{"id":1673,"date":"2018-10-20T10:15:55","date_gmt":"2018-10-20T16:15:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/?p=1673"},"modified":"2024-12-04T20:46:53","modified_gmt":"2024-12-05T02:46:53","slug":"heterodoxia-blog-compliation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/?p=1673","title":{"rendered":"Heterodoxia Blog Compliation"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/a>
Relaxing at Santa Monica<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Today is my 45th birthday, so I thought I’d do a retrospective. After 10-plus years and 200-some odd posts, I thought it was about time to write a post about this blog, and re-contextualize some of them for new readers. <\/span><\/wp-block><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A little history: <\/b><\/span><\/span>I originally started this blog over at blogspot.com when it was hip and cool, back in the day long before social media supposedly became a behemoth that gobbled up the rest of the blogosphere. I wanted to write on heretical subjects, and of course, the very first one was about one of the most extreme books of the early 20<\/a><\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span><\/sup> century, <\/span><\/span>Sex and Character.  <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That blog did establish a template for the rest of the blog: first, I discuss the concept or idea, then I mount a criticism. I thought that most people skipped the important part of understanding something before they started to criticize it. This step was crucial because it establishes their credibility, that they understood it, which gave their subsequent critique an air of legitimacy, or at least some plausibility. Of course, when I posted this on a discussion forum that supported the sexist ideas of Otto Weininger, many members claimed the first half was written by a male, and the second half, which had the sheer audacity of criticizing Otto Weninger, was written by a female. Go figure!<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The following is a rough map of the articles, with a little context for each. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Art<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my early days of philosophical wanderings, I found the radical nominalists like Nelson Goodman persuasive over the more common-place logical ones like John Searle. That is why I was quick to champion his ideas of Art as an element of temporality <\/a>rather than a physical thing with qualities. This taught me to pose better questions than the standard ones established by Socratic dialogue. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that the rich history of modern art <\/a>is so complicated and confusing, I found it best to write about it to teach myself. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is truly <\/a><\/span><\/span>antithetical<\/span><\/span><\/em> to art? <\/span><\/span><\/a>The dirty word of the 20<\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span><\/sup> century \u2013 IDEOLOGY<\/strong>. <\/span><\/span>Aesthetics is being critiqued as a tool of ideology, reinforcing class distinctions rather than representing true value. While critics argue that art is tied to social power, the pleasure and significance of art can still be real, even if it serves ideological ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My first art gallery experience <\/a>at Gallery Godo. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every now and then I am challenged with the overly permissive idea that we are all artists <\/a>\u2013 no matter how much time we spend on being one. <\/span><\/span>This notion ignores the hard truth: art isn’t just about potential, but actual creation shared with others. True art is a dialogue that blends creativity with influence, not a self-indulgent private language. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even more aggravating was the notion that every opinion about art was equal.<\/a> Only the truly lazy think that way, comfortable in the nether regions of their subjective tastes, never venturing beyond their echo-chamber that took a lifetime to develop. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My experience on social media has led me to the conclusion that almost nobody knows how to properly critique pop culture, largely because they <\/a>fail<\/b><\/i> at being a good critic.<\/span><\/span> Good ones transcend political correctness and fanboyism, appreciating art’s originality and context. They reframe works to reveal deeper insights, avoiding the traps of dogma and conventional judgment. To be superior, stay open-minded and courageous in your critiques.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Deafness<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given that I am a deaf person <\/a>in America during the twentieth-first century, it would be remiss of me not to say anything on the subject. The following consists of personal experiences and observations.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote this for the CSULB newspaper, the Daily 49er, on deafness in society<\/a>, as an undergraduate.<\/span><\/span> Is “deaf” just a label? In a society obsessed with labels, “deafness” often signifies disability, but this is a social construct, not an inherent truth. The term’s meaning depends on the context and discourse surrounding it. Deafness isn’t necessarily a disability\u2014it’s a label shaped by society. How we define ourselves, beyond labels, is a choice rooted in our freedom.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fighting stereotypes about deafness is exhausting, especially when low expectations are the norm<\/a>. Whether it’s doubting a deaf person’s ability to articulate, write, or succeed in non-visual fields, society’s assumptions are too restrictive. These biases create a self-fulfilling prophecy, where simply clearing the low bar is seen as extraordinary. It’s time to challenge these notions and recognize that being deaf has little to do with one’s intellectual or creative potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ever laid out a flawless argument, only to be dismissed with “that’s just your opinion”?<\/a> It’s infuriating when solid knowledge is reduced to mere opinion by intellectual laziness. While opinions are subjective and easy to come by, true knowledge is hard-earned and objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this blog,<\/a> I explore how fiction, as a cultural achievement, bridges the realms of truth and falsehood, fostering imagination, self-reflection, and wisdom. Yet, in the age of information dominated by scientism, pop culture, and simulated education, fiction\u2019s transformative power wanes, threatening our capacity for empathy and imagination. Deaf culture, however, offers hope through ASL, a medium that transcends the confines of spoken and written language. With its unique expressive power, ASL can restore fictionality\u2019s vitality, captivating audiences through poetic and dramatic storytelling, preserving this invaluable cultural resource for future generations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, I reflected on my experience<\/a> submitting None The Wiser<\/em> to a collection of Deaf American Prose, only to have it rejected for not being “Deaf enough.” Despite the call for submissions stating the topic need not explicitly center on deafness, the rejection revealed an unspoken expectation for deaf writers to focus solely on their identity and experiences. This approach perpetuates a harmful “othering” of Deaf writers, limiting creative freedom and reinforcing the very barriers such projects aim to dismantle. Ironically, my submission embodied the freedom such collections strive for, yet its independence from implied deafness made it both unsettling and unwelcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In these two blogs, I recount the inglorious end of a once-majestic Deaf book club and the rise of a new, inclusive Deaf Writers Club. In the first, the book club collapses under the weight of ideological disputes<\/a>, including xenophobia towards a CODA applicant who was rejected despite her deep ties to the Deaf community. This exclusion sparked division, resignations, and ultimately the club\u2019s demise. In the second<\/a>, I share the vibrant beginnings of the Deaf Writers Club, where passionate creators, including a filmmaker, novelist, and