Becoming a cynic is not an indication of a failure of character, or an anomalous individual event in today’s culture, for it is actually symptomatic of modern culture. Cynicism is essentially the result of the Enlightenment, which spelled the end of Christian dogma by destroying its ideals, absolutes, truths. As the Enlightenment progressed in its demystification of ideals, nihilism emerged form its wake. But one ideal was spared: the subject, which grounded all critiques and including positive ideas like Kantian ethics.
Prior to the Enlightenment, Christian metaphysics was true (i.e., the bible holds truths, the word of God, etc.). But the Enlightenment brought to the end to all that with critiques that decimated these aforementioned absolute truths. However, where the enlightenment has been a “melancholy science” (pace Adorno) it only exacerbates melancholy. We need something that doesn’t depress us and sinks us into cynical reasoning. We need a new critique that’s also a gay science, as opposed to the sad sciences of the enlightenment that took away all the ideals we used to believe in. Sure, this critique is also an attack, but it holds an attitude against making people miserable or depressed. (more…)
I haven’t seen every movie that’s worth watching, and I doubt I could legitimately rank the great movies according to a single value scale, without being unfair. I started with about 40, and it took forever just to whittle it down to 10.
10. Memento
Most gimmick movies hardly rise above their gimmick, but Memento successfully pulls it off. Memento is a mesmerizing tale that depends on YOUR memory, and takes full advantage of the distinct nature of cinema with multiple narratives. Guy Pearce has never surpassed his role as “Leonard Shelby from San Francisco.” A breakout hit for Christopher Nolan that unleashed a career full of great movies. (more…)
I don’t have a dramatic story to share: my deconversion was a slow process that began in childhood. It began when I, a bored catholic boy started to discuss religious matters with a young child of a Jehovah Witness family. We went over the differences in our religions, but even then, I could tell that his faith limited the bounds of our discussion, and that I had hardly any of my own. I remember asking Matt which bible he used, and he simply declared it to be the first one. I did not press matters there, and did some researching of my own. I asked his mother if I could borrow those short books they had around the house and I enjoyed reading the extensive explanation in their stories that expanded the bible stores. Lovely paintings. Of course my mother didn’t like this and insisted that I study our religion before I start to investigate others, and of course I readily ignored her advice. (more…)
In the concluding section of the Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Quine describes our entire knowledge as a “man made fabric,” (Two Dogmas of Empiricism, p. 39) an epistemological system that’s essentially a human construct consisting of statements, but one that’s constrained or limited by the vast accumulation of experience. When new experience that’s not confirmed or compatible with the existing construct occurs, there are repercussions that alters statements within the construct, and in turn, causes a ripple effect that changes other “logically connected” (p. 39) statements. (more…)
In the Logische Aufbau der Welt, Rudolf Carnap was concerned with the objectivity of science, and how his rational reconstruction, could successfully explain why science is objective, despite starting with an autopsychological basis. In section 66, Carnap raises the challenge his system must solve: How can science consist of “intersubjective valid assertions,” (Logische, p. 106) when all physical objects are constructed from subjective experience? (more…)
In the Analysis of Sensations, Ernst Mach attempted to categorize elements into three groups: A B C as the independent objects of the world, K L M as one’s own body, and a b c as the contents of one’s own mind. It seemed trivial to extend this chain of relations to other people’s bodies, termed as K’ L’ M’. But once Mach tried to classify other people’s mental contents as well, as a’ b’ c’, he realized that this analogy had taken him far from the comforts of direct perception (one perceives other objects, and is capable of perceiving one’s own body, and one has one’s own thoughts) to inferential assumptions, a much less certain form of knowledge. Mach’s description of “plunging into an abyss” (Sensations, §8, p13) invokes the problem of other minds. (more…)
The paradox Kant raises in the Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, §13, is that two intrinsically alike objects must be interchangeable. However, some objects are exactly intrinsically alike, but they’re not interchangeable. He noted that his right hand is virtually identical to its image in the mirror. However, he could not replace his right hand with its mirror-image. He then proceeded to state that he could not think of any “internal difference” (Prolegomena, p. 37) between his right hand and its image in the mirror. Yet he could sense the difference between them for they were not truly congruent. (more…)
Why isn’t politics germane to good conversation? Why is it a dangerous topic to discuss in public? The answer lies with what conversation is for and what distinguishes harmless, approving subjects from the more important and yet contentious ones.
Conversation makes up a large percentage of communication, and remains the source we seek approval of the others. But what has changed is the nature of conversation itself. It used to be solely between family members, whereas nowadays it is done between competitive peers in society. (more…)
What distinguishes a good critic from the rest of the herd? I want to write a bit about this nugget offered by Richard Rorty in his article, Posties, that outlined three types of critics: (more…)
