Memory and Death

I recently got told the theory that the more a person remembers something the less likely that memory is accurate; each time a person remembers a moment the accuracy decreases. I think of this in occasions of death and how often I try to remember those people who have passed away. Am I doing them in justice by thinking about them? Warping, in my mind, the memories and the person they were? Of course I never think ill of these people who I loved and the memories I conjure up are never the bad ones-- so is this really that bad? Maybe this is the afterlife. Maybe people who have died continue living in the memories we choose for them, we change for them, we exaggerate and make happy for them?

Would you really like to be remembered for exactly the person you are, in which people would have to never remember you in order to preserve that accuracy? Or do you hope in your death that the bad will be overlooked and eventually forgotten forever? Either way, at least parts of yourself will be completely forgotten without you continually validated them.

Remember less, so you can remember me best.

"Design"

I came across this poem in my Reading Poetry class and immediately was drawn to its philosophical message. Throughout the semester finding true meaning has been a constant concern for philosophers. Obviously, “true meaning” is a rather broad topic: by true I mean right, correct, or good and by meaning I mean of everything. In the works of the philosophers that we’ve read God is a popular theme… though I find it interesting that no one has been attempting to validate the Devil. In Robert Frost’s poem “Design” he attempts to debunk the idea of an intelligent being by using a death ridden, tiny moment to point out the unintelligence and horror of death; a moment that could not be orchestrated by an intelligent being.

Design

by: Robert Frost

I found a dimpled spider, fat and white,

On a white heal-all, holding up a moth

Like a white piece of rigid satin cloth--

Assorted characters of death and blight

Mixed ready to being the morning right,

Like the ingredients of a witches' broth--

A snow-drop spider, a flower like a froth,

And dead wings carried like a paper kite.

What had that flower to do with being white,

The wayside blue and innocent heal-all?

What brought the kindred spider to that height,

Then steered the white moth thither in the night?

What but design of darkness to appall?--

If design govern in a thing so small.

Oh, Definitions.

Being a person fully committed and in love with words, I often find the need to concretely define things limiting and frustrating. This frustration especially occurs when dealing with defining a person. Feminine. Masculine. What are those terms and where did they come from? Who created them? Why should they have anything do with me and how I live my life? No all countries look at this issue of gender in the same light as we, people of the United States of America, do. Many countries recognize multiple types of what we call gender, not just two.

This thought process leads me to concepts of the census, with prescribed options of defining ones self. I like to think I am more complicated than to define myself as an either or, a series of boxes to check off, laid out options of the person I'm suppose to be. Even with these two options (which I realize feminine and masculine are not questions they ask on the census, but its not like male/female is much better), I can only closely relate myself more to one than the other so I'll check Feminine. But, I certainly do not represent all the other people that will check off that characteristic.

To the right is Rene Magritte's painting La Clef des Songes. Below the briefcase Le ciel translates to the sky. L'oiseau translates to the bird. La table translates to the table. L'eponge translates to the sponge. I've recently fallen in love with this artists and I love his play with dreams, common concepts, and definitions. I encourage taking this painting and applying it to everything you see, stretch the common understanding you take for granted. And never, never take anything as a single entity or definition.

Synopsis, 4/8

On Friday April 8, 2011 the 9:30 a.m. Introduction to Philosophy class began talking about the contemporary, female philosopher Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986). Not wanting to be associated with philosophy, Beauvoir formed her ideas through literature such as in the novel, She Came to Stay. In Beauvoir’s writings she appeared concerned with the concept of “self as object of consciousness.”