myself, a graphic novelist, come together to workshop projects, exchange ideas, and critique each other’s works, revitalizing the spirit of collaboration and inclusivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, I reflect on the parallels<\/a> between the criticism faced by Mexico’s crackeros<\/em> writers and Deaf authors like myself. The crackeros<\/em> resisted the expectation to write exclusively about Mexican themes, challenging the notion that authenticity is tied to national or cultural identity. Similarly, I reject the false dichotomy between identity politics and universality, choosing to write about universal themes like pessimism, utopias, and liberation rather than limiting myself to Deaf-specific topics. Authenticity, I argue, is not defined by one\u2019s political or cultural identity but by the freedom to explore themes beyond imposed boundaries. Just as the crackeros<\/em> dismissed “Mexican literature” as an outdated concept, we should reconsider “Deaf literature” as a restrictive anachronism, embracing broader creative possibilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I share my experience watching and collaborating with two extraordinary Deaf performers<\/a>, Jon Savage and Douglas Ridloff, whose styles reflect their respective East and West Coast roots. Savage, a masterful storyteller with an elastic, expressive face reminiscent of Jim Carrey, captivates with hilarious and poignant tales of his childhood, using classifiers to build drama, though occasionally at the cost of pacing. Ridloff, in contrast, channels the edgy energy of Lenny Bruce with electrifying, original, and unfiltered blue humor. His innovative use of fingerspelling in storytelling and potential for free-associative improvisation promises groundbreaking performances. Both performers represent the best of Deaf talent, inspiring deeper appreciation of Deaf culture and the artistry of ASL.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I challenge the pervasive myth in the Deaf community that writing competence is tied to how one signs or mouths signs<\/a>, a notion echoing outdated prejudices of Alexander Graham Bell. Despite this flawed belief, many profoundly Deaf individuals possess exceptional writing skills, while some oral or hard-of-hearing individuals struggle with writing. At a recent party, I debated the idea of a “Deaf voice” in writing, asserting that one’s writing abilities depend more on what they read than on their speaking or hearing competence. I argue against the longstanding Western bias that privileges speech over writing, suggesting that writing is a purer form of language. The Deaf community would benefit from embracing ASL writing, which could empower its members and further dismantle these entrenched linguistic hierarchies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Dirksen Bauman\u2019s presentation on Deaf Gain delivered a knockout blow<\/a> to the outdated notion of “normalcy,” tracing its origins to 19th-century statistics and eugenics and exposing its role in reducing biodiversity and cultural richness. With sharp historical insights and compelling evidence, Bauman highlighted how Deaf people\u2014often dismissed as “abnormal”\u2014actually possess unique strengths in visual, spatial, and kinesthetic cognition that enrich human diversity. He argued that neuroplasticity and adaptability make signing as human as speaking, advocating for a new paradigm of inclusion that celebrates diversity over conformity. This was more than a lecture\u2014it was a rallying cry for a postmodern embrace of difference and a bold leap into uncharted intellectual territory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I explore the “opium” of the Deaf community<\/a>\u2014an anesthetic that soothes but doesn\u2019t solve deeper issues\u2014and argue that illiteracy fits the role. Rooted in the incompatibility between the visual-spatial nature of ASL and textual languages like English, illiteracy reflects a reliance on visual media over written word, numbing the community to systemic struggles. While illiteracy itself is a symptom of structural oppression and low expectations, I highlight the pioneering work of Bob Arnold\u2019s ASL writing system as a hopeful sign of progress. The ultimate challenge lies in addressing the deeper realities that perpetuate ignorance and hinder the Deaf community\u2019s potential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

After a long-time friend passed away in a fatal car accident, I felt that I should share this short paper on the legendary Lucky 7.<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emotions<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This probably should be categorized under Psychology, but I always found the concepts of emotions quite fascinating in and of themselves. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this blog, I delve into the metaphysics of boredom<\/a>, from Nietzsche\u2019s divine ennui to Sartre\u2019s existential malaise in Nausea<\/em>. Boredom, far from mundane, reveals the nakedness of existence and our role as arbiters of meaning, exposing the world\u2019s “everydayness” as Heidegger suggests. Schopenhauer\u2019s take resonates most: boredom arises when restless striving ceases, leaving us adrift in emptiness, zigzagging between desire and dissatisfaction. Literature, from American Psycho<\/em> to The Awakening<\/em>, captures this existential seesaw, reminding us that while life is too short for boredom, it\u2019s often spent poorly navigating its depths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, I unpack the intricate dance of boredom, creativity, and Schopenhauerian pessimism<\/a>. Contrary to the dismissive claim that boredom signals a lack of creativity, I argue that it often afflicts the most intelligent and imaginative minds. Rooted in 19th-century ennui, boredom is not just a personal nuisance but a metaphysical revelation of life’s restless striving and emptiness. Schopenhauer\u2019s grim philosophy highlights the endless cycle of desire, fleeting satisfaction, and inevitable suffering, challenging the blind optimism of those who mistake temporary success for universal truths. While he offers salvation through will-less resignation, even this solution reeks of self-loathing\u2014a testament to the bleakest depths of his pessimism. Life, in this view, is a cruel, cannibalistic cycle, where even its rare moments of value arise only by renouncing existence itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I explore the paradoxical nature of erotic love<\/a>, blending biological realities with philosophical musings. While love often feels transcendent, it\u2019s deeply rooted in the biological imperative to reproduce, as Schopenhauer cynically observed. Sexual desire, shaped by innate triggers and subconscious judgments, drives much of what we romanticize. Yet, love isn\u2019t just biology\u2014it has an intentional structure that elevates the beloved through a process Stendhal called “crystallization.” Romantic love, far from a mysterious ideal, is a complex interplay of chemistry, compatibility, and evolutionary purpose, revealing both the beauty and illusion at its core.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes us laugh?<\/a> While Henri Bergson sees laughter as light-hearted, human, and communal, Georges Bataille flips the script, portraying it as a convulsive, chaotic force that shatters rationality. Schopenhauer offers the sharpest punchline: humor arises from incongruity, the sudden clash between abstract concepts and unexpected realities. Laughter, then, is a momentary triumph of perception over intellect\u2014a surprising escape from expectation that catches us delightfully off-guard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Grudges, those heavy burdens of ill will<\/a>, often stem from a mix of entitlement to fairness and an inability to forgive. They\u2019re the refuge of the powerless, those unable to take revenge, clinging to resentment instead. As La Rochefoucauld notes, grudges often mask wounded vanity, with small minds bitter over perceived slights while great minds remain unshaken. True forgiveness requires empathy and understanding\u2014qualities that lighten life\u2019s emotional load, unlike the bitterness that grudges keep festering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gratitude, though often dismissed by cynics as self-serving or insincere, transcends shallow motives<\/a> when expressed by magnanimous individuals who value challenge over flattery. While praise may flatter both giver and receiver, as La Rochefoucauld explains, deeper gratitude aligns with Cicero\u2019s view as the root of all virtues and Nietzsche\u2019s claim as the essence of great art. Though hard to articulate, as Frankfurter notes, true gratitude resists suspicion, offering a profound antidote to pride and an enduring source of joy\u2014even in the face of human imperfections.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schopenhauer\u2019s grim insight: human existence oscillates endlessly between pain and boredom, with boredom serving as proof of our fundamental unhappiness. If life held true value, mere existence would satisfy us, yet it does not. Boredom reveals the vanity\u2014the Nichtigkeit<\/em>\u2014of existence, a byproduct of the transient and illusory nature of our goals and desires.<\/a> Even when we achieve what we strive for, satisfaction proves fleeting, leaving us with the stark truth of life\u2019s futility. This cycle, though disillusioning, grants us a rare clarity: the understanding that our restless striving masks the emptiness of existence, and in that realization lies the harshest irony of conscious life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this blog, I explain how La Rochefoucauld brilliantly exposes la paresse<\/em>\u2014indolence\u2014as a hidden yet formidable force in our lives<\/a>. Unlike fiery passions like ambition or love, idleness works insidiously, quietly wearing down our virtues and thwarting our pursuit of truth. It\u2019s a paradoxical force, both harmful and consoling, soothing the ego while masking its corrosive effects. In the 17th-century sense of “passion,” which encompasses all human emotions, indolence emerges as a stealthy saboteur, dismantling our other desires and preventing self-understanding. Far from harmless laziness, it\u2019s a subtle tyrant that rules over our inner conflicts and keeps us from grasping our deepest motivations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When someone dies, their “life project” closes, leaving their legacy at the mercy of the living<\/a>. In life, individuals can redeem themselves, redefine their pasts, or transcend failures through future actions. In death, however, that possibility is gone\u2014Michael Jackson, for instance, can no longer reshape how we judge his music or persona. The living, in contrast, remain obligated to own their actions, transcend their shortcomings, and define their own lives without delegating meaning to others. There\u2019s no divine bailout for our sins; accountability lies between us and those we\u2019ve wronged. Excuses and intentions mean nothing\u2014it\u2019s what we do that defines us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Insomnia, far from a mere sleepless state, offers profound philosophical insights into the darker aspects of existence<\/a>\u2014anxiety, dread, and despair\u2014shattering the conventional understanding of the self. Levinas sees insomnia as a wakeful ethical responsibility, an incorporeal vigilance that transcends intentionality. Blanchot deepens this view, framing insomnia as a limit-experience of relentless, percussive stillness. Yet Cioran counters with a grimly corporeal take, exposing insomnia\u2019s narcissism and amplifying its agonies: every minor discomfort becomes an unbearable torment. Through these perspectives, insomnia emerges as both an unflinching confrontation with existence and a relentless reminder of human fragility.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heroes<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I always went back to my heroes of philosophy, and Jean-Paul Sartre was one of them. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this blog, I dissect Sartre\u2019s Being and Nothingness<\/em> with its exploration of consciousness, freedom, and responsibility. <\/a>Sartre redefines consciousness as a void\u2014always directed at something other than itself\u2014and introduces being-in-itself<\/em> (fixed objects) and being-for-itself<\/em> (conscious beings) to explain the interplay between existence and negation. Consciousness brings nothingness into the world, creating freedom from determinism but also inducing existential anguish. This total freedom comes with the weight of absolute responsibility, leaving us with the terrifying task of defining our own essence. To escape this burden, many retreat into self-deception, or bad faith<\/em>, pretending to lack freedom. Sartre\u2019s philosophy is a bold confrontation with the liberating and daunting truth of human existence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sartre\u2019s atheism doesn\u2019t stem from a rationalist journey through traditional arguments about God\u2019s existence; rather, it\u2019s a product of his upbringing and philosophical framework. In Being and Nothingness<\/em>, Sartre declares the concept of God\u2014a \u201cbeing-in-itself-for-itself\u201d\u2014as inherently contradictory<\/a>. For Sartre, God\u2019s existence would undermine human freedom, reducing it to a fiction. Humanity, grappling with cosmic meaninglessness, invents God as a comforting figure to explain the unknown. Ultimately, Sartre sees humanity as a \u201cuseless passion,\u201d perpetually failing in its impossible quest to embody the divine synthesis. His atheism rejects necessary being as a contradiction and affirms existence as a brute, causeless fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this blog, I show how Sartre dismantles the concept of “character,” that it\u2019s a mystification that falsely essentializes behavior as rooted in a stable, hidden nature<\/a>. This leads to the myth that individuals are bound to act according to an unchanging “true self,” obscuring the reality of human freedom. Sartre contends that actions define a person in the moment\u2014they are not the product of fixed motives but of choice. For instance, a consistent jerk ceases to be a jerk the moment they choose kindness. Character, then, is no more than a provisional label, and true existence lies in the freedom to redefine oneself through action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belief, according to Sartre, is inherently unstable\u2014a balancing act of doubt and conviction.<\/a> To truly believe is to not recognize it as mere belief; the moment one does, belief unravels. Faith, then, is a paradox: it thrives on uncertainty while masquerading as certainty. This fragility explains the zeal of evangelism, which seeks validation in the beliefs of others to distract from its own shaky foundation. Sartre reveals all faith as bad faith<\/em>, a state of self-deception where belief is objectified and others are reduced to mere “believer-things.” In essence, belief is a precarious dance of conviction teetering on the edge of doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sartre\u2019s Being-for-Others<\/em> reveals the existential nightmare of being seen: the Other\u2019s gaze turns you from subject to object, stripping your control and defining you on their terms<\/a>. A single glance disrupts your world, haunts it with their values, and leaves you vulnerable to judgments you\u2019ll never fully grasp. In the strip club of life, we\u2019re all at the mercy of someone else\u2019s freedom to see us\u2014and label us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The other hero was of course, Friedrich Nietzsche. He liberated us from the conventions of modern society in many ways, and in this blog I look at the philosopher as the exception to the average, six-pack Joe type<\/a> of the masses. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>The difference between Nietzsche and liberal political thought lies in the goal of humanity. <\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Precisely because all philosophers are spokesmen for the prejudices which they baptize as truths<\/a>, there is no true philosophy. Only philosophers! <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nietzsche was no simple atheist<\/a>; he was the first <\/span><\/span>theothanatologist. <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Who\u2019s the greater philosopher, Nietzsche or Schopenhauer? <\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schopenhauer was one of the greatest philosophers of all-time, and yes I wrote a multi-part review of his magnus opus:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The World as Will and Representation review: <\/b><\/span><\/span>Introduction and Book 1<\/a>, Book 2<\/a>, Book 3<\/a>, Book 4<\/a>, Appendix<\/a>, and Conclusion<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I found out very quickly how much of a foil Schopenhauer turned out to be, especially when it came to the inherent logic of common sense, that \u201ceverything has a reason.