quine, or the post-moderns.

For medieval philosophy, it would be from Muhammed to Khaldun or so. There are fewer philosophers covered for this time period when compared to Modern Philosophy. Possibly starting modern at Spinoza, and ending the Medieval exam at Pascal, but it would be beyond absurd to call Pascal, or all those before him (Hobbes, Descartes, Erasmus, Bacon) medieval philosophers. However, there is a wealth of medieval philosophy to be taught and learned in high school.

A problem may arise in the fact that I am not sure that students would want to take Medieval Philosophy, or even Modern or Ancient philosophy for that matter! Regardless, the option should at least be open to budding philosophers who want to show that if they are going to major in philosophy, they at least took the class and did well in high school. I say we petition the AP board to create a philosophy test. They are going to begin giving a Chinese AP test, there ought to be a philosophy one too.

Another Attempt at Defining Philosophy

2006-03-20T22:00:00.000-05:00

I would like to address the definition of philosophy in more depth. This is an ongoing process, and this is not means the first nor last attempt to correctly define this complex entity.

Etymologically, it is the love of wisdom; Φιλοσοφία. Yet how does this relate to the actual definition in 2006? My position is that philosophy is a branch of study, consisting of ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, aesthetics and logic. This criterion may require some expansion or may need to be decreased, but for now I believe that it is correct, yet I may be wrong.

Leaving the definition of philosophy at the love of wisdom is fundamentally flawed because wisdom is an incredibly complex term and requires a definition. Wisdom is not a simple term and it is open for interpretation. To call something the love of apples is much simpler to grasp than the love of wisdom.

So philosophy is not the love is wisdom but a collective study of intellectual subjects that philosophers have studied. The idea of who is a philosopher has changed over time, and now we have called people “philosophers of x.” There are philosophers of mathematics, philosophers of science, philosophers of art, et cetera. This clearly shows a difference in the way that the word philosophy is taken.

Philosophy has, for some unfortunate reason, been taken as a personal credo on a given subject. One may say, “My philosophy of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” However, this is not the same as saying that “My love of wisdom of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price”, or to say, “My collective study of epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics and ethics of buying a car is to find the best car at the best price.” We would not say that, so there is a difference between the terms, ‘philosophy of’ and ‘philosophy.’ (If I have erred in the punctuation of that last paragraph, please inform me, respectfully.)

Where is the line to be drawn between philosophy of and philosophy? It is my belief that to say that one has a philosophy of something is to misuse the term ‘philosophy’, but it is so entrenched in our vocabularies that it cannot easily be removed. Here is where the line must be drawn. Philosophy as a noun is a collective branch of study. Philosophy of x shall be defined as the personal belief system with respect to x. When philosophizes, one is critically thinking about matters pertaining to ethics, metaphysics, etc. A philosopher, is one whose profession, in some capacity, deals with studying and or teaching and writing about philosophical matters. Leaving philosophy at the love of wisdom is to assign philosophy the primitive definition it shed at the death of Aristotle some 2300 years ago.

This has been another attempt at narrowing down the definition of philosophy. I know I have not wholly succeeded, but I have worked toward a better definition. Read my first post, which is a work in progress essay, as are almost all my posts, works in progress, with the exception of the Aurelius paper, the Riemann paper, the Kafka essay, and I believe that is it. I do not claim to have a perfect definition but the point is "the love of wisdom" is insufficient.

Machiavellian Ideals Explored

2006-03-17T20:58:00.000-05:00

I would like to quickly address the idea of Machiavelli that ideals do not exist in the physical world; they only exist in the world of the mind, if we are to use Plato’s world of forms. This de-idealization of the physical world was critical for philosophy.

To address this notion, as in all philosophical endeavors, it is first imperative to define terms. I have hitherto defined “not exist in the physical world” so that leaves “ideals” to be defined. By an ideal I believe Machiavelli meant a perfect notion, on something that can be universally perfect. Kant took this notion to heart (it is not guaranteed but probable that Kant read Machiavelli) when he said that “happiness is not an ideal of reason but of imagination.” Machiavelli would say that happiness cannot exist because it is something perfect and infallible. It does not appear that he extended this notion to god, but if he did he did not write it explicitly due to fear of persecution or other harmful events that would befall him were he to abnegate the existence of god.

I would like to question Machiavelli to what extent he believes that ideals are not existent. If we take the utilitarian definition of happiness, (the best possible ratio of pain to pleasure) then it would appear that this would contradict Machiavelli on its nonexistence. I believe Machiavelli viewed ideals as limits or asymptotes, that cannot be reached, or attained because they do not exist, but he did not draw a line anywhere else. If I cannot be happy, can I be in perpetual good spirits, thoroughly appreciate life, be grateful for my life and be an ardent optimist? Machiavelli may claim that one cannot be in a “good mood” all the time, and that there has to be something wrong, even if it is say a wart on a toe; it is still an imperfection that would prevent perfect happiness. I believe that Machiavelli knew that perfect ideals do not exist, but his flaw was that he settled for a middle of the way solution to everything. He was possibly the greatest realist of all time, but I believe that this type of realism does not lead to progress. Some extreme liberals may claim that progress is a façade and humans are not getting anywhere, but I believe that ideals are beneficial and exist in the mental world. However, they do not exist in the physical world; but that should not prevent us from trying to get close to them. Ending war is impossible; but why not try to decrease the amount of war? I think that idealist thinkers, such as me to an extent, can be beneficial to society because they present a goal for progress. While ideals are almost never accomplished in the physical world, if one can hold them as possibilities in the mental world and try to implement them in the physical world by trying to make the world fit in with the ideals while knowing that it is a futile task to have the ideal completely achieved, but 80 percent success is still a massive achievement (I apologize for the run on there). I think that there is a limit to the ideals in the world physical world, but not attempting to strive even a small amount toward those ideals is to miss the point of human progress.

Some Thoughts on Ethics

2006-03-14T20:01:00.000-05:00

These are some miscellaneous thoughts on ethics roughtly organized. It is not one of my best posts, but I felt like making a post on philosophy.

Ethics is defined as the science of determining right from wrong. It has been studied from the time of Aristotle up to the present day and shows no signs of slowing down. I would like to outline some of my own thought concerning this branch of philosophy.

My position here is that there are absolutes in morality; something is right or it is wrong. There is a distinction whether something is morally right or morally wrong. It is exceedingly difficult to argue because the contemporary breed of ethics is different from many other ethical systems in history. My assertion is that there are absolutes of rights and wrong, and in every situation of multiple options there is one that is more moral and ought to be done, and in every action it is either moral or immoral. I also believe that there is this idea of purity of ethics, and under the categorical imperative (a major part of my thesis so if you are not fond if this be ready for something you will take issue with), and that no single religious ethic is correct. There is this ideal of an ethic that does have its roots in the Jewish ethic, but it is still different, and the Jewish ethic is not sufficient for all of western ethics.

In a somewhat organized essay on my miscellaneous thoughts on ethics, the discussion shall begin on the idea of a perfect ethic. My belief is that there is an underlying code of morality that ought to be adhered to. I believe that this is a completely secular ethic, and an ethic without a sense of punishment and reward. If an ethic can be the ultimate law, if something is immoral or unethical it should not be done, that would be the pinnacle of a law code. Imagine a code of laws that was adhered to without, any sort of punishment? An ethic like this could work in a few ways. One is that if one committed an unethical act, his community of people would look down on him so much that he would feel so terrible as to not commit another act like that. Another would be his own internal feelings would compel him to never do anything such as that again. A third would be an acceptance of an ethic that would make people deem unethical acts pointless, and have no desire to commit them.

As Professor Timothy B. Shutt in his lecture series Foundations of Western Thought discusses the fact that the Jewish ethic (I use Hebrew, Jewish, Hebraic interchangeably) is the foundation for our contemporary western ethic. It is marked by the ethics of the Ten Commandments, and while these are not originally Hebrew but taken from previous ideas such as the Code of Hammurabi. Regardless, the western ethic is nothing without the Hebraic ethic.

But what does this ethic look like? It is best to begin with some server ethical taboos. First of all, any killing, and stealing would be immediately outlawed. This follows the same basic ideal of taking what is not yours; in terms of property and livelihood. Along this line forcing someone to do a relatively extreme act against their will would be under the same jurisdiction. For example, no one wants to pay taxes, yet they must be done in order to ensure a secure state. However, one cannot force another to perform a lascivious act without consent.

So if the first aspect of this ethic is the right to not have someone else take something from you, or to do something to you within reason, the second aspect is the idea of self protection. For example, victimless crimes are crimes. Under this ethic, suicide would be illegal, but I doubt that there would be any great need for suicide. Granted, some would argue (and this is a field that I have little knowledge of) that depression and suicidal thoughts are due to a chemical imbalance, and not a product of the society and immediate society that one lives in. This is a good transition to another point, the idea of drug use. While Muslim heaven is a land of excessive wine, my ethical utopia would be a sober place. Drug use is not beneficial to mankind. However, it can be used to get one back to equilibrium, i.e. if they have a cold or are depressed medicines can be utilized to assist the person. However, I treat drugs as an entity harmful to the body and to the mind; therefore it is a “victimless crime.” If suicide is outlawed then drugs use ought to be outlawed. Some may not see what one has to do with the other, but to me it is crystal clear.

So two of the foundations of moral law hitherto discussed are the idea of victimless crimes being crimes and anything that may be deemed a victimless crime is unethical, and the right to one’s property in term of one’s own body and time, and one’s material property e.g. one’s baseball card collection. This is where the ethic gets tricky. The role of relating to the less fortunate. If you cannot hurt yourself, and you have the right to yourself, why should you be compelled to help others. This may be under the realm of situational ethics, but in any sort of formulation of an ethic it cannot be ignored if we are making generalizations. I tend to adhere to a Deontological ethical point of view. While this is contradictory to some of what I have hitherto stated, it appears that with respect to others, deontology is the route to go.

Since I cannot do anything else with the Deontological ethic right now, I would like to reinforce some of the other side of ethics. The secular ethic that I am talking about is essentially being ethical for ethic’s sake. In the contemporary world, only fear can keep people behaving ethically. Fear of the law, and/or fear of religion. Regardless, the idea is there is a force of some kind preventing me from acting unethically or immorally. Granted the law is not perfect, but assume it is for just this exercise. First to address the religious side of this. If it is religion preventing one from acting unethically, what happens when one loses faith with their religion, or meets someone of a different religion with a different ethic? Religion teaches that their respective doctrine is the truth, and many teach that others are faulty and “thou shalt not kill because I, the lord your God, commandeth it.” Well why does God need to tell me that? Shouldn’t murder be wrong even if God didn’t command it? I say yes, hence the secular ethic and the categorical imperative.

The religious ethic is based on a doctrine and an absolute truth derived from a transcendent being; my ethic is derived from the absolute truths of human nature and interaction. I find it more likely that human nature exists than God exists.

My secular ethic will not save humanity, or is necessarily practical. However, I believe that a secular ethic, and if we can convince people to be ethical for ethic’s sake, that is ideal. This ethic does not particular to an economic theory, but it does allow for capitalism and that horrible idea that is socialism. The ethic is a reality in this secular world. However, over half the world believes in some kind of God, so this ethic is not too practical for this generation or at least three subsequent generations. Yet I believe that a secular ethic is the way to go, and it would be an improvement for humanity.

This has been some rough thoughts on ethics. Do not criticize the lack of organization or the ideas not presented; criticize the ideas presented. I have not said all that I want to say but I feel it is time to make a post, and I am currently writing a piece on Jewish history that I would like to work on. Ethics is not a subject I will drop, but I believe that I have presented ideas worth sharing.

On Ethan Frome

2006-03-10T21:42:00.000-05:00

These are some remarks on Ethan Frome by Edith Wharton. I do not care if you as the reader hates it; on this I encourage comments on the novel.

And you can stop sighing now, it will be OK, Frome was not that bad.

As one knows, I feel compelled to write on and about most if not everything I read, and if it is a classic piece of literature or philosophy or something that moves me. I would like to make some general remarks about Ethan Frome, by Edith Wharton.