It seems impossible to look at Beauvoir without referencing Satre (and visa versa) due to their interesting, symbiotic relationship. Definitely more than just friends, they shared ideas and many of their works play off of each other. With that said, it appears that Satre needed Beauvoir’s intelligent inspiration more than she needed him, though society often finds this hard to believe because Beauvoir is a female. An example of this is the two pieces of writing they both published in 1943: She Came to Stay by Beauvoir and Being of Nothingness by Satre. Though each of their writings tackles similar ideas, Beauvoir wrote hers five years before Satre. Our class had a large discussion on the stealing of ideas versus working with others to develop thoughts. In the end Professor Layne stated the belief that Beauvoir had a better grasp on what she was discussing as shown by her ability to present her thoughts clearer and better than Satre.

The class approached learning about Beauvoir’s philosophy by discussing her concepts of Human Personality. Beauvoir believed that there were various selves, that no self is identical, and that a person is always split making self identity an allusive goal. This concept is a break from Coretsian Ego in which the split appears between the mind and body. Beauvoir’s split is recognized between freedom/subject, and facticity/object. Freedom is the desires and values body as subject. In discussing Freedom, Jack Kerouac and his stream of consciousness way of writing was deemed as freedom writing. Facticity is the social circumstances that can’t be changed and creates the body as object. The statement “I am thinking about myself” exemplifies this split because even within the construction of the sentence the “I” is the subject and the “myself” is the object. A person thinking about their self references back to the term “meta thinking” which has been brought up many times throughout the course and implies an endless turning of thoughts inward, about the self. Freedom, an act being for itself, and Facticity, an act in itself, is the main split and occurs within both the mind and the body.

In examining an individual’s personality, Beauvoir was lead to examine the way people react with other: Intersubjectivity. It’s understandable that a person can believe in their own existence because they are conscious of themselves. However, the problem with intersubjectivity is what universal experience leads us to believe others to be conscious beings like ourselves? Why does a person believe in a self, who is not their self? This idea builds off of Descartes “I think, therefore I exist.”

Another idea of Beauvoir’s was that of the Phenomenological Event, or experiencing self as object. As brought up in the idea of Human Personality, there are various selves. These different versions do not have to be equal and Beauvoir argues that they are indeed asymmetrical. Professor Layne brought up her roles/selves as teacher, wife, mother, etc. She is all of these positions, but they are all part of her, part of the whole. In the development of a persons self identity, they become an object of their own self realization. In the multiple parts that create a persons self, there’s always an ability to imagine something other, something to strive for. In all these facets, Beauvoir argues that people are not self identical, there is always another allusive goal.

The Truth in the Lie

Recently in my Fiction Writing Workshop class I asked my professor about when fiction becomes non-fiction. His answer was, to my understanding: as soon as the story becomes unrecognizable as something to happen to you. So this may be changing the character’s names, the place, and/or other details. But, I couldn’t help feeling that the essential idea of the story could remain in tack. This brought me back to the idea discussed in philosophy class that a person cannot imagine anything that doesn’t already exist. Maybe all fiction is non fiction. Every story comes from a situation that has already happened, nothing can be made up from something that doesn’t or has not existed. It’s only the non essential items of the story (or combination of stories that make one story) that change. And since any story you write is essentially based in some sort of reality/truth what stops a person from telling a story as fiction, that’s actually non-fiction. Which brings me to lies. If something can’t come from nothing essentially all lies are based in truths. So, no lie is 100% because its all based in relativity.

(I believe this theory might fall a part on opinions)

How to Make Promiscuousness Virtuous

Today in class we examined the possibility of lots of sex being a virtuous action (if done in the right moment, with the right feeling, in the right way, and for the right ends). Obviously, growing up in the 21^st century in the United States of America, my first reaction was to call myself a good person… I mean to scoff at the possible idea of making promiscuousness a virtue. Professor Layne argued that the glitch in being able to make this happen was to convince society, or at least a group of followers, that lots of sex, in the way, at the time, with the feeling, for the end in which you’re “doing it,” is good. So maybe I’m not a good person, BUT I began thinking of ways in which this is possibly played out in society toady.

What I came up with was the rationalized, what I will call, call girl. I find a lot of times in society these professions are frowned upon and I’m sure we all can think of a demeaning name or two for such professionals. However, often times we (as in an obscure group of people) may find ourselves empathizing with call girls if we understand the nature in which they came from—for example a girl who could not afford college any other way. In this example the girl would choose her clients and location wisely, does it to pay for her education (which will provide her a better nature and thus better virtuous opportunities), and has feeling for it like any other business person (and of course, uses protection). There’s something almost courageous (or romantic?) in this girl who does anything to make a better nature for herself. And maybe that’s what courage is, people who redefine virtue. Or maybe, they're just crazy.

SPEAKING OF WHICH: for those who chose to read this blog post for its alluring title: don’t be a fool, wrap the tool.

Who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down.

I think about reality a lot and how the basis of perception is often taken for granted. It's easy to get lost in the idea that where you are and what you see, right down to the angle of your eyes and the light of day, will never ever be able to be replicated again. I came up with the quote "who's to say you aren't flying if you never look down" in a poem I wrote awhile ago. Originally when I wrote it, it pertained to dreams and being able to reach beyond the common day (as noted by challenging the notion of walking). Now, taking philosophy I believe this quote may contain a lot more. If I never look at my feet while I'm walking, maybe I'm not walking at all. Yes, in my head I can conceive the idea, and that is what I've asked my body to do. But, what if I ask it to fly, and never look down. Maybe, I'd have to come to the reality that I'm only flying about five feet off the ground, but that doesn't mean I'm not flying, right? This challenging of "reality" can pertain to a lot more than just this idea. Ever action we give a word and a meaning to, but so many times it can be more than that. More than words and action-reality. A basis of OUR perception that may be (and I do believe on many accounts that we do) share with everyone else.

1+1=11

Though it goes against everything I’ve been brought up to understand there’s still a little part of me that continues to argue the equation of 1+1= 2. This equation is common sense to (arguably) most people and can usually be finished with a chorus of the same answer if said out loud in a large group:

“One plus one equals…?” says the speaker.

“Two,” the crowd shamelessly resounds.

However, when I was a child I confidently went against the crowd of my first grade peers and stated, “Eleven!” …And, then proceeded to feel infinitely stupid. I immediately went silent and began to fill with anger, no doubt grounded in confusion. To this day these same emotions surface every time I come across the equation; while I mutter the answer of eleven every opportunity I get.

Here’s the deal. I understand that one represents a quantity of an object, but it’s also a symbol and can stand on its own as a picture or a word. And plus, means addition and/or the act of combining (among other things depending on context). To expand your understanding of this “+” look at it on bumper stickers that encourage heterosexual marriage (attached image).

The plus sign here means a union, it doesn’t mean man + woman = one body composed of man and a woman (though that is a hilarious and ironic concept considering the intention of the bumper sticker…). What I’m trying to say is 1+1= 11, or one plus one equals eleven which equals oneone.

I thought of this experience and internal argument I have with myself every time I encounter numbers while researching articles on arguments. I also came across this hilarious manual on “How to argue effectively” which I suggest you check out for a good laugh and/or some weekend fun (just watch out because there is potential to loose some friends if the advice is followed).

Alexis Tabor, Week One

I have recently been watching The Hitcherhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, the T.V. show that came out in the 80's, and after reading the assignment I thought it was appropriate to share an episode with you all. Season 1, Episode 4 (if the link doesn't work, it is on Hulu) challenges what we take for granted and addresses one of the more popular philosophical questions: "What is the meaning of life?" To tackle and answer this ultimate question ("What is the meaning of life, the universe, and everything?") they create a computer, Deep Thought, to calculate the answer. Many issues and questions come from this simple scene. What is our reliance on technology to have correct answers to any question we have? Do we want to know the answer to this question? And, as the T.V. show continues, what is the question?

The T.V. show is very funny, even when you get beyond the eighties-Britishness of it, and really challenges perspective we have of the world and ourselves.

Enjoy!