\u201d <\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The greatest insight in philosophy is that we are not rational beings<\/a>. This struck the very vanity of philosophers, and the wound has been fatal. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schopenhauer turned out to be almost impossible to paraphrase, but Clement Rosset<\/a> pulled it off by combining absurdism with postmodernity. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even wrote a poem<\/a> on Schopenhauer! <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the World as Will and Representation review was so successful, I tried to break down Martin Heidegger\u2019s magnus opus, Being and Time: <\/i><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/a>. Introduction part II<\/a>. Part 1, Division 1<\/a>. Part 1, Division 2<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Between the giants of philosophy, Hegel and Sartre, I tried to assess whether Soren Kierkegaard was a true philosopher<\/a> more so than just a brilliant writer with an ironic pen. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gilles Deleuze has always been a tempting source of ideas, inasmuch he also remains ever-elusive, especially when he re-interpreted classic philosophers like David Hume<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/a>Earlier, I posted on the point of philosophy. Here, Deleuze offered a great solution to the use of philosophy. It is an enterprise of demystification<\/a>. In other words, mythology is glorious because it is self-deceptive.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to refute Platonists and hidebound analytic thinkers, Richard Rorty quickly became a favorite. Basically, in the <\/span><\/span>Philosophy as the Mirror of Nature<\/span><\/span><\/em>, Rorty criticized the dominant model of philosophy that existed since the 17<\/a><\/span><\/span>th<\/span><\/span><\/sup> century, epistemology, and elevates the counter-culture of a therapeutic philosophy in its stead. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since there needs to be a distinction between the public and private role of an intellectual, Rorty offered Irony as the solution that prevents the philosopher from necessarily posing as a politician<\/a> each and every time he spoke. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some years ago I read this terrific book, <\/span><\/span>The Courtier and the Heretic<\/i><\/span><\/span> \u2013 a slice of intellectual history that focused on the Spinoza-Leibniz encounter<\/a>. And I realized that Spinoza might have become one of my heroes. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every now and then I went back to Plato<\/a>, the source of all philosophy to keep my writings sharp.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the very best method to interpret the Dialogues<\/a> of Plato.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Plato wrote an op-ed on Donald Trump<\/a> today\u2026<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite all the great philosophers, I found <\/span><\/span>Absurdism<\/b><\/i><\/span><\/span> the most persuasive, or at the very least, the closest to my deepest held beliefs. And I thought Camus\u2019 interpretation of the most interesting character of all of Dostoyevsky\u2019s books, Kirilov<\/a>, quite succinct. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote a review of Camus\u2019 Myth of Sisyphus for graduate school<\/a>, for Professor Malek Khazaee\u2019s course on Existentialism. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the final exam of that same class, I chose E.M. Cioran, an obscure philosopher, but I had to prove that he belonged to the canon of existentialist thinkers<\/a>. This essay was worth an A and got me into the philosophy program at California State University, Los Angeles. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Around this time, I was in heavy correspondence with a couple of Anti-Natalist zealots. The moment they dragged Cioran\u2019s name into their debate<\/a>, I knew I had to step in and clear Cioran\u2019s name. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

History of Ideas<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I often wanted to re-write the standard histories of Western civilization, especially on its valorization of modern science: Part 1<\/a>, Part 2<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happened to Greek Tragedy<\/a>, one of the most profound forms of art? And who were the writers of Tragedy<\/a>? And is Greek Tragedy possible today<\/a>?<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The transition from Mythos to Logos <\/a>was one of the most transformative ideas in all history, and serves as the dividing line between the ancient world and the modern one. But is this irrevocable? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Typography and Photography<\/a>: how the forms of media in the 19th<\/sup> century and the 20th<\/sup> century pre-determined discourse. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A more sudden and recent transition of the Zeitgeist took place within the American hegemonic power: Old Empire and Post-Empire<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bruno Latour challenged the notion of modernity, that we have never been modern<\/a> in the first place. Even if we have never been modern, we are already retromodernists<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I always found the mania of identifying the current zeitgeist rather interesting, even if they were all doomed to failure just because we are all too close to ground zero. Pseudo-modernism was an early candidate.<\/a> After studying pseudo-modernism, I realized that there were a host of other candidates for the title of post-postmodernism<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Alan Moore argues that all Comic books since the 1960s<\/a> is essentially fan-fiction.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I investigate our ongoing obsession with the Eighties as an artifact of nostalgia. <\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I attempted to establish cynical reason as a symptom of the contemporary age with various angles: First I identified the soul of Cynical Reason within the current generation as the Hipster<\/a>. Then I tried to trace the winding path of Cynical Reason within the twentieth-century America.<\/a> I went back and retraced the evolution of cynicism throughout Western civilization<\/a>. I revisited Cynical Reason itself as the battle of Giants – between Slavoj Zizek and Peter Sloterdijk<\/a>. And finally I found the manifestation of cynical reason in the 1990s (Irony) and  in the 2010s (smarm and snark).<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Language<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my early days, I was a staunch Foucauldian, especially when it came to sublimation<\/a>. I also investigated post-humanism<\/a> in the same Foucauldian vein. I went further and argued that m<\/span><\/span>etaphor is the ultimate key to language<\/a> because it is the very symbol of interpretation and therefore, the foundation of meaning and truth themselves. <\/span><\/span>If language creates concepts, then language and thought is metaphorical at bottom<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A failed metaphor<\/a> is such a clich\u00e9. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Writing<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I attempted to develop a Manifesto of Writing.<\/a> It didn\u2019t go very well. <\/span><\/span>How to deal with feedback about your writings<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The aphorism<\/a> and I have had a long-time affair. I even attempted to revive the carcass of philosophy <\/a>aphorism by aphorism. <\/span><\/span>Philosophy on Twitter?<\/a> Why not? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which language is the Greatest Paradox<\/a> and a convenient plot device.
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Metaphilosophy<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Practically half of my blogs consisted of questions about philosophy, what it was, what it is for, and how it should be done. Every now and then I would be confronted with the purpose of philosophy<\/a> itself. Sometimes I would slip on the comfortable clothes of irony and sarcasm in defense. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of the finest thinkers of metaphilosophy was the late Richard Rorty, and I always went back to him, especially on the history of philosophy. In this blog I presented different portraits of philosophers, or different ways to do philosophy. <\/a><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If metaphilosophy is only a philosophical critique of philosophy<\/a>, then perhaps the discourse of philosophy is its own criticism. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the best philosophical critique of philosophy comes from the post-structuralists like Derrida who took on the all-totalizing power of the Hegelian dialectics<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another standard challenge was the demand that philosophy be presented in a clear and distinct way<\/a> to be accessible for the average reader. This challenge hides the inherent laziness of the average reader to actually get up and exercise their brain beyond the boundaries of their comfort zone. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to linguistic analysis, philosophy became trivialized in the 20th<\/sup> century: Part I<\/a> and Part II<\/a>. <\/span><\/span>This also turned out to be a deeper look at Wittgenstein, one of my heroes of philosophy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If I wrote a self-help book on how to philosophize<\/a>, it would look something like this blog. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I quickly realized that the biggest barrier to do philosophy is our common sense<\/a>, which is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can philosophy be truly taught<\/a>? Schopenhauer offers a distinction between professors of philosophy and true philosophers that holds up pretty well today. Kant is correct when he wrote that philosophy could not be taught, we can at most learn to philosophize. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philosophers have always claimed logic to be the essence of philosophical discourse. But of course this is false, because the first principles of demonstrative speech are non-deducible, and lack apodictic or demonstrative character. They only indicate or allude, which gives rational speech its necessary framework. Whatsoever indicates or allude is figurative, or imaginative, or metaphorical. Therefore the true essence of philosophical discourse is rhetoric<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

All philosophical explanations, whether they are synthetic or analytic<\/a>, are fundamentally limited because they are only complimentary methods that presuppose one another. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever happened to Philosophy Proper? Novels. By the 17th<\/sup> century, the emergence of literature came at the cost of philosophy\u2019s classical authorial<\/a> role. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent decades, thinkers and scientists and even philosophers have declared that philosophy is dead<\/a>. And they keep on declaring it. Over and over. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which philosophers are divided into two camps: the edifier and the systematic thinke<\/a>r. But there remains a classic case that escapes either category. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is there anything special about philosophy that helps us escape the limits of language<\/a>? Can we ever locate an Archimedean point that truly transcends language? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can Philosophy ever truly change<\/a> anyone? If it cannot, then why should anyone read philosophy? <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reality is cruel, and we adopt standard strategies that help us evade it. The philosopher Rosset illustrated this as the Principle of Insufficient Reality<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When I teach a class on the history of philosophy, I will focus on philosophers in context<\/a>. This will present an alternative to the standard picture of philosophy as a series of disagreements. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Knowledge<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I attempted a critique of the theory of knowledge. Part one discussed the ontological implications and the necessary conditions of knowledge<\/a>. Part two discussed the limits of the theory of knowledge<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Philosophy<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I present a new philosophy of the Human Sciences<\/a>, one that began in the early twentieth century, and did not finish until Baudrillard. First up, Ferdinand Saussure and the birth of linguistics<\/a>. Next was Durkheim and anthropology<\/a>. Unfortunately I never finished this.
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nihilism<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to the corrupting influences of Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, I have had a love affair with nihilism<\/a>. However, can anyone truly live with nihilism<\/a>? The nothing <\/a>of nihilism.  <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are all utterly contingent<\/a>, because none of us were born with reason, none of us prolong ourselves out of strength, and nor do we die on time.
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The anime Fate\/Zero may be the most nihilistic story<\/a> I have ever come across, and I have seen plenty.
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pessimism<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The political pessimism of Giacomo Leopardi and Jean-Jacques Rousseau<\/a> is actually the submission to the ultimate power of Fortune.
<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Common sense says that pleasure is a positive experience. According to pessimism, this is false because we are doomed to suffering, and pleasure is only the relief from something painful<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A pessimistic reading of history<\/a> is superior to optimistic readings because such theories like those of Fukuyama, Hegel and Marx are all riddled with theological and ideological tautologies and push for a destiny that has been ruinous for humanity. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After discovering Cioran, I paid greater attention to writers of pessimism, and came across Giacomo Leopardi. One of the finest writers whose pessimism<\/a> easily equaled that of Schopenhauer, but he was more of an experimental writer who wrote fiction, dialogues, and poetry as well as thought-pieces. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truth<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every now and then I am forced to make a stand. This was a personal confession about the concept of truth<\/a>, after years of talking, reading and writing about philosophy. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Book of Truth<\/i><\/a>: a short story about the truth of paradox. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pantheon<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Not only am I the creator of Pantheon, I also did research on character psychology and posted some early dialogues to help establish the universe. Then I began to dig beneath the surface and help make the connection between the material and speculative philosophy. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dialogues<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As Things Fell Apart\u2026 <\/i><\/a><\/span> Ganesha’s utopian project unravels as mortals become disillusioned with paradise, prompting Lakshmi to suggest an unexpected solution that might just add some irony to divine mercy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

None the Wiser.<\/i><\/a> <\/span>Thoth consults Mimir on the radicalism of Cartaphilus, leading to a thoughtful debate on utopianism and the nature of wisdom. Without seeming to argue, the two gods postulate & pronounce on the delicate balance between idealism and reality, questioning the pursuit of perfection and the roles of gods and mortals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Portraits<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The development of character profiles through psychology portraits helped me write their dialogue. Maya,<\/a> the Goddess of Illusion. <\/span>Lakshmi<\/a>, the Goddess of Fortune. <\/span>Thoth<\/a>, the God of Wisdom. <\/span>Skuld<\/a> the Valkyrie, the Norn goddess of Fate. <\/span>Bellona<\/a>, the Roman goddess of War. This character was an early template for Kali-Ma. <\/span>Orcus<\/a>, the Roman God of the Underworld. <\/span>Ekchuah<\/a>, the Aztec God of War. <\/span>Saraswati<\/a>, the Goddess of knowledge.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Essays<\/b><\/span> on Pantheon<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Philosophy of the Gods<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I compare and contrast the philosophies of Kaeli and the elder gods in Pantheon<\/em>. Kaeli, inspired by the anarchist Cartaphilus, embraces chaotic vitality and rejects traditional authority<\/a>, advocating for a fearless engagement with life’s inherent meaninglessness. In contrast, the elder gods embody radical skepticism and disillusionment<\/a>, rejecting idealism and emphasizing the futility of utopian pursuits. They view reality as devoid of meaning, promoting a detached and cynical understanding of existence.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I drew a new sketch of a powerful warrior goddess, inspired by the concept as perceived by mortals. This post reflects on the misconception that all warrior deities are similar, contrasting the strategic wisdom of the Greek goddess Athena <\/a>with the brute force of Ares. The discussion highlights Athena’s role as a war goddess who embodies both intellect and subtlety, advocating for strategic warfare over senseless brutality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Imagine an alien race becoming immortal, all at once? The Arcturians, who attain immortality through the Tree of Life, transformed their world into an eternal paradise and abolished individuality. Their religion evolves into “Arcturianism,” a collective spiritual unity where the entire race embodies divinity rather than a singular and external god. I contrast their post-Tree of Life spiritual beliefs with their earlier, more personal and imaginative religious expressions<\/a>, tracing the shift from individualized divine figures to a collective, love-centered spirituality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I discuss the relationship between Christ and the gods of Pantheon<\/em><\/a>, portraying the gods as cynical manipulators akin to modern political conservatives. Using Sloterdijk’s “Cabinet of Cynics” as a framework, I sketch parallels between the gods and figures like Hitler and Stalin, highlighting their use of truth to deceive and dominate. This narrative positions the gods as seeing themselves as realists, withholding the truth from mortals under the “Noble Lie” that people cannot handle it, and drawing a stark contrast with Christ, who represents a pure, uncompromising individualism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I dive-bomb into the mythology of Pandora’s Box and its significance in the upcoming volume of Pantheon<\/em><\/a> by exploring conflicting interpretations of the myth, or whether the box contained evils or blessings, and the ambiguous role of hope. The narrative suggests that within the Pantheon<\/em> universe, Pandora’s Box is an Edenic artifact with the potential to either uplift or doom a terrestrial species, challenging the team Pantheon to unlock its mysteries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I investigate Pantheon’s<\/em> existential themes, likening it to a vampire novel through its portrayal of immortal gods<\/a>, examining how these beings offer a unique perspective on life, death, and the sensual versus the eternal. A counternarrative to traditional beliefs, proposing that true self-realization comes from confronting mortality<\/em><\/strong>, not divine revelation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I integrate post-human<\/a> themes into Pantheon<\/em>, inspired by classic sci-fi and mythology. It explores humanity’s potential evolution and the existential challenges it faces, leaving the ultimate outcome open-ended. The narrative reflects on whether humans can transcend their limitations or remain trapped by their nature.<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I sketch a Pantheon<\/em> story inspired by Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth<\/em><\/a>, focusing on the struggle of mortals on the planet Algebar against their demigod rulers. The protagonist, Aziz, leads a revolution to expose the false utopia and oppressive control of these gods, highlighting themes of colonization, exploitation, and the fight for true independence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I examine nihilism in both The Iliad<\/em> and my graphic novel Pantheon<\/em><\/a>. It highlights the Heroic Code in The Iliad<\/em> as an existential response to a chaotic and meaningless world, where achieving glory in death provides a fleeting sense of purpose. In Pantheon<\/em>, the gods continue a futile search for Truth, grappling with the realization of existence’s inherent meaninglessness and the inevitability of suffering.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I reflect on the journey of creating Pantheon: Heterotopia<\/em>, including the challenges and insights <\/a>gained through writing and drawing. This blog emphasizes the importance of overcoming self-doubt and “Resistance,” staying focused on a clear vision, and using personal experiences as inspiration. I also mention self-publishing, marketing strategies, and the creative process that turned a passion for mythology into a complex graphic novel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I introduce Panfuturism, a new genre merging global ancient mythologies in a post-human future<\/a>. It acts as a synthesis of Western imperialism and Afrofuturism, integrating diverse cultural heritages into a unified, inclusive narrative. Pantheon: Heterotopia<\/em> is proposed as a potential cornerstone of this emerging genre, exploring existential and philosophical themes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politics<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Change the World?<\/span> <\/em><\/a>Marx imperiously demanded us to stop just interpreting the world and start changing it, but I think that we cannot change the world without first understanding it. From Plato’s contemplative forms to Deleuze and Guattari’s concept creation, philosophy has evolved but never escaped its crisis. Before we can change the world, we might need to change ourselves, embracing a philosophy that goes beyond mere interpretation to foster ethical self-transformation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span><\/a><\/u><\/span>Cynics, Fanatics, and\u2026<\/span> Trolls?<\/span>!?<\/em> In a world split between disillusioned cynics and deluded fanatics, the troll reigns supreme, wielding cheeky humor to transcend the seriousness of both<\/a>. I describe how trolls, by embracing a playful, life-affirming attitude, offer a refreshing alternative to the bleak outlooks of their counterparts, proving that sometimes a well-timed fart is the best response to lofty ideals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This was my first attempt at analyzing the phenomenon of Donald Trump, particularly his sudden emergence in the context of a cultural shift towards post-Empire America<\/a>, where traditional, polite politics have lost credibility. I fault two articles for relying on French theorists like Guy Debord and Roland Barthes, arguing that Trump’s success stems from his raw, unapologetic style that resonates with a public tired of polished, insincere politeness. I also point out that in a media-saturated society, where fame is fleeting and authenticity craved, Trump’s brashness and disregard for political correctness make him the perfect post-Empire celebrity, thriving in a landscape that elevates unscripted honesty over traditional decorum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I draw a dark parallel between ancient sacrificial rituals and modern-day gun violence in America, with the insight that the Second Amendment has become a transcendent law demanding blood sacrifices,<\/a> the true God of America<\/strong>. Based on Rene Girard’s theory of mimetic desire and scapegoating, I argue that societal violence is perpetuated through ritualized commemorations, with innocent victims offered as the price for maintaining perceived freedom. This modern “god of violence,” is no different from our ancient deities who required sacrifices to sustain their power, indicating the troubling persistence of this cycle in contemporary society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Psychology<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I launched a one-two punch combination against classic Freudian psychoanalysis in the following two blogs: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Existential psychoanalysis (EPA) challenges Freudian theory by focusing on our “desire to be” God, an impossible pursuit of perfection and self-sufficiency. Unlike Freud’s emphasis on libido, EPA argues that our actions stem from individual choices, rather than just primal urges, making each act a personal quest for identity<\/a>. A riveting exploration of our futile struggle for omnipotence, to be sure, yet the field still awaits its defining genius.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Freud’s psychoanalysis, despite his genius, is critiqued for leading to self-deception, as it suggests the unconscious Id influences behavior while the conscious Ego remains unaware. The Censor, a supposed mediator, represses unacceptable desires but can’t explain resistance during therapy, implying a separate consciousness in self-deception. My critique argues that Freud’s theory, instead of resolving psychological conflicts, merely kicks the can down the road without providing a clear solution<\/a>. Oddly enough, this was one of my most popular posts. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In order to do psychology, we must figure out what exactly constitutes human nature. (And is this very question even the right one to begin with?) Is human nature real, or just a social construct?<\/a> Are there any universal truths guide us or are we making it all up as we go, with justice and morality mere tools of power? Are we bound by a “bio-physical structure” or free to define ourselves\u2014and everyone else?<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Religion<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the beginning I was quite obsessed with the philosophy of religion, and tried to get at the fundamental idea or source of religious ideas from a thousand angles. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I opened with the quick and easy question whether Hinduism was self-contradictory, given the problem of using an particular experience to determine that all experience was illusory.<\/a> <\/span>This was a paradox in Hinduism: If all sensory experiences are illusions, does enlightenment, the realization of this illusion, count as an illusion too? I weigh the dilemma of whether enlightenment is an exception or if Hinduism is inconsistent. The notion that experiencing enlightenment can prove all experiences are illusions can and must be challenged.<\/span><\/a><\/u><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of course, the counterpoint is whether Western logic of consistence even applies to Hinduism’s apparent contradictions, given that its metaphysics already hinge on the differentiation between illusions (Maya) and the Ultimate Reality (Brahman). Then this raises the question – can any philosophy that embraces the fluid nature of reality ever be judged by rigid logical standards? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some of my early blogs were straight up reposts from that legendary forum, Internet Infidels, and this was a standard post that posed an impossible question and tried to answer it. <\/span>The origins of sin is traced back to the Babylonian theologians<\/a> who explained divine justice and human suffering by linking sin to a primordial chaos. This idea evolved and blended into Hellenistic and Christian thought, elevating the inherent sinfulness of man and freedom to metaphysical concepts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span>Other times, I wrote lengthy spiel that nobody bothered to read, much less challenge<\/span>, such as the metaphorical “death of God”, a pivotal shift away from metaphysical foundations, challenging both religious and humanistic beliefs. I argued that the acknowledgement of this “deicide” is crucial for moving beyond outdated concepts and embracing a post-human future<\/a>, where humanity must confront its own limitations and illusions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sometimes I would contrast religion with other forms of expression like Greek drama<\/span>, the clash between the religious impulse, which fights suffering by seeking divine justification, and the tragic impulse, which accepts suffering as an integral part of life<\/a>. Religion protests life’s injustices, while the tragic view embraces all of life, both good and bad, without needing a higher purpose. True affirmation of life means loving one’s fate, without cherry-picking the favored parts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/span><\/a><\/u><\/span>Other times I would expose <\/span>the fundamental inconsistency of Christian dogma.<\/span> If God can’t tolerate sin, does it matter if you accept Jesus?<\/a> That’s the paradox in Christian doctrine: Jesus’ sacrifice should render personal acceptance irrelevant, yet believers claim it’s essential. It’s a real theological riddle that questions whether God’s perfect nature and human free will can coexist without making salvation a paradoxical mess. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If that wasn\u2019t enough, I also demonstrate how Buddhism is superior to Christianity<\/a>, because it focuses on reducing suffering, not avoiding sin. While Christians wrestle with guilt and morality, Buddhists find peace and tranquility by embracing life’s illusions and practicing compassion. A much healthier, realistic philosophy independent of the endless cycle of redemption and guilt. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This blog is kind of a sequel to the previous one, by explaining how Christianity traps believers in a cycle of guilt and judgment, leading to self-deception<\/a> and a disdain for earthly life, while Buddhism, though also life-denying, offers a more sensitive response to suffering. Both, however, fail to fully embrace the harsh realities of existence, making them life-negating in different ways.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

No self-respecting heretic would miss the chance to question the historical nature of the Gospels. <\/span>Often claimed by Christians as historical documents, the Gospels aren’t reliable history, but religious texts with zero contemporary evidence or eyewitness authors<\/a>. Despite variations and late manuscript evidence, they lack credibility as accurate accounts, exhibiting significant discrepancies and late alterations fueled by doctrinal disputes. The early church’s uncertainty and the absence of external verification further erodes their historical validity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I even recruited philosophers to help analyze the Problem of Evil<\/a><\/span>, specifically how Kant and Schopenhauer tackle the contradiction of an All-Good, All-Powerful God allowing evil. Kant’s idea of the human mind as an active organizer of reality indicates that our perception of evil is a construct of our consciousness. Schopenhauer takes it another step, proposing that the very act of perceiving divides reality into suffering individuals, making humans the unwitting architects of their own pain. In the end, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche confront the terrifying purposelessness of existence, challenging us to find meaning amidst the chaos. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

My deconversion, a journey from a curious Catholic kid to a full-blown atheist was a slow, thoughtful process<\/a>. Fascinated by mythology and science, I eventually saw through weak creationist arguments. After a stint of militant atheism, I found the endless debates tiresome and unproductive. After a backflip into postmodern philosophy, I left behind the simple theism vs. atheism dichotomy. Now, if anyone tries to drag me back into those old arguments, I just smile and point them to this blog.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the time I attended graduate school, I had to come to the realization that the philosophy of religion is, and has been, a monumental failure<\/a>. Basically, mainstream philosophy of religion is far too fixated on Western theodicy and theism, while ignoring the larger spectrum of global religious experience and cultural contexts. A deeper, richer more nuanced approach is required, one that incorporates cross-cultural analyses and historical awareness. It’s time to give up the narrow confines of traditional Judeo-Christian focus. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Despite that, I was never a fan of the new atheism movement led by the hardliners Dennett, Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens. <\/span>Most of them are too afraid to speculate beyond established facts, limiting themselves only to safe, micro-views of reality.<\/a> This cautious approach masquerades as skepticism, but ultimately lacks the boldness & creativity that is essential for contextualizing data with meaningful theories. True rationality always requires the courage to speculate and explore the larger implications of information. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What actually began as a review turned into an analysis of one of the <\/span>finest novels on the philosophy of religion ever written: Creation<\/i>, by Gore Vidal, a<\/span> historical novel that critiques religious dogma through the eyes of Cyrus Spitama, the fictional grandson of Zarathustra<\/a>. Cyrus’s journey to discover the origins of existence leads him through encounters with 5th century sages like the Buddha, Confucius, Lao-Tze, among others. As he challenges the creation myths and moral doctrines of various philosophies, Cyrus finds that the question of creation might be flawed. The book circumscribes the edges of religious and philosophical thought, that the universe is an endless flux beyond definitive beginnings or ends. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mythology<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Often, when I didn’t find good resources on whatever struck my fancy, I set out to write a blog on it. And hence, the cosmic drama of Gnosticism, where the flawed Demiurge, oblivious to his divine mother Sophia, crafts a broken universe. <\/a>A story of hidden wisdom, serpent-led enlightenment, and the cracks in reality that hint at a higher truth. Gnosticism\u2014where original sin is original enlightenment, and ignorance rules the cosmos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I went on to write a little bit more about <\/span>Gnosticism, its the dark intersection <\/span>with antinatalism through the lens of E.M. Cioran<\/a>, how the disdain for material reality and the rejection of procreation echo ancient Gnostic beliefs in a flawed creation by an ignorant Demiurge. While Cioran does indeed flirt with Gnostic themes, he ultimately rejects their theology, advocating for a return to earth in his dismissal of both transcendence and nihilism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reviews<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I thought critics had an important job, but very few qualified as true critics because they never met the actual requirements of criticism.<\/span> What separates a true, great one from the rest? Richard Rorty outlined three kinds: the inferior critic who clings to the status quo; the mediocre critic, lost in pettifoggery; and the superior critic, who appreciates the original insights & recontextualizes their ideas. <\/a>To rise above the herd, the critic must avoid dogmatism as well as mediocrity, and strive to creatively re-interpret & adapt the ideas they critique. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first review was Les Liaisons Dangereuses<\/em>, a Roman \u00e0 clef by Cholderos de Laclos.<\/a> An epistolary novel (presented as a collection of letters) that offers sharp psychological insights and a cynical view of human nature. The tragic downfall of its vain protagonists, set against a backdrop of corrupt aristocracy, is a critique of the era’s decaying social order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

American Psycho<\/em>, likely the book I re-read the most, was a razor-sharp critique of consumerism in the eighties, & an in-depth look at the existential void of its protagonist, Patrick Bateman<\/a>. I praise the author Ellis’ brilliant use of first-person narration to reveal the ugly underside of yuppie culture, while maintaining dark humor in its unflinching portrayal of moral decay. A world where we buy balloons and let them go. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

50th<\/sup> Law<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In which I reviewed the 50th<\/sup><\/span> Law, by Robert Greene, with 50 Cent,<\/a> a ten chapter book about fearlessness. Mostly based on 50 Cent’s life and various historical figures, the book offers insights on overcoming fear. Although it was engaging, it felt repetitive. A compelling read, but still left me wondering\u2014what about the 49th law?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also reviewed films, like The Fountain<\/em>, an ambitious love story set in three timelines – 16th century, present day and the far-flung future<\/a>. It explores themes of life, death, and immortality in a visually impressive, symbol-laden narrative. <\/span>Not everyone got it, but those who did found a profound meditation on the nature of existence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I borrowed elements from literary critique and applied them to “The Wire.” In the final season, the creator David Simon unfortunately strays from the nuanced character portrayals<\/a> and opted for clich\u00e9d good vs. bad roles. A disappointing oversimplification in a series otherwise known for its complex, morally ambiguous storytelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my review of Mr. Robot<\/em>‘s first season<\/a>, I argue that the show reinterprets the anti-capitalist themes of Fight Club<\/em> and American Psycho<\/em> for the 21st century. With Mr. Robot as a modern Tyler Durden and Tyrell