While I am somewhat of a literary elitist, I found Ethan Frome to be quite an interesting novel. The plot is original and I took some comfort in Wharton’s style. I am well aware that this is not the typical Wharton novel, yet nonetheless it was interesting. In terms of the plot, my main critique of the work is the excessive amount of characters for the short text. The text is only about 120 pages or so, if that, in the standard paperback book. The plethora of characters was superfluous in such a short work, if Wharton had extended the text, and given more time to discuss in more detail episodes of the characters it would have been more acceptable. For example, in Dostoyevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, which I am planning on resuming reading quote soon, has quite the lot of characters, but he incorporates them into each part much better than Wharton does. Each character does not serve as specific a purpose in Ethan Frome. All of the characters mentioned (Harmon Gow is debatable) are used and are important to the story.

To continue this idea, it is important to bring up the entity of drama. In many plays there are a large cast of characters for a text that takes about the same amount of time to read as Ethan Frome. In the last play of Edward de Vere, usually referred to as “William Shakespeare”, that I read, Twelfth Night, there are approximately ten characters or so who play a specific purpose. Possible the only insignificant characters are Curio, and the second officer who appears only once. Yet to have one officer called to break up a fight of three people is slightly unrealistic, so two fits better. Yet the second officer has only one line and drifts off into obscurity after his brief appearance. Yet the dynamic of the play would greatly change were it not for all of the characters; no character can be spared besides the ones mentioned. However, drama a very different animal than the novel, but I deemed it worthy of an example.

To elaborate on the concluding remarks on Ethan Frome this play was clearly a comedy. I agree with the self-proclaimed honorary and esteemed Mr. McEachan (don’t crucify me if I misspelled that) that Wharton wrote it as a tragedy but read it ten years later and realized that she had in actuality written a comedy. Ethan Frome will not go down as one of the premier classics of American literature, but I believe it is at least in the top 75 if not the top 50 of the greatest American novels (for the record I would love to compose that list). I must say that I agree with critics in the lack of a theme of the novel. There is no concrete theme, and I believe that Wharton may have written it as an outpouring of the pent up anger and pain of her troubled personal life. Regardless, it is high literature in terms of plot depth, and there are themes, symbols and motifs, and it can be read critically, but the lack of a theme and the overall brevity of the work downgrade it. In conclusion, I am glad that I read the novel, even if it is not Wharton’s best work.

Note these are only some concluding remarks on Ethan Frome; expect more criticism and analysis to come.

On The Gospels

2006-02-28T20:27:00.000-05:00

I find it difficult to accredit the Gospels with an excessive amount in terms of historical nature. They are essential to Christianity, and are a fine piece of literature if they are to be read as such. Yet from the point of the historian how ought they to be received?

As Professor Thomas F.X. Noble has stated, a major problem with the Jesus narratives is the fact that there is nothing to cross-reference them with. Mathew’s Gospel is probably the oldest, with Luke and Mark probably knowing his gospel. John’s Gospel is somewhat unique to the others, but it still tells, to an extent, the same story. There are other Gospels such as (Bloom’s favorite) the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the apocryphal Gospels, but the four canonical gospels have been the primary sources for the life of Jesus the past two millennia.

It is somewhat probably that the man we have today come to think of as Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist. Tacitus and Josephus apparently make some passing remarks about the man Jesus, but there are some theories that exist about these. One is the idea that later historians have doctored the original texts (blasphemy, I know) to include Jesus. I hope this is not the case but it cannot be ruled out. However, I doubt this.

So, the man Jesus did indeed exist. However, the gospels present a clear conflict. Actually, they present many, but some are starker than the others. The first of which is the notion of time. When was Jesus born, and when did he die? The major conflict in this is that the gospels (my capitalization in this piece needs editing) is that at one point they claim he was born during the reign of Herod, but then say there was a census in the year of his birth. As Noble puts it, you need to pick one: census or Herod; you cannot have both.

There are a multitude of other contradictions, ambiguities, and physical impossibilities encapsulated within the Gospels. If they are to be taken as literal history, they fall very short of any respectable sort of history or historiography. But the Gospels are not meant to be read as pure history. Some of the basic facts and the structural outline (besides the virgin birth, but this entire concept is probably just an error in translation that has greatly affected the western tradition, but another essay another time) of his life are generally accepted as true, or at least possible. For example, the crucifixion is a possible historical truth; Pilate was indeed in charge of punishing criminals, and crucifixion was a means of taking the life of a criminal. Yet improbabilities abound, there are indeed questions. For example, Jesus was arrested at night, which is unlikely, for most were carried out during the day. There are a multitude of others of these parts of the life of Jesus that are not necessarily falsities, but are not in tune with the regular goings on of typical Roman life. For example, the region where Jesus was raised is described as a rural area where in fact archaeology has shown that it was more of a bustling urban centre in the early first century AD/CE.

I feel it proper to address the notion that most of Jesus’ life is deeply shrouded in mystery, and many of his years we know literally nothing about. It is also clear that we know little about his family. Very little of the life of a man who is the essential figure to the longest lasting institution in the western world is known. When compared to other figures of comparable importance such as Confucius or Mohammed much more is known. However, a figure such as Zoroaster (Zarathustra) has less historical information written about him than Jesus (excuse the grammar in that sentence). Siddhartha’s life is also shrouded in mystery, but we still know a decent amount. Lao-Tzu is similar to Zarathustra, and it is still a great mystery of Lao-Tzu existed. It is probable that Zoroaster existed, but the question is when. His life has been dated from anywhere from 3000 years ago to 2500 years ago. At least with Jesus we know that the Jesus movement started some 2000 years ago, and we are positive within decade or so.

To recapitulate, hitherto the fact that the gospels are fairly unreliable historically outside the fact that Jesus of Nazareth (Ιησούς Χριστός, c. -6 – 27) probably existed has been discussed and the historical nature of the man and his life causes great distress for historians. Yet the Gospel can be, and have primarily been read for something other than their historical nature; they have been read as religious or inspirational literature. The man Jesus portrayed in the gospels is unparalleled in terms of his righteousness and power; and if Jesus is God, and Jesus is the incarnation/son of God then God is good. The profundity of this claim is immense. The fact that God is good (ignore the problem of what is good and what is evil for right now) is a profound notion. Through the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament, but Bloom says no self respecting Jew calls the Hebrew Bible the Old Testament, and as an ethnic Jew I refer to it as the Hebrew Bible), God is shown to have chosen the Jews as a whole, but not every single one is infallible. God is shown to be wrathful and vengeful in Genesis (especially in Noah, Genesis 6-9) and especially in Job, and his absolute righteousness is sometimes thrown into question. The Jesus syllogism shows that God is good, and that is a cornerstone aspect of Christianity.

In viewing the Gospels in terms of devotional literature outside of the fact that God is good, Jesus is portrayed as the perfect human being; Jesus is infallible. Briefly I would like to state that Jesus drank wine, and I believe that any drug use is a great vice so that bothers me. Regardless, Jesus as the embodiment of the divine being gives Christians a model human to use as a role model. Jesus is perfect in his morality, and so one should ask “what would Jesus do?” For if God is infinitely wise, and Jesus is God, Jesus is infinitely wise, and we ought to follow Jesus. I must say, that if everyone embodied the spirit of Christ then this world would at least be a more peaceful place.

The last aspect of the Gospels as prime religious literature is in their purpose. The Gospels were written as Christian literature, and it can be argued that they ought not to be analyzed as anything but that. To look for historical nature in them might be looking in the wrong area. Still, the Gospels are powerful pieces of religious literature that are to be taken seriously by the believer. A final thought on reading the Gospels as religious literature is that they might be best read as part fact and part metaphor/allegory that combine to form a picture of a guide to a better life. What if Jesus is not the son of God, or divine at all, but rather a preacher who preaches the way to a “better” and “happier” life. Take for example Jesus’ turning of the water into wine (I am aware this is slightly out of context). An interpretation of this is that he literally did not take H20 molecules and turn them into wine, but with Christ in your life it is so incredible that even something as simple as water can feel like the ecstasy (I don’t drink for the record) of wine. Are the Gospels to be taken literally? If they are history than yes, for in true history there is no exaggeration, 20,000 men means 20,000 men, not 100,000 or 2,000. However, the Gospels are religious literature, so a miracle that appears to violate the laws of physics or nature is probably not literally the act that is reported. It is probably a symbol or metaphor and if it is supposed to literally signify a miracle I have excessive trouble attaching any credibility to it.

If the Gospels are not to be read as history or as Christian literature, how are they to be read? The next main way in which the Gospels are to be read is as literature. In terms of literature, they are the narrative of a wise preacher written in a fairly interesting style with a very deep philosophical meaning. They are then attached to the canon of Greek literature, cementing it as one of the proudest literary traditions of all time, probably only the English literary tradition can eclipse it. Granted the Greek literary tradition is very strong on its own, but if the Gospels are to be included it only increases its greatness. Many a literary critic, especially in recent times, e.g. the man I reference all too often because he is my favorite critic, Harold Bloom, has read them as high literature. He is by no means the first to do so but his recent criticisms of them are quite profound. This is personally my favorite way of reading the Gospels, although I am only a budding scholar of religion and literature and have not read them multiple times for the most part, and I do not have an extreme familiarity with them, and I do not claim to. Yet it is fact that the Gospels have been read as high literature, and will continue to be read as such in our increasing secularizing West.

The last way to view the Gospels, or the last one that shall be discussed, is as wisdom literature. This is basically reading them as religious literature but without the religion, or adding them onto the canon of biblical wisdom literature a la Job and Ecclesiastes and possibly the apocryphal wisdom in Ecclesiasticus and The Gospel of Thomas which has been primarily read as a wisdom book as opposed to an insight into Jesus himself. This will be treating each Gospel individually, and as a source of wisdom, and the fact that they follow the same protagonist is irrelevant.

In summation, the Gospels have hitherto been taken as history by much of Christendom. However, they are quite historically unreliable; yet most gospel readers are not looking for history, they are looking for wisdom or religious inspiration; whether they tell the actual story of Jesus of Nazareth is irrelevant. Lastly, the Gospels have been read as works of high literature, which (after the heart of Simone Weil) have been taken in the wonderful tradition of Greek literature. To view Jesus as a Greek philosopher (as Weil did) and the Gospels as works comparable to the Homeric epics may be to get the most out of Jesus Christ, and the early Christian tradition.

On Heaven

2006-02-25T13:26:00.000-05:00

As an atheist religious thinker (it is not an oxymoron), heaven is something that is worth thinking about. These are some thoughts on the subject, and these are by no means my final ideas, but it is at least my present thoughts. I am aure that any reader can pick out some obvious flaws with my conception, and I have repeated myself some. Yet I feel it was worth putting my ideas down on paper and publishing them.

It is impossible to know (ignore the philosophical implications of the word ‘know’ for right now) what happens to us after we die. There is no proof positive method of determining what happens, if anything after we die. To borrow an example from Peter Kreeft, it is as if we are unborn children arguing about what life is like outside of the womb. Hoverer, since it is probable that we will be dead longer than we are alive, it is worth speculating about. I claim not to know or to reach and proof, or even move closer to what Heaven is like, but because I am a speculative budding religious thinker/philosopher it is an issue essential to the world religious tradition and it is of paramount importance in the spiritual thought of mankind.

I intend not to perform a comprehensive study of heaven and its counterpart hell here. My objective is to examine the Christian and Muslim ideas of the places and my own vision of what heaven should be, though I believe it doesn’t exit. For the former tradition, heaven is a place where God/Jesus, the Angels, and the Saints reside for all eternity. In Islam, it is a garden of paradise full of immense pleasures. Some Muslim Mystics (pardon the unintentional alliteration) believed that heaven was full of wine and virgins and revelry.

But first the Christian tradition. Christian heaven is something that is not necessarily clear however there are some characteristics that are unique to Christianity. In somewhat of a paradox, we learn most about heaven through examining hell. Hell is the eternal domicile of the damned, those who were blasphemers, and those who were not worthy of being in the realm of God. Well, if all those people go to hell then who goes to heaven? Remember, all dogs go to heaven (sorry I could not resist). Heaven is the realm of the faithful, the saints, the angels, and God. The principle Christian texts do not discuss heaven much, mainly because the focus is not on going to heaven; it is not going to hell. Hell’s magnitude of depravity is much worse than heaven’s level of perfection. So getting to heaven is not the focus, it is first don’t go to hell, and then live a life of perfection. Yet Christian heaven is very different from Muslim heaven. This is probably because it is a faux pas on my part to call it heaven. The correct English term is probably paradise. But in Christianity, is heaven paradise? The classic idea of paradise is a perfect world, but there is an underlying notion of excessive pleasure in paradise, whereas heaven is the realm of the lord. But if the lord is perfect, shouldn’t his kingdom also be the most desirable place in the world?

My first issue with the idea of Christian heaven is its boringness. I believe that Muslim paradise may be more interesting, but not necessarily more ideal. The fact that sins are permitted in heaven is exceedingly disturbing to me. If the realm is perfect, and vices are morally wrong, how can they be permitted in heaven? There is at last one ambiguity or contradiction here. So if the Christian ideal is to be benevolent to others, and especially the less fortunate, and to praise God, what is there to do but praise God if there are not any who are less fortunate? So is heaven just constant prayer? I would not assume that one sleeps in heaven, or has to eat in heaven, so if all I do in heaven is praise god, then maybe hell is the more favorable option (Huck Finn agrees).

I would now like to point out the obvious problems with heaven. It is clear to me that heaven may just be an idea, an idea of a better world on earth, but since so many have taken the idea literally it must be fundamentally explored. First, where is Heaven? I do not think it is in Detroit, but I may be wrong. Next, does one have a body in heaven? If so, which body is it? Is it our own body, and is it the last body we had? If we do indeed not have a body in heaven, then what do we exist as? If we have a body, do we sleep in heaven? Do we produce waste in heaven? I would be inclined to say no considering heaven is perfect. Is there sex in heaven (this question shall be addressed)? Next, can one converse with other souls in heaven, or is he doomed to solidarity? Is it just Homo sapiens who go to heaven, or do Homo erecti, Homo habiles, (I am trying to pluralize these but I am unsure even with my two and a half years plus of Latin schooling), Neanderthals, and those who are not human such as animals, insects, communists, and bacteria? Can one talk to God in heaven? Clearly he would be a popular guy, considering he is the creator.

With the literal questions out of the way, it is now time to begin the comparative section of this piece: Muslim paradise versus Christian heaven. To recapitulate, the former is a brilliant garden full of the bodily pleasures and the latter is the realms of God, the saints, the pious and the angels. The main difference is that the vices are explored to excess in Muslim paradise. This is an extremely striking point of Muslim heaven which is disturbing to some modern scholars.

I would first like to point out the thought of sex in heaven. It appears to me that some sort of human before Homo sapiens had evolved enough that procreation could no longer be done by instinct, so somehow sex became an enjoyable activity due to the high concentration of nerves specific areas of the body. So the objective was completed; it is unlikely any time soon that humans will not be creating enough new lives to sustain the species. But if there is no need, or I would argue no possibility for someone to give birth in heaven. So why would sex be performed in heaven? It is possible that this was a fantasy that would be used to propel the religion, but Islam was probably powerful enough with a heaven void of wine and virgins to sell itself without the idea of paradise. If we are to go religion shopping it appears that the Muslim idea of the afterlife is the most favorable (actually I would contest that due to the lack of intellectual productivity but to most sixteen year-old males), but I doubt that a majority of the people who have converted to Islam in the past fourteen centuries is due to the afterlife, but it would probably not discourage people.

I believe that the idea of writing about this piece was inspired by Peter Kreeft in his lecture on Faith and Reason (I am unsure how to punctuate that exactly so I have underlined it). Kreeft discussed the idea of sex in heaven, and the thought disturbed me greatly due to the biological paradox I have hitherto stated. A friend of mine showed me an essay of a university student to the question of chemistry in hell which shows that there are still inquiries as to the nature of heaven and hell.

Next to address the problem of wine in heaven. First of all, wine is not permitted under Islamic law. However, Rumi, Hafiz and countless other Muslim poets, mystics, etc. have been quite enamored with alcohol. Note that I am extremely against any drug use of any kind, and I have zero tolerance, so if I am being overly biased here this is a source. But the idea of wine in heaven is problematic for a few reasons. One of the reasons is the nature of wine. Wine is used to remove one from reality (if you will) and transport them to a place where life is, for a short time, favorable to the present life. However, if paradise is a perfect realm, why would one need wine. If I can lounge in the gardens of Eden, why would I need wine? This suggest to me that paradise is not perfect. Granted, there are different levels of paradise, and the saints and martyrs occupy the greatest level, shouldn’t heaven at least be good enough that one would not desire to escape from them?

Another extreme issue with this is the idea that wine is not allowed under Islam! How can there be something legal in heaven that is illegal on Earth? The nature of wine, as I have said, is to remove one from the present life, and elevate one to a state that is more desirable. Well how can one want to get drunk in paradise? It appears that if paradise were the ultimate perfect place one would not want to drink alcohol for it removes one from the perfection of heaven. It can be argued that wine only makes life better, and increases the perfection of heaven, but then it gets messy having to deal with different levels of perfection, and if the garden of paradise is perfect how could it get any better? So, on its own I reject the idea of wine in any sort of paradise.

To recapitulate, I dislike the Christian idea of heaven because it is boring and there is an obsession with prayer and I dislike Muslim heaven because it is a place where the vices are exploited. Now for my own idea of heaven; be cognizant that I view Harvard University as the kingdom of heaven on earth. I believe that if God does indeed exist, heaven should be a place where all the humans who have died go. However, I would have two parts of heaven. The first is where everyone goes directly after they die. It is a place where they have someone/something help them reflect on their lives, and see where they did well and where they did poorly. Until they understand what they did right and what they did wrong, and feel genuine remorse for anything wrong they did, be it a massacre of millions of people, or if they accidentally closed the elevator on someone who was close enough but they did not see them, anything wrong they did they see and feel remorse for (I do not know if I am allowed to end a sentence with for, but regardless I have decided to). After that people gain admittance to heaven; yes every single person. Everyone from an innocent child who died ten minutes after he was born, to Adolf Hitler is allowed to go to heaven, when they realise all the bad acts they committed on earth. In heaven, everyone looks the same, but people know who is who. There is no sex in heaven, no drugs, no sleep, and none of the human functions that are committed on earth. The human imperfection (I do not believe in original sin, but it is an intriguing idea) is nonexistent in heaven, and one lives eternally with the ability to meet whoever one wants, with an infinite ability to learn. There are not any mysteries in heaven, for God is all-knowing, and in his kingdom there are no mysteries. Heaven is a paradise of equality and it is the realm of God.

A piece that reminded me of my idea of heaven, and most likely influenced my idea of heaven, if not just reinforced it was Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless you Dr. Kevorkian. It was essentially Vonnegut’s idea of heaven, and he agreed that all people go to heaven. It was quite the spectacular work, even thought it numbered about seventy-five pages. If one is to read it, they will see some commonalities between Vonnegut and me.

Allow me to restate that this is my idea of Heaven, assuming that god exists and that it exists. It is by no means my final thoughts on it, but for right now it is what I think I believe heaven is. I am sure that if I were to write this tomorrow my thoughts would be slightly different, and I accept flaws. For right now it is what I believe, and it shall change, but these are my sentiments on heaven.

Two Short Works

2006-02-21T21:42:00.000-05:00

Today I wrote two random pieces of a somewhat self-analytical nature Feel free to critique my grammar for I know that there was at least one error there.

I would like to write a short piece on education. I have been attempting for some time now to write a piece on why I hate the educational system, and how flawed it is, but the passion that I have for the topic makes anything that I have hitherto written unacceptable for the standards. My complete thoughts on the flawed educational system shall be written in due time, but I would like to arouse an interesting point. Over vacation, I learn much more than I do during school. Last vacation I read six or seven books, listening to lectures, had plenty of time to research and converse with some of my friends who are intellectuals. I can honestly say that in that vacation I learned much more than I did in the previous month of school. What that say is that the educational system is not nearly as efficient as it could be, and I say it runs at about fifteen percent efficiency, whereas the time spent on vacation is about seventy five percent efficiency.

On February 26 I wrote this piece, which is essentially the same thing in different wording, but I like ranting. I decided to include it here because I could, and I like the title two short works, but in reality it is three short works.

My major gripe with the educational system is its ineffectiveness and inefficiency as an educational system. The operative word in it educational, and it was not designed initially to educate; it was to instill Christian values and keep order in turn teaching the basic skills needed to succeed such as basic arithmetic. However, the educational structure is not contusive to such disciplines as history and languages.

I fear that in reading Bloom’s thesis on the anxiety of influence, I fear that it may be used on me in terms of philosophy. Am I just Nietzsche and Sartre with some naivety sprinkled on top? I would hope not, and I claim this because I have held many of my present views before reading Sartre and Nietzsche as extensively as I have hitherto (I must use that work in every piece it seems). It is clear that the case could be made that I am just Nietzsche in English only less worldly and less intelligent (but slightly better at arithmetic), yet I claim this is not the case for the reason I have already said, I trust in the intelligence of crowds more than Nietzsche did and I, for some reason, like the categorical imperative but that may change and it puzzles me why I even do, but in a godless universe it is striking. In conclusion, I am not just Sartre and Nietzsche reworked into English with less of a poetic talent but slightly more naïve and less experienced, but the Anxiety of Influence theory, when applied to philosophy, is interesting.

On Pascal's Pensees

2006-02-20T00:56:00.000-05:00

I am currently working on a piece on heaven which will trump this piece. Discuss with me if you desire to talk about it.

After reading the Pensées of Blaise Pascal, I was thoroughly disappointed. For such an immaculate genius it was disturbing how set in his sentiments of the superiority of Christianity, and how much he deemed skepticism asinine. It is also striking his self-contradictory nature towards the Jews.

I do not at this point wish to go back through the text and explain myself perfectly, but I feel that writing my ideas down is paramount at this time. I would like to state some ambiguities that I remember, but I vow that this is the first draft of this extended work, and citations will be included.

First for the ambiguities. At one point, Pascal seems sympathetic towards the Jews, almost looking at them as if they Muslims viewed Jews within fifty years of the Muhammad (محمد). He first sees them as pious people who rejected the latest message (Jesus). However, these are only in sparing quotations, and I may have misinterpreted them. Later he turns very hostile towards the Jews, and calls Solomon infinitely inferior to Plato.

The next issue I have with Pascal is his critique of skepticism. In every instance except “The Wager” he is almost condescending towards skeptics. This is ironic because it is in extreme collocation with the rest of his writings. I have hitherto written on the wager so I will not discuss that here. Yet Pascal later seems to be angry towards skepticism. It appears paradoxically ironic to me that the man who formulated possibly the foremost argument for believing in God to then turn around and be exceedingly hostile toward skepticism. The fact that Pascal a man so enamored in the sciences to accept God is not only in a different pattern with many of the men of the age is noteworthy. However, Kepler and Newton were also devout theists, so a case could be made that the best scientists were also the most devout theists. Einstein is of the same breed of Newton in this respect.

Pascal’s work appears to be very repetitive and can be predictable at times. This is no fault of his, but he Pensées can become somewhat tedious to read. What I can critique is his lack of talent as an aphorist. What I am saying is his style is not striking, and I believe that many are much more talented. Yet this argument fails because I read a translation of the Pensées, and not the Pensées themselves (I probably should have stated already that the title means the thoughts), although he has not been praised too greatly for his prose.

I am well aware that this is a poor study of The Pensées, but again I just wanted to put down some thoughts. My closing remarks are that the Pensées fell very well short of my expectations. I expected a man of such genius to be able to produce something greater than he already did. To ignore the rest of the Pensées outside of The Wager may be a keen idea, but Pascal’s other writings cannot be ignored. A theory may be proposed where that Pascal was such a genius prodigy that he may have never grown up and been religious out of some sort of fear or inferiority. However I claim not to be a psychologist of any serious skill, so it is not the time to give Blaise Pascal a psychological profile, but I am throwing the idea out there. The Pensées fell quite short of expectation and Pascal should be remembered for his genius in science, mathematics and The Wager.

Critique of Kafka's The Trial

2006-02-12T12:07:00.001-05:00

I was a sophomore in high school. Sorry.

On Job

2006-02-11T17:59:00.000-05:00

I find it disgraceful to think that the Book of Job (איוב) has been included in the cannon of the Hebrew Bible. I find that in reading it from a number of different angles it is impossible to reconcile it with Judaism, and not only Judaism but morality, ethics, common sense, and any productive view of God. I find it in direct conflict with other Jewish doctrines, and some Christian doctrine to an extent, and it may be my least favorite thing I have ever read.

First to give a brief overview. The Book of Job was composed by an unknown author at an unknown time in history. I believe that it predates Ecclesiastes, but there is no concrete evidence of this. The basic story is God makes a bet with Satan that a man named Job who has been completely faithful to God his entire life, and has been blessed with a good family and a stable lifestyle. However, Satan claims that if God were to take all this away from Job then Job will no longer praise his name. Yet God, in an immaculate stoke of genius decides to stoop to Satan’s level and takes him up on his offer. So God systematically takes away everything that Job has, leaving him with no property and worst of all no family. Yet in the end, Job decides to still praise God. And God wins the bet with Satan, proving that no matter what God does to Job he will still worship God. It is important to note that the Christian tradition views this character as Satan, and the Jewish as “The Adversary.”

In attacking this atrocity of the Biblical Cannon, I would like to say that this is in direct conflict with the God of other parts of the Bible. From now on the Bible will be used just in terms of the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament if you are a member of Christianity. It is first important to note that there is not a uniform idea of God, Yahweh, VHWH, Adonai, Eloheim, or whatever you want to call him/her/it/God. I like to think that the idea of God put forth in Genesis written by The J Writer or as some like to call The Yawhist, is the idea of God that is most Jewish. Granted, parts of Genesis are taken from Gilgamesh, possibly some myths of Sargon II, as well as many other sources. So to address this, a portrait of the God of Judaism must first be drawn.

The God of Genesis is a tribal deity. He is a God who is the ultimate creator, and there is no one above him; the exalted one, oh most high. He has chosen the Jewish people, and he loves and will protect them, given they follow his commandments, especially what he tells them specifically. It is important to note that God decides, arbitrarily, to talk to certain people. God has not developed itself into the form of Judaism it was even in the Rabbinic Period (c. -200-250), so this is God in his most elementary form. The God of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Hosea, Nehemiah, and all the rest of the prophets is different from the God in Genesis and to an extent Exodus. But the essence of God is a creator who loves his chosen people and who will punish the wicked.

The first extreme quandary with Job is the idea that God can have an adversary. The literal reading is there is a force that can contend with God. Not only is this a force, but this is a powerful force, juxtaposed to God, whose challenge is so great that God demolishes the life of a pious man to prove a point to evil.

Even if the story is to be read allegorically there are still an abundance of severe problems. The best reading that I can get from the text, and I am by no means a bona fide biblical scholar more a naïve and budding philosopher, is that even when God throws evil on you, for no apparent reason, you still ought to be faithful. This may be a misreading of the text, but it is what I have discerned from Job. God can decide to bestow hardship upon is, whether we believe in him or not. Well why bother believing in him? The answer is because God is good and it will all pay off in the end. Well if God is good how could he ruin the life of a very faithful man who never harmed anyone, was praised for his piety, just to prove a point to Satan, the Devil, or the other force that is not God? This can lead to those to see that Job, most pious, still lost his family, and property. If Job is not good enough for God than who is? This tends me to say that if this story were true, which it is obviously a fictional story designed to relay a point, it would discourage people from Judaism.

It is still shocking the idea that God could have an adversary. If he is the ultimate creator, the one God, how can there be a being that he would have to contend with. This reminds me, for some reason, of the paradox of ‘can God create a rock so large even he cannot lift it?’. How can there possibly a force in the universe that God can contend with? This reminds me of polytheism, and the Book of Revelation, where Good wins out because it is more powerful than Evil. Job can be read as a cosmic power struggle, but Bloom may claim that is a misreading. Regardless, there is a force that can contend with God, and God is jeopardizing the life of an innocent believer just to prove a point to this force. How it affects humans is that God can treat us however poorly he desires, but we should still believe him. This is implying that God will play around with humans just because he can, and that we are so far below God that we are completely helpless. This idea of a God who can give and take arbitrarily is not the same god of J, E, D, the prophets, the Psalmists, the Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) and the rest of the Hebrew Bible. The fact that the assembly of the Canon was not an exact science it is very probable that the assembler(s) made some mistakes. Well, Job was one. Job would serve well as an interesting apocryphal test, but as part of the Canon it is highly inferior to the rest of the Canon and does not fit in with the same concept of God.

The Wonderful Wager of Pascal

2006-02-07T22:08:00.000-05:00

While I have spent a serious amount of time of the past three years of my life contemplating religion, I believe that all my efforts to reach a decision are futile. Let me first add to my own ego by boasting (for my own self esteem) that I believe I am a fairly inept religious thinker, if I can be called one as an atheist/agnostic but I bet on the former, and it is not as if this is my first crack at the question of god. But I may admit futility in submission to a man by the name of Blaise Pascal. If this name is foreign to you I greatly suggest you reexamine calling yourself a cultured intellectual if you so do at the present time. I now promise this is the end of my ranting and boasting, if I have offended you, as I am not attempting to do here but I have been guilty of trying to do that in the past, I apologize but you either hate me or you love me and I am assuming almost all of you are thinking the former. But enough digression. Pascal formulated the famous “Pascal’s Wager.” This is the argument that we cannot known definitively if god exists. However, he believed that it is better to believe that he does exist than that he doesn’t exist. Wikipedia.org claims that this is a form of decision theory, something I admit I have hitherto not heard of, but it makes perfect sense nonetheless. It is important to note that Pascal was a Christian who at the age of 36 died intellectually at the passing of his father and committed the final eight years of his life Christianity and produced nothing in the realm of mathematics, science, or philosophy. Allow me to say that he was an immaculate genius in all three disciplines, and to think that I am worthy (do not debate me here) to ever write about Pascal is an honour.

Pascal did believe in the Christian God, and he himself may have been convinced but being as he was a genius logician he formulated the wager. As I have said in a previous post we formulate our own arguments for God, the creator, and we decide upon what constitutes as proof for God. Since we do not know what constitutes as proof, it is impossible to know if he exists or not. This is to ignore the fact that the creator may have instilled us the ability to speculate, but not to know and we need to make a Kierkegaardian “leap of faith” towards either theism or atheism.

So The Wager States makes for a better life to believe in God than to not to, and we cannot know either way about his existence. I fear that it is impossible to improve on this in terms of an argument for theism. Professor Peter Kreeft, whom I am a great admirer of (which is a great compliment from an atheist/agnostic who was born a Jew to pay to a Christian Apologist, but Professor Kreeft has returned one of my emails, but I have since emailed him twice and he has heretofore not yet returned them, and I hope greatly to meet the man for whom I have such respect). But how can an argument for theism be improved upon? I do not believe in god, as I have said an abundance of times hitherto, but it is imperative to attempt to see a better argument for theism. Any argument from a phenomenon and I can just say that I do not believe it proves god. One idea that I am working on is the idea that if I can see a being perform something that violates the laws of physics and nature, with the exception of the Second “Law” of Thermodynamics which I am still exceedingly skeptical of, that at least proves there is a force with unanticipated power. Another problem is that any argument for atheism may not be strong enough to hold up to The Wager. I cannot argue that atheism produces more favourable results than believing in God. When one looks at Nietzsche, Sartre, (some would argue me but I am BY NO MEANS close to the aforementioned two) as well as many other atheists they tend to be very defensive, angry, and nihilistic. This is an overgeneralization but atheists are more likely to be nihilists than theists. I contend this knowing that Calvinists who believe in predestination are prone to nihilism. So it cannot be said that atheism produces less favourable results than theism. If one takes a Pragmatist’s view then God exists, and atheism is a fallacy.

Even if one attempt to argue that atheism produces more favourable results in life than theism, it may be from a lack of commitment and a feeling of freedom, or from a belief that one is closer to the truth (this one I adhere to. to an extent). Yet does this security that one is closer to the truth make life better? I do not plan to answer this because that would entail defining life and better and make, something which I do not desire to do.

Pascal’s Wager still has one other hurdle to jump. It does accept that one is not searching for the truth, but just what works the best. This may be called accepting the cliché ‘ignorance is bliss.’ Yet it can be circumvented by saying that Pascal’s argument is not directly an argument for theism, but an argument for belief in God. Pascal does not care, or for the sake of this conversation is not concerned immediately with, if God exists, but if we ought to believe in him. Try as I might I cannot find a better argument for believing in God. I believe that a stronger argument can come from science, but hitherto science has not been able to prove his existence. I think the answer may lie in thermodynamics, the nature of infinity, or a branch of astrophysics, but that is another essay another time.

I do not know if I have said much in this piece but I at least wanted to address the idea of Pascal’s Wager and say that it might be the simplest, but most lucid argument for belief in God. And when I said I would not digress anymore it was obvious this would be a digression riddled piece. Regardless, does God exist? Ask me again later.

The Nature of Infinity

2006-02-05T16:04:00.000-05:00

In the mathematical world, infinity is a concept that has been accepted as highly applicable and essential to mathematics. Yet it is not something at exists in the physical world, the finite world, the ‘real’ world. If we are to regard Eddington number 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 (this was copied from wikipedia.org). This is traditionally 10^80. The Eddington number is supposed to be the number of protons in the universe. In theory, there are not anymore quantities in the universe larger than this. So, do numbers stop at Eddington Number?

If we are to use the platonic world of forms, and regard the world of mathematics and the physical world as completely separate entities, then numbers are viewed as adjectives. There is nothing in the physical world that is three for example. Something may have threeness, or a group may consist of the elements of three, but the number three doesn’t exist as a physical entity. But what does this tell us about infinity (∞)?

The first thing to do is try to find a place in the physical world where infinity exists. This is not taken completely under the idea of Sir Roger Penrose that we simultaneously exist in three worlds: the physical, the mental, and the mathematical. If Penrose is correct, then infinity does not exist in the physical world, and only in the mathematical, and that infinity is something that acts in ways we cannot know in the physical world.

The only thing that I can see that is supposed to be infinite in the physical world is the idea of perpetual motion. Since perpetual motion is something that is not found in the physical world, infinity does not exist in their. If something cannot exist ad perpetuum or ad infinitum.

My point is that infinity is a concept so difficult to grasp with is it is something that doesn’t exist in the physical world. This brings my to my next point that is infinity a number or a concept. There is clearly something wrong with a number where x+1=x. If I am to understand correctly there are different sets, levels or numbers of inifinity in set theory. Well if x+1=x and y+1=y and y≠x then either y‹x or x‹y .

I have hitherto claimed that numbers exist independent of space and time. This is in accord with the Platonic view of the universe, but I claim not to be a Platonist but an Existentialist. But back to numbers. If numbers exist independent of space and time, then does ∞ exist in the same way also? I would assume so because, if Penrose is to be believed as I think I hope he ought to be in this case, then the mathematical world does not have to deal with space and time as the two other worlds do. Yet if numbers are ideas, or if at least infinity is an idea it ought to exist in the realm of the mind and the realm of mathematics. I am sure there is some ambiguity or paradox here but I care not to address it at the present time.

Finally, I would like to say that infinity is either an idea or a number or both, assuming all numbers are ideas. Regardless, infinity is something that will continue to make us stretch our brain for centuries to come, or at least as long as humans will exist for we heretofore have barely begun to understand the beauty in the idea of ∞.

On the Need for New Mathematical Characters

2006-02-02T18:31:00.000-05:00

The great symbols of mathematics and science, π, φ, θ, ω, Δ to name a few, almost all come from the Ancient Greek Language. The problem is that many of these have multiple meanings. For example, α is not just the fine structure constant, but it is also the alpha particle, angle of attack in aerodynamics, as well as other denotations. Wouldn’t it be easier if alpha was just the fine structure constant? I believe it would for one who has studied many aspects of science, and been confused.

But where are we to get more characters and how can we change our old ones? I understand that changing them, for example making Euler’s gamma (γ) constant something different because there are gamma rays is unrealistic, but it would be nice. So, if were have heretofore used all the Greek letters at least thrice in many cases, what are we to do when new operations, constants, etc. become added to mathematics? The best answer is to have new symbols. But where are they to come from?

Hitherto Greek has almost always been used as the language of math and science. There are exceptions though. For example, the continuum hypothesis uses aleph (אּ) for Cantor believed it would teach him something about god. Yet where are we to turn from here? I believe that we should use characters from another ancient language. The first potential suitor is Sanskrit. This is because the Indians first developed the number system that that Arabs borrowed that has come down to us as the “Arabic numerals.” So, if the Greeks and the Indians were the foremost mathematicians of antiquity is it not most sensible to incorporate both into the current mathematical language. Yet the Sanskrit characters are quite difficult to form due to their intricacy. Some examples are as follows: ॡ, इ, ॠ and ओ. I can neither read nor pronounce these, and I am positive I cannot form them with any accuracy. Also, the language is foreign to an extreme majority of the population, and probably especially to mathematicians for they work with numbers and not with languages. Computers help lessen this barrier, but that does not by any means solve the problem.

So if Sanskrit is not a viable option, let us examine the Arabic language. It is a language whose speakers have contributed considerably to mathematics. Yet again, the language is exceedingly intricate, and the fact that it is a series of lines and the characters are not as distinct as in Greek, English or Sanskrit. So if Arabic will not work where ought we to turn?

Another ancient language that comes to mind is Hebrew. The Hebrew characters are only moderately intricate, they are written from right to left thought. However, they are closes in structure to the Latin characters and can be formed (I do not want to bring up the point that a significant percentage of mathematicians are Jewish, but it is an interesting fact. However, there are at most 20 millions Jews worldwide, and figure at most and extremely exaggerated figure, for say 35 million people are at least acquainted with the Hebrew characters. 35 millions out of 6.2 billion is not a considerable percentage.) Yet another problem arises. Hebrew as a read language uses the uppercase characters and the written uses a cursive script. Which characters would be used? This is more of a curse than a blessing, and would be confusing to those who use Hebrew (Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel-Aviv are becoming budding intellectual centers). Worse of all, Hebrew has a religious connotation, and the Muslims may not allow Hebrew to be used as the language of mathematics due to their hatred of the Jews. Hebrew may be the best bet so far, but beyond a few more inclusions by mathematicians specifically, it is not likely to be a good candidate for the new language of mathematical characters.

So what does that leave us with? Chinese would be a good bet, but mathematicians deal with numbers and are not calligraphers. Farsi is in the same boat is Arabic, and Japanese is in the same as Chinese. One interest possibility is to use some of the super-ancient languages, for example Cuneiform, Biblical Hebrew, Egyptian, Sumerian, Akkadian, or any other language that was in existence at the dawn of history. Regardless, it would behoove the mathematical community to decide on some new characters to use to classify forthcoming mathematical and scientific constants, equations, and anything else used in the language of mathematics.

An Extremely Brief Look at the Big Bang: Part One

2006-01-23T20:52:00.000-05:00

The current picture of the universe is one that had emerged from an approximately golf ball sized parcel of matter to explode into what is today our universe. All this occurred about fourteen billion years ago, and the universe has been expanding ever since. In the early moments (relatively) of the universe the planets began to form, and our current planet began to take shape around five to six billion years ago. Yet from this model there are some serious questions. The greatest and most perplexing is the ‘first cause’ question. How did the ball get there? The next question is why did it explode? Science has no answer to this only that it existed and it exploded.

This leads to a few other questions that must be addressed. The first of which, did the constants of nature (to borrow a phrase from Professor John D. Barrow) sort themselves out after the Bang, or are they the only constants that make sense in the universe. Some of the more important physical constants are α, ħ, G, and c to name a few. It could be argued that G is not a constant, but another essay, another time. But for the constants, would the universe function if α were two digits larger in the eightieth decimal place? One is inclined to say no, but a concrete answer is far from known. So, did the Big Bang breed these constants, or are these the only sets of numbers that will make the universe functional? I do not know the answer, but I am inclined to say that maybe a change in an insignificant decimal place will not affect the structure of the universe, but if G were larger in say the tenths place, life may not be able to exist on Planet Earth. The main question from this paragraph is are the constants concrete in the universe?

If the constants are concrete, who decided them? I will assume it was not Carrot Top, but if not him, then who did? Did God decide that Plank’s Constant had to be around 10-34? The short answer is we will never know, but it is worth investigating.

In this too brief for my liking (I am pressed for time and I desperately want to post something) post, the Big Bang model of the universe has begun to be investigated, and the question of if the Bang brought the constants to their final resting amounts, or if an intelligent being did, or randomness made the constants what they are. I intend to write much more on the subject but first I need more time and knowledge.

Biblical Wisdom Literature

2006-01-09T20:55:00.000-05:00

At this time, I would like to take a short look at the wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible. There are usually five book in this genre, and they include:

Psalms תהלים
Proverbs משלי
Job איוב
Song of Songs שיר השירים
Lamentations איכה
Ecclesiastes קהלת

My favourite book of the bible, and probably of all time, is the Kohelet, or Ecclesiastes. The book is a personal account of a man who travels around looking for wisdom. The book is saturated with wisdom anecdotes and wisdom quips, but overall the final message was a massive dissapointment. The author decides that happiness can only be attained by living a life insipred by God. This is similar to what Descartes and Kierkegaard formulated, the latter with his leap of faith and the former with his final analysis. It was a massive dissapointment, yet in my selfish and self-contradictory way I ignore the ending. I would like to examine a quote or two from Ecclesiastes.

And so I loathed life. For I was distressed by all that goes on under the sun, because everything is futile and pursuit of wind. (2.17)

Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than all they that have been before me in Jerusalem: yea, my hert had great experience of wisdom and knowledge (lost the exact lines)

So I observed: wisdom is better than valor; but a poor man's wisdom is scorned, and his words are not heeded. (9.17)

So appreciate your vigor in the days of your youth, before those days of sorrow come and those years arrive which you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them'; before sun and light and moon and stars grow dark, and the clouds come back again after the rain: (12.1-12.2)

Of revelry I said, "It's mad!"Of merriment, "What good is that?" (2.2)

For in much wisdom in much grief: and he that hath increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow

For as wisdom grows vexation grows;To increase learning is to increase heartache. (1.18)

As I have demonstrated, with wisdom of Ecclesiastes is one that few can match. Even as an atheist, I am in awe of the book of Ecclesiastes, and it may be the greatest thing I have ever read. Only Beowulf and Hamlet can compete.

It is prudent to give a brief overview of the other wisdom books. I will save the book of Job for last, having it be the worst thing I have ever read besides Scott O'Dell's Island of the Blue Dolphins.

The book of Proverbs is a collection of wisdom poems, many of which are pure wisdom, as is Ecclesiastes, and others are wisdom of submission to God (Islamic doctrine ring a bell?).

The Song of Songs is more of a book of poems. I question its pure wisdom, but it is an impressive piece of love poetry worth reading. It is allegorical in a sense, but it can be intepreted literally. It is a field day for the poetry critic, but in terms of pure wisdom it is less grand than the other book, Job the exception.

Lamentations is an impressive work of theology but I am not currently educated enough in this to be able to discuss it.

The Psalms, writtten by any numbers of poets or psalmists are devotional literature. The wisdom outside of theological wisdom is fleeting, and it is difficult to analyse it from a purely philosophical standpoint. Either way, it is impressive and if one is a true believer in God they can be very moving. Psalm 23 has been immortalized in numerous sources, and the psalms are important in the bible.

I have saved the book of Job for last. The book of Job is the story of a man named Job who is God's puppet for proving to Satan that Job will beleive in God. Modern criticism has extreme trouble with Job. I say that it is impossible to reationalize it with other Jewish theology, and it is a piece of literature that should be ignored. The thought that God would stricked one of his most beloved and devoted children with great punishment to prove a point to Satan (who in Judaism should not exist) is preposterous. God should not play games with his children. So, Job is contradictroy to Jewish doctrine and one of the worst pieces I have ever read. It is sad that this is in the same book with the extreme masterpiece that is Ecclesiastes.

Bernhard Riemann: A Short Life in Mathematics

2006-01-02T14:55:00.000-05:00

I wrote this piece for school, and I deem it blogworthy. I would like to write upon the history of mathematics, and this is a start on my favourite mathematician Bernhard Riemann.

In the nineteenth century, Germany produced the foremost mathematicians in the world. One of the most famous of these was Bernhard Riemann. He was born on September 17, 1826 in Germany. Riemann would go on to produce the greatest unsolved problem in mathematics (since Fermat’s Last Theorem fell to Andrew Wiles in 1994), the Riemann Hypothesis.
Riemann’s father was a pastor and hoped for his son to continue in his footsteps. So, when Riemann enrolled at the University of Göttingen he set out to study philology and theology. Yet once he attended lecture of the immensely influential Carl Friedrich Gauss, his interest shifted to mathematics. He wanted to switch his major, but feared his father would not support him. Yet he finally did ask him, and while his father was slightly disappointed he embraced his decision. Now Riemann could finally embrace mathematics. He also studied with the famous mathematicians Lejeune Dirichlet, Jakob Steiner and Ferdinand Eisenstein.
In 1854, Riemann developed the field of non-Euclidian geometry known as Riemannian Geometry. This is the field that in differential geometry (essentially geometry using calculus) that basically deals with curved surfaces and differential equations. It also is applicable in hyperbolic geometry, which is the field of geometry where the parallel postulate fails to hold true.
Riemann’s greatest contribution (in the opinion of many including myself) to mathematics was his 1859 paper “On the number of primes less than a given magnitude.”
In this he detailed the holy grail of mathematics, the Riemann Hypothesis:
Hitherto no mathematician has been able to write a proof if, when graphed, there is or a 0 on a real or imaginary axis that crosses the x-axis. The Zeta Function deals with the spacing of the prime integers.
The problem was brought to the forefront of the mathematical community by German mathematician David Hilbert in 1900, along with a list of 23 other problems. At the close of the twentieth century it was still unsolved and another committee of mathematical elite developed seven problems with a million dollar reward for solving them. So far no one has been able to solve anyone, and judging by the Gödel Theorem it is possible that no one will ever solve it. The practical ramifications of this is that if it is solved it may be the end of e-Commerce because people could potentially crack the codes that keep anonymity in fiscal transactions of the world wide web.
Riemann’s life was cut short in 1862 by tuberculosis. He had a wife and child at this time, and he was on his way to Italy. Throughout his mathematical career Riemann remained at Göttingen except for two years spent at the slightly more prestigious University of Berlin from 1847-1849. However, Göttingen will always be remembered for being home to two titans of mathematics: Carl Friedrich Gauss and Bernard Riemann. Riemann’s contributions to mathematics are wide ranging and everlasting, and it is remarkable all he contributed in his short life as a mathematician.

A Brief Look at Paradoxes

2005-12-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

I appologize for not posting a piece in a while, I have been busy. I am currently writing my own history of philosophy and religion. I understand this is a massive undertaking, but I at least want to complete the timeline, which I am close to doing. Also, for some reason my profile will not update in the views category. I know people have viewed it from new computors, I even looked at it from a computor that had previously not seen my blog and it still did not update. If anyone can help me fix this the assistance is appreicated.

But now for some new subject matter.

I would like to discuss my reasoning on paradoxes. My own definition has a flaw in it so I would like to use the definition from www.wikipedia.org, the english editionA paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true (or, cannot all be true together). The recognition of ambiguities, equivocations, and unstated assumptions underlying known paradoxes has led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics.

Note again this is not my definition, this is the wikipedia definition. Regardless it is a lucid definition. I would like the classify paradoxes into three categories. The first of these are questions that are puzzling but with logic and reasoning an answer can be found where an answer can be found. Another is when logic and reasoning is applied, it turns out that this is indeed a paradox, and cannot be solved. There is no clear logic that can find an answer for this, or remove its impossibility. The third type is the paradox where an answer cannot be found, and it is impossible to determine an which type of paradox this is. Ideally these types of paradoxes would not exist, but Godel proved that these indeed do exist. An example of the third type is the Riemann Hypothesis.

While paradoxes are intruiging there are not many practical applications for them. The greatest of these is the aformetioned Riemann Hypothesis where if solved it may spell the end of e-commerce. This is not close to being done, but I had an urge to post something. Thank you for reading and this post will be extended.

The Greatest Work of Art of All Time

2005-12-12T20:36:00.000-05:00

While there cannot be a definite answer to what is the greatest work of art of all time, there are definitely come candidates. To be able to address this question, it is first prudent to define art. My definition in progress for art is any creative device that man has made that has an aesthetic value, but this is by no means the final definition. Dictionary.com defines “art” as “The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.” Now, to define greatness. Greatness is an mastery and proficiently genius and rises above almost every other thing in its same medium. Again this is a far from perfect definition but it is the best I can do for the present time. I would like to here say that this is a neither futile nor perfunctory task at determining the greatest single work of art of all time. It sets the standard for human creation and gives the criterion for man’s efforts at creating something beauty and ingenious.

This definition should be all encompassing. For this essay, works of art include sculpture, architecture, painting, music and literature. If there is a flaw here feel free to point one out. So, we must first define the greatest work of art in each of these mediums, and then compare them.

To begin with literature, it is not a bad idea to choose “William Shakespeare’s” Hamlet as the single greatest thing ever written. There are other candidates, for example the תורה, The Iliad, Paradise Lost, Ulysses, Finnegans Wake, War and Peace and a few others. Yet it is a safe bet to choose Hamlet.

Architecture is still art, but there is no single piece of Architecture that can compete in this competition, so it drops out. That leaves music, sculpture and painting. For sculpture there are two candidates in my mind: Rodin’s The Thinker and Michelangelo’s David. Personally I like the latter’s Moses, but I am in the serious minority.

For painting there are many more candidates. However, if we are to consider Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel, then that takes the prize for greatest painting. Yet for fun let us consider other candidates. The ones that come to mind, and yes they are also among my personal favorites, are Picasso’s Guernica, Raphael’s School of Athens, da Vinci’s Last Supper and Mona Lisa, and Botticelli’s Birth of Venus. Again, I am sure that I am at least partially wrong in this assumption, but that is the life of an amateur art critic.

Now for music. There is little consensus for what is the greatest single work of music of all time, so I would like to suggest come candidates. Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos cannot be ignored, nor can some of Mozart’s Sonatas, and Beethoven’s Symphonies. Tchaikovsky, Strauss, Wagner, as well as a few other composers cannot be ignored. However, the fact remains that there is no general consensus among the musical community for the greatest work. I know some will make a case for some of the Jazz works, a Beatles song or two as well as a plethora of others. But the fact remains that there is no agreed upon masterwork in the musical community. Note again that I am not a professional music critic or an art critic, and the only area where I have some serious knowledge and talent is in literary criticism, but I am adept enough to undertake this study.

So, it appears that we have narrowed it down to four candidates: Rodin’s Thinker, Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel and David, and “Shakespeare’s” Hamlet. For the sake of argument, I would like to narrow this down even more by disregarding The Thinker and David because their greatness in one disciple make it difficult to judge, so there is no masterwork in sculpture. While David is superior in intricacy and purely aesthetic beauty, The Thinker has more philosophical merit, and the image that is highly enduring. However, David is more recognizable. I guess a case could be made for its superiority over The Thinker but the latter cannot be ignored. Anyway this is my essay and I decided to disregard the two sculptures.

And we are left with Hamlet versus the Sistine Chapel. I bet if you were to ask Michelangelo which was superior he would claim that Hamlet was, but he would say that his David was superior to his Sistine Chapel and Hamlet. But how to examine Hamlet against The Sistine Chapel? This task seems almost impossible, but it must be attempted! From a humanistic perspective Hamlet is superior. From a purely aesthetic period, the Sistine Chapel is superior. From a story line, they are equal, but in creativity, Hamlet is superior. Granted, Michelangelo did not.compose בראשית (Genesis, I love using other languages, as you know), but the way he fit the scene on the ceiling was immaculate
Also, his final judgment was a clear work of beauty, and his incorporation was of the Prophets and mythology was breathtaking.

While this is about 1000 pages too short for a clear and fair explanation of what is the greatest work of all time, I would like to declare Hamlet the greatest work of art of all time in its Humanism, originality, beauty and creativity. This is not by no means the end, but I do have school to deal with (by school I mean doing literally everything in my power to go Ivy, or else life is pointless, but trust me I do not want to go on that rant right now), and I intend to finish this at a later date.

Note that this is an essay based solely on my perceptions of art, and I am sure an art critic could dismantle it, for I am not a professional art critic. However, the prompt is something to consider and I hope that I have at least gotten you to contemplate the topic.

Plato is Dead

2005-12-06T18:23:00.000-05:00

Πλάτων απέθανον: Plato dies

Under the current flawed American educational system, intelligent students are not having their talents cultivated and there is little positive reinforcement to lead a fulfilling life. This opening sentence is one full of the passion and the massive disdain I have for the American school system. Ponder it, and prepare yourselves for justification in the coming days. However in this post I would like to address the fact that Americans no long are being versed in the Classics (by classics I mean Greek and Latin, in terms of language, and philosophy).

A few weeks ago I saw a book entitled something to the tune of “Why America Needs a Classical Education.” I have hitherto expressed similar sentiments and being as I am a student of Latin and Greek and have an immense passion for these subjects, I believe that all students should study at least elementary Latin. The classical tradition that nurtures free-thought and exploration would do wonders for the morale of the average student and open up a portal to the past that, for some, would never close.

Some students take Latin because they have been told that it would be good for them because it helps them on their SATs (it takes the strength of a thousand men to not make some snide remark or even subliminal comment about the Student Aptitude Test). Yet beyond etymological facilitation, the classics help one learn the structure of languages while simultaneously augmenting his vocabulary. It is true that most if not all students take some sort of foreign language in school, usually Español, Français, or Italiano. While one may become familiar with the language, it is rarely used conversationally, and few pursue it beyond their first few years of college. So all those years of studying a foreign language are for naught.

Another reason why a Classical education would ameliorate one’s high school experience is in the learning of a new language. Yes, I know the romance languages and English use the standard Latin characters, but Greek is a very different story. The Greek Language is comprised of twenty-four characters, many of which are new to those who have not studied the language, and the alphabet is a major obstacle for those who decide to take Greek. However, if one has studied another alphabet prior to this, Chinese, Arabic, and Hebrew, etc., the characters of the language become a minor formality.

But back to the core issue of why America needs a Classical education. The fact is that in the study of the Classics one learns where the other languages come from. They learn the history some of the Ancient world, and some of the major themes, war, persecution, prejudice to name a few, have not changed.

While this may be a personal issue, American students know virtually nothing about philosophy. Many claim to be knowledgeable on the subject the fact remains they cant distinguish between the Dialectical Materialism and the Socratic Dialectic. Introducing Americans to philosophy have a positive affect on their life, and it is ancient philosophy, as long as we do not make them study Plato and Aristotle too in-depth to avoid a skyrocketing suicide rate, will have a positive impact on students’ lives.

To recap, America would benefit from having all public school students having a class where they study the classics in terms of the language, history, and philosophy. This will open their eyes to past cultures an help them study modern languages. There is something that the classics have that the moderns do not. Yes it is true that I could have written this entire entry in Spanish. Pero es la verdad que más de los personas que lean mi blog hablan ingles tan los que hablan español. There may have been a grammatical error in there and I cannot wait for someone to correct my Spanish. However, the point remains that Latin and Greek are not spoken languages, they are studied languages. With Spanish, the goal is to be able to read, write, and speak it. With Latin and Greek, the aim is to learn how the languages work, and to read it some, but not to become fluent in it. Even the Church no longer endorses conversational Latin on a wide scale, if at all. So, the aim is completely different. Plus Latin and Greek can be incorporated into writing and vocabulary comprehension more than Spanish and the other languages commonly taught to high-school students. In conclusion, America would benefit from teaching the Classics to all of its students.

On The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius

2005-11-30T17:40:00.000-05:00

I wrote this paper about a month ago for Philosophy class. Please read the previous post, it is superior to this one, but this one is postworthy.

Marcus Aurelius (c.121-180) was one of the greatest Roman Emperors of all time, and one of the most influential stoics too. However, his works have been highly criticized, and his popularity has been inconsistent. Aurelius, in one of the most striking ironies in history, was the most powerful man in the world, but still wrote under a stoic doctrine, and his Meditations are very humble. Yet Aurelius’s philosophy is somewhat impractical, and his merit as a philosopher is highly in question.

A main critic of stoicism was Boethius. He, writing in the fifth century, claimed that the stoics, and Aurelius, were not true philosophers, only Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were. While I am not that extreme, I am greatly skeptical of his merit as a philosopher. Aurelius’s philosophy is consistent, but its application is difficult to achieve. The stoic doctrine is one that is very in tune with nature and in some respects similar to Buddhist and Taoist teachings. Yet he is disturbingly predictable, and history does not tell us exactly to what extent he preached. Granted, the Roman ideal was very different from the Stoic, but if even the man who wrote on stoicism could not be stoic, how could anyone else hope to fulfill these sentiments?

To elaborate on the claim that he was elementary, predictable, and idealist in his philosophy, one only needs to look at Meditation 6.51 (book six, meditation fifty-one). In this, he references the nature of three types of men: ambitious, pleasure-desiring, and understanding. What he does is makes the man of understanding the one that the reader hopes to be. What however, we do not so much learn something from Marcus, and many of his aphorisms are poetic (he did write in the scholarly Greek that the educated tended to write in), but in terms of philosophy, poetic language is a bonus, but it is not essential to the text.

Another place where Marcus’s mediocrity is evinced is meditation 4.44. In this meditation, he is merely commenting on the on the fact that events happen. At the meditation’s core, it is a blatant observation, dressed up in some language, with some respected added to it by the hand that wrote it. Nothing is being shown by this meditation, and when we attempt to go deeper into its meaning confusion arises out of its simplicity. To call this meditation the work of a bona fide philosopher is slander and degrading to all those who came before and after him. This is not to say that Aurelius was not a great man, and a moral individual, but his philosophy is far from impressive and the overall doctrine of stoicism is, only applicable in extreme situations. For example, if one becomes a war criminal, or a prisoner of war (POW), stoicism may help one keep his sanity. Stoicism deals with the present in great depth, and enforces the doctrine of being oneself through selflessness. However, of the stoics, Aurelius is only the most famous, but not the most influential (Epictetus, Zeno, as well as others were more influential; Aurelius is more popular because of his position as Roman Emperor, “Imperator.”)

A third example of Aurelius’s lack of insight is meditation 2.4. For this Marcus has chosen to discuss the idea of procrastination, and heavily criticizes those who do not make the best use of their time. This may be inspirational, but only to the man who has not used his time well, and again, nothing is shown by this. Aurelius has been called timeless because he only discussed the fundamental principles of humanity. While this is impressive in comparison to the other Roman emperors, the great philosophers have progressed well between this state of thought. The fact that so many have been able to relate to him throughout history is because he appeals to simple tendencies of man, and while he appeals to the general reading community, he is not extremely respected in the philosophical community, hence he is not considered one of the greatest philosophers.

From a personal standpoint, I was greatly disappointed by The Meditations. I read them my sophomore year of high school (I am currently a junior) and was not very impressed. By the third book, I was able to write my own meditation the same caliber of Aurelius’s, and I must say that little was learned from those. Around that time I had also read Aristotle’s Poetics and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism, two of my least favourite philosophical works, and The Meditations rank lower than those two (since them I have moved onto Nietzsche and Russell, and true philosophical genius, although Aristotle has since redeemed himself.) My main criticism of Aurelius is his lack of insight. I have tried to consider the time period, and the fact that the classical definition of “philosophy” is different from the modern definition. However, Plato, Aristotle, Heraclitus and Anaxagoras came centuries before him and were much more insightful.

What I have come to conclude after studying Aurelius in depth is that he is not a great philosopher, and if he indeed is a philosopher is in question. Granted, his body of work is minimal, but his profession (most powerful man in the world!) superceded his philosophical development. The main reason why I wonder of Aurelius is a philosopher has to do with Plato. In his Republic, Philosophers were chosen to rule the state. Had this Aurelius been involved in this type of government, I do not know if he would have been considered worthy of the title of “philosopher.” Finally, philosophers are thinkers, and Aurelius was a “doer”, so by little fault of his own he may not be a philosopher. All in all Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, is a fascinating character, and his meditations live on timelessly in history.

Reductio ad Absurdum: Deus Existat

2005-11-29T19:18:00.000-05:00

While I am an atheist, and a proud atheist at that, I reached the conclusion that God did not exist by attempting to find a proof for God. However, know that there is not set criteria for determining if God exists. If God himself spoke to me, and partook in an act that violated the laws of nature or the laws of physics, then I would believe in his existence as a higher being. Yet this would not prove his omnipotence or that he was omnipowerful (do not tell me that that is not a word). It would not prove that he was the creator, or that he was the only higher-power. But it would prove that “God” or something along those lines existed.

Now, in a world where God does not talk to man how can we determine criteria for his existence? We are left to formulate the criteria for ourselves. However, if we are not divine beings, how can we attempt to determine if God does exist or if God does not exist? Aquinas attempted to determine that God did exist, and wrote a plethora of proofs trying to justify it. Descartes (cogito ergo sum) was left with no other option to turn to but that God existed. However, how can we trust these mortals? (I know Aquinas was sainted but that is beside the point; moreover I do not believe in miracles except in the case of the Denver Broncos and New York Yankees).

While it may appear illogical or irrational to attempt to find a proof for God in the present life (I do not believe in other lives, or heaven and hell but being as I am a stupid human I cannot be sure), we must at least attempt to make theological progress, and because God’s existence or nonexistence is of utmost importance. For if (some) Christian Doctrine or other religious doctrine is true and we must be servants of God in this life or we will be banished to eternal damnation we must at least explore His existence somewhat.

But where ought we to start looking for God? The fact that we exist is enough for many, or the fact that I am writing this and that you are reading it and we can discuss the existence of God is worthy of the proof of his existence. Yet I desire to examine it further. Could the fact that there are mathematical constants prove God? Or what about the fact that there is a universe that (probably) had a definite beginning (fourteen billion years or so ago) proves God. Others point to scripture; in many respects that notion is losing favor, but it is far from dead. Some point to the fact that there are bad things in the world to the fact that God does not exist. But the immense flaw that has plagued history of centuries is the assumption that is God exists he is good. Many atheists I have talked to are angry at the world and claim that God doesn’t exist because of it. But why do we assume that God is good and that God loves us; scripture! That is and the fact that we would hope that he is good, but we have no proof or reason to make the key jump to the assumption that if God exists he is good.

These are far from the only questions in this reductio ad absurdum argument that can be asked, but it is a descent sampling. The fact is that there are countless other arguments (cosmological, ontological, etc.) for his existence, but from the ones that I have examened, which include all that I could think of or read about, I have determined that God does not exist. There is no reason for him to, and I have seen no proof of his existence. Will writing this condemn me to a life of eternal damnation even though I am a moral person; possibly, but I sure as hell hope not. The fact remains that I see no proof of the existence of God, and therefore I conclude that he indeed does not exist.

Note that these are not even close to all my thoughts on this matter but I felt it time to write them down and publish them, and there was enough for a worthwhile post.

On Mathematical Truths

2005-11-26T18:18:00.000-05:00

I would like to give some of my feeling on Mathematics. First it is pertinent to state that I am an extreme fan of mathematics to the point that the integers have become a love obsession of mine. What I have found is that there is growing support for the fact that numbers are personal invention, and that they are man made concoctions that would cease to exist were it not for humanity. I hope to dispel this notion. However, I am aware that my arguments are not completely developed, and if I am indeed in the wrong it is due to the fact that I want the position I am arguing for to be fact so badly.

The first argument in favor of integers being in existence independent of humans is the fact that there is that the universe is finite. In this particular galaxy, there are eight or nine planets depending on who you ask, my condolences to Pluto. The fact that there are certain quantities of things independent of humanity speaks to the notion that numbers exist. Critics say that numbers are adjectives or qualities that humans have given to entities. However, while I planet cannot be “beautiful” because there are not any humans to remark on its pulchritude, the planet still has oneness.

Another argument is the entity of numbers such as π and φ. The fact that numbers such as these exist independent of humanity, and mathematicians only discover these numbers is more ammunition for my argument. People did not create these numbers, but they did title them.

One argument that could be made is that Homo sapiens invented zero (0). In space, there is no void, sorry Democritus, so there cannot be a place where there is nothing. There is still space and time wherever one is, and therefore the notion of “nothingness” is impossible. An object may be devoid of something, but not of everything, hence the fact that nothing can be completely void, “the void” is a misnomer.

This has been an immensely abbreviated argument in favor of mathematical truths existing independent of humans. It shall be elaborated on, just not at the present time.

On my Religious Identity

2005-11-21T19:11:00.001-05:00

One of my passions, something that I constantly think and wonder about is the topic of religion. I have come to the conclusion that God does not exist. However, I am still a Jew by birth, and I do not want to alienate myself from my heritage. Some may consider this (I hate to use clichés, but it is applicable here) "having your cake and eating it too." Yet I still care about the world Jewish community, am attempting to teach myself the language of the Jews (Hebrew, עברית), with some success mind you, and if I see a Jew it will not take me long to point out to you that he/she is Jewish (Einstein, Adam Sandler, Natelie Portman, et cetera). However, I only go to services if I have no other option. Yet I do voluntaritly attend the monthly "Teen Class" of my rabbi. Rabbi Scholnic (sorry if I misspelled that Rabbi) is one of my favourite people, and I do not have many role models or people that I admire (my role models include Nietzsche, Russell, you get the idea), but the Rabbi is up there. I do this to still stay within the Jewish community, but the fundamental issue is that I do not believe in God. In rescent years, there have been two major Jewish movements that are still Jewish, but do not ascribe to a dogmatic interpretation of Judaism. These are the Jewish Humanists, and the Reconstructionist Jews, the former of which I would consider joining.

I do not know if I hate religion or not, but I feel that once we have the groundwork for human morality, religion should be a neglegible part of society. Yet this is an ideal, and I know that if it were not for religion, life for many millions of people would have incredibly less meaning. Ideally, I would want the death of religion, but it is unrealistic. So, we are left to live with religion, and accept that it is here to stay. I do have great respect for some religious leaders (Pope John Paul II, some of the Rabbis I met on Pilgrimage, yes I went to Israel for five weeks this summer), but when one looks at the futile conflict in the Middle East, the Crusades, the Inquisition, and so on one cannot help but be angry at religion. But I cannot bring down religion, and I feel that man is not ready to live a life without God, so I accept religion, and still identify myself as an Jew who does not believe in God. I used to think that becuase this violates the first commandment I cannot do this, but the Jewish Humanists fought for this right, and therefore I feel able to identify myself as such. I still am a supporter of the Jews, I am a huge Zionist, and Israeli culture is something I feel that I understand and could see myself living in. My favourite rapper is סאבלימינל (Subliminal), real name Kobi Shimoni. He is part of תּאּקּטּ (T.A.C.T.) All-Stars, a super-group of Israeli hip-hop. I also like Matisyahu, and, as you can see from my use of it, I love the Hebrew Language. As a closing note, my plan is (if I get into Princeton, or another elite college where I can do this) is to the summer of my junior year of college study in Israel ( ישראל), and the summer of my senior study at Cambridge or Oxford, and take a symester and study at one of those. All in all, I was born a Jew, I care about the Jews, but I do not believe in God. You be the judge.

The 100 Most Influential People of All Time

2005-11-16T18:06:00.000-05:00

Around 10 months or so ago, i came across a book entitled The 100. It was written by Michael H. Hart, and it inspired me to make my own list. I know that some of them are controversial, and I have reviewed the list countless times, and I know it will be altered again. However, this was five months of serious work, and I hope you enjoy my work. I shall justify the top 10 soon. Note that these are based on influence alone, and I am not judging their character. Many of the people here I despise, but they were nonetheless influential.

Muhammad (570- June 8, 632)
Jesus Christ (6 B.C. – 27 A.D.)
Saint Paul of Tarsus (10?-67)
Isaac Newton (December 25, 1642- March 20, 1727)
Gautama Buddha (563 B.C.E. – 483 B.C.E.)
Confucius (traditionally September 8? 551 BCE–479 BCE)
Aristotle (384- March, 7 322 B.C.)
Constantine the Great (February 27, 272–May 22, 337)
Ts’ai Lun (c. 50-121)
Johannes Guttenberg (1400-1468)
Galileo Galilei (February 15, 1564 – January 8, 1642)
Louis Pasteur (December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895)
Christopher Columbus (1451 – 20 May 1506)
Albert Einstein (March 14, 1879 – April 18, 1955)
Moses (Fl. 1500 B.C.E.)
Charles Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882)
Euclid (c. 365-275 B.C.)
Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543)
Augustus (23 September 63 BC – 19 August AD 14)
Qin Shi Huang Di (July 247 BC–221 BC)
Martin Luther (November 10, 1483 – February 18, 1546)
Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883)
Michael Faraday (September 22, 1791 – August 25, 1867)
Galen (131-201)
Antoine Lavoisier (August 26, 1743–May 8, 1794)
James Watt (January 19, 1736–August 19, 1819)
William T.G. Morton (August 9, 1819 - July 15, 1868)
James Clerk Maxwell (June 13, 1831 - November 5, 1879)
Wright Brothers (c.1870)
Genghis Khan (c. 1155- August 18, 1227)
Thutmose III (c.1500? B.C.E. - 1426 B.C.E.)
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799)
Plato (c. 427 BC – c. 347 BC)
Alexander the Great (late July, 356 BC–June 10, 323 BC)
Napoleon Bonaparte (15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821)
Pope Urban II (1042 - July 29, 1099)
John Locke (August 29, 1632–October 28, 1704)
Adam Smith (June 5, 1723 – July 17, 1790)
Adolph Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945)
Thoms Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 – October 18, 1931)
Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847 – August 2, 1922)
King David (1085 B.C.E.- 1015 B.C.E.)
Alexander Fleming (August 6, 1881 – March 11, 1955)
Guglielmo Marconi (April 25, 1874 – July 20, 1937)
Hippocrates (c.460-380 B.C.)
King Solomon (970-928 B.C.E.)
Umar ibn al-Khattab (c. 581 - November, 644)
Edward de Vere (April 12, 1550 - June 24, 1604)
Anton van Leeuwenhoek (October 24, 1632 - August 26, 1723)
William the Conquerer (c. 1027 – September 9, 1087)
Gregor Mendel (July 22, 1822 – January 6, 1884)
Werner Heisenberg (December 5, 1901 – February 1, 1976)
John Dalton (September 6, 1766–July 27, 1844)
Asoka (c.300-c. 200 B.C.)
Oliver Cromwell (April 25, 1599 – September 3, 1658)
Julius Caesar (July 12, 100- March 15, 44 B.C.)
Ludwig van Beethoven (December 14 1770 – March 26, 1827)
John Calvin (July 10, 1509–May 27, 1564)
William Harvey (April 1, 1578 - June 3, 1657)
Simón Bolívar (July 24, 1783 – December 17, 1830)
René Descartes (March 31, 1596 – February 11, 1650)
Michelangelo Buonarroti (March 6, 1475 - February 18, 1564)
Lao Tzu (Fl. 450 B.C.)
Louis Daguerre (1787 - 1851)
Saint Augustine of Hippo (November 13, 354 – August 28, 430)
Max Planck (April 23, 1858 – October 4, 1947)
Edward Jenner (May 17, 1749 - January 26, 1823)
Archimedes (287 BC - 212 BC)
Nikolaus Otto (June 14, 1832 - January 28, 1891)
Johannes Kepler (December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630)
Ernest Rutherford (August 30, 1871 - October 19, 1937)
Joseph Lister (April 5, 1827 – February 10, 1912)
Isabella of Castile (April 22, 1451 – November 26, 1504)
Hernán Cortés (1485–December 2, 1547)
Thomas Jefferson (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826)
Joseph Stalin (December 21, 1879 - March 5, 1953)
Francisco Pizarro (c. 1475–June 26, 1541)
Zoroaster (Zarathustra) (c. 628- c. 551 B.C.E.)
Voltaire (November 21, 1694 – May 30, 1778)
Horace Wells (January 21, 1815 - January 24, 1848)
Carl Friedrich Gauss (April 30, 1777 - February 23, 1855)
Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856 - September 23, 1939)
Nāgārjuna (c. 150 – c. 250)
Leonhard Euler (April 15, 1707 - September 18, 1783)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 – July 2, 1778)
Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen (March 27, 1845 – February 10, 1923)
Pierre de Fermat (August 17, 1601 – January 12, 1665)
Ben Franklin (January 17, 1706 – April 17, 1790)
Niccolo Machiavelli (May 3, 1469 – June 21, 1527)
Thomas Robert Malthus (February, 1766 – December 23, 1834)
Mencius (372 BC – 289 BC)
Peter the Great (9 June 1672–8 February 1725)
Vladamir Ilyich Lenin (April 22, 1870 – January 21, 1924)
Enrico Fermi (September 29, 1901 – November 28, 1954)
Mao Zedong (December 26, 1893 – September 9, 1976)
Johann Sebastian Bach (March 21, 1685 – July 28, 1750)
Sui Wen Ti (541-604)
Gregory Pincus (April 9, 1903 - August 22, 1967)
Mani (210-276)
Mahavira (599 BC - 527 BC)
Charlemagne (c. 742 – January 28, 814)
Cyrus II the Great of Persia (576 - July, 529 BC)
Socrates (June 4, 470-399 B.C.)

On Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

2005-11-12T12:25:00.000-05:00

While I was in Israel this summer, my groupmates (many of who I miss) and I came across a sect of Judaism that followed Reb Nachman of Breslov, a "cult" I guess. At the time it was something fun to be a part of, and to intigrate ourselves in the Israeli Jewish society. However, upon returning to my fatherland, when I had access to "la red" (internet in Spanish. I just thinks its interesting how what takes one syllable to say in Spanish takes three in English), and I researched Reb (Rebbe, Rabbi) Nachman, and I found how interesting he really is. Basically, he was the Grandson of the Baal Shem Tov, and was greatly moved by the lineage that he was carrying. Nachman was a very upright individual, and a poweful spiritual leader. However, because he passed away so early in his life, aged less than two score, and the great following he amassed in that short period of time gives him almost cult-like status. Nachman even has his own chant, and it is written all over the place in Israel, including Tzfat (צפת) and outside Hezekiah's tunnell. I encourage all to research Nachman of Breslov on the internet, and some of his quotes are powerful and moving. I end with the Nachman chant,

נ
נח
נחמ
נחמן מאומן

This transliterates as

Nah
Nach (the hebrew letter Chet ח is used here, and it has the CH sound)
Nachmah
Nachman Mae-Uman

Some views on the Tanakh

2005-11-11T10:59:00.000-05:00

My view of the תנ״ך (Tanakh, or the Old Testament, The Torah, Nevi'im and Ketuvin) is one that some may consider unorthodox, or blasphemous (note the fact that I am an atheist). First of all, I do not accept the existence of Abraham, and I greatly question the existence of Moses. However, I find it very possible that there was indeed a minor exodus from Egypt, and the Egyptians did not want to record it, so it is lost form the records. I believe that the magnitude of the exodus has been exaggerated by “J”, or whoever wrote the bible, or my history itself. Yet as time progressed in the bible, I begin to believe what happened more and more. For example, I do believe in the bible (as history!) from around the time of Saul. I would like to accredit King David with authorship of the psalms, but I do not know if I am ready to grant him that. I believe in the existence of Solomon, and I believe that the prophets existed. In fact, I believe that the prophets existed so much that I call them the first philosophers, and not the Greeks. However, Greek philosophy basically a separate entity from Judaism, but I find it difficult to believe that there was no Jewish influence in Asia Minor, where the first philosopher came from. However, Thales still has the same respect as he did before I nominated the prophets to be the first “lovers of wisdom”, but I believe the Prophets of the Bible should be studied with philosophy.

The Dawn of a Blog

2005-11-08T15:07:00.000-05:00

Hello, my name is Brian Hillman, and thank you for coming to my blog. This blog has been a long time coming, and I believe that it is imperative that I explaim some things about myself. I am an aspiring philosopher and mathamtician with a passion for the arts and linguistics, and have an obsession with getting into a prestigious college. For my initial post I have chosen to post one of my short essays that is by no means complete or completely edited, but I feel it does some justice to my work.

The Beginning Works on what Philosophy is and What Philosophers are

It is very difficult to determine what a philosopher is, and what philosophy is. Etymologically, philosophy is the “love of wisdom”, from the Greek Φιλοσοφία. However, there are so many different definitions of what philosophy is, and what philosophers are, it has become clouded. In contemporary times, the ancient definition a lover of wisdom has no merit. A lover of wisdom and a lover of knowledge have become clouded, and we desperately need a new definition.

However, before we can pinpoint what a philosopher is, we must fist determine what philosophy is. Russell claimed that philosophy is what lies between religion and science. This is not a bad definition, but granted he clearly had a more complex definition of it. Philosophy is antiquity was the study of everything worth thinking about. The first philosophers were the Sophists, and they thought about everything from morality to natural science. So, until the fall of Rome, and maybe even as early as the death of Plotinus, the classical definition of one who thought about everything is a valid definition of a philosopher. However, since Boethius, the definition has been clouded. Boethius claimed that only Σωκράτης, Αριστοτέλης, and Πλάτων (Socrates, Aristotle and Plato, respectively) were true philosophers (he probably included all those who came before him, for example Anaxagoras and Parimenides, but granted he was angry at the time of writing), and the Stoics were not. That trio was true “lovers of wisdom”, and all the others who studied philosophy were not true philosophers. However, the entire concept of wisdom was never pursued so thoroughly since the time of Socrates, and so wisdom is not the main characteristic of philosophy.

As somewhat of a non sequetor, I will quickly skip to contemporary philosophy, and look backwards. What has characterized philosophy since the time of Thales (although I think philosophy may have started 400 years before him with the prophets, but another essay, another time) is aesthetics, metaphysics, morality, and ethics. Douglass J. Soccio claims that Epistemology should be in the discussion, and politics cannot be ignored. I should interject that I am a descriptivist when it comes to the definition of philosophy, and I believe that it changes with those who are “philosophers.” However, it will not work to call a philosopher one who studies policy, metaphysics, morality, ethics, (ignore God for now) and aesthetics, because maybe Hegel and Aristotle would be the only two philosophers! So, we have established the classical definition of a philosopher, the etymological definition, and what philosophers study, but we are only slightly closer to determining what philosophy is.

I would like to add that philosophers are free thinkers, and deal with pure thought, as opposed to actual brain activity, hence the field of neurology. However, before neurology was a dignified field, Hume, Locke as well as others dealt with what thought more in the sense of what idea is, as opposed to how the brain works. I must also add that just because one is a free-thinker, he is not necessarily a philosopher. In summation, philosophers are freethinkers who deal with thought.

Going back to the time of Boethius, philosophers have studied everything worth studying, and if the stoics should be considered in the conversations of who is a philosopher is in question. After Boethius, the next people who studied philosophers were the Arabs up to Aquinas. Al-Kindi, al-Farabi, Aviceena, Averroes and al’Arabi (to some extend, but his work in mainly as a theologian. Theologians as philosopher shall be discussed do not fear) are the main Arabic Philosophers. What they did was study the Greek philosophers, and expanded upon it, while injection some of their religion. Granted, the Hellenistic philosophers were polytheists, and the Arabs were monotheists, but theology did not mix too well with philosophy (just ask Philo). However, the Arabic philosophers were those who studied philosophy and commented on it. This will play a key role in the definition of philosophy.

After Aviceena, the next main Philosopher was Aquinas. Here is where we see the difference between theology. Aquinas as a philosopher can be considered in his work with Metaphysics, but not with theology. The break between philosophy and theology is when one stops questioning the existence of god, and takes a firm stance, and begins to study scripture. Aquinas’s commentary on the bible cannot be considered in the story of philosophy, because they are dogmatic, and deal with god, and not pure thought. This takes us to The Rambam, and he is even less of a Philosopher than Aquinas. Granted, he did contribute some to philosophy, but he mainly dealt with theology, hence the fact he is not considered a major philosopher. From this, we can see that philosophers appear to be those who study philosophy, but (just ask Boethius) that is not the case.

After Maimonides philosophy appeared again in the Renaissance, mainly with More and Erasmus. These humanists were philosophers to some extent, but their writings dealt mostly with theology. However More’s Utopia and Erasmus’s In Praise of Folly were truly philosophical. The former dealing with ethics and policy and the latter dealing with aesthetics (I have chosen aesthetics because I do not know how to categorize it, and human nature will not suffice. However, there were some dealing with aesthetics in the work, so I have categorized it as such). After them, the next important philosopher was Hobbes. This is where philosophy changed in the sense that philosophers became more political. It was not that prior to this philosopher did not write on the subject of politics (Aristotle, and Plato dealt with it in-depth), but it marked the beginning of the glory days of political philosopher. Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire as well as others dealt with thought and human understanding as well as politics. It was not until the time Hume and Kant where philosophy moved away from policy, and back to metaphysics and epistemology.

From Kant, we must look at philosophy after him as a whole. After him existentialism became the most popular subject in philosophy, and ironically philosophy has somewhat come full circle. In this time the philosophical branches of politics, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, morals and god have been thoroughly discussed and expanded upon. The one thing that may be added to philosophy is the study of linguistics and analytical philosophy, with the former being more important. The function of language has been greatly expanded upon thanks to Wittgenstein, but it was still discussed prior to him. However, he was the first philosopher who is defined by his linguistic philosophy.

So, after taking an immensely abbreviated course thought the history of philosophy are we any closer to defining what is philosophy: not really. The truth is that philosophy is more of a blanket term that changes through the eras of history. In antiquity it had a different definition than it did in the middle ages and in modern times. However, we are closer to determining what a philosopher are. Philosophers are those who study philosophy, expand upon it, a have a genuine desire to learn and understand (although Socrates would say that one cannot learn because one cannot definitely know anything). The definition is forever changing, and philosophy is indeed better for it. Through this entire essay I have not addressed eastern philosophy, because it is a completely separate entity from western philosophy. But back to what philosophy is. Philosophy, as we have seen, is best defined as the study of a group of concepts that philosophers discuss. However, what exactly should go into that group is not completely clear, but is does appear that metaphysics, morality, ethics, god (in terms of his existence and the ramifications, not scripture), and politics should be in that group. These definitions do show a clear link between what philosophy is and who indeed is a philosopher, which is an imperative necessity. Yet these do add loopholes. For example, should John Rodriguez, who read Aristotle’s Poetics in twelfth grade and wrote a reaction to it on which he received a D-, be considered a philosopher? Technically, judging by the definition, yes. However, it is clearly arguagable if he deserves to be among the likes of Sartre, Nietzsche and Foucault.

In conclusion I say that it is much easier to determine who a philosopher is than what is philosophy (paradoxically, how can we be more able to determine what is a part of a set than determining what the set is?). Philosophy, as it has hitherto developed has certain characteristics, but it is likely that the focus of philosophy will, in some capacity, change. Will this breed a new definition of philosophy? I say that it will change the definition of philosophy, but it will appear similar to what the present one may look like. All in all, we do not completely know who is a philosopher and who was a philosopher due to relativism (not relativity), but as philosophers we must at least attempt to determine a doctrine with which we identify ourselves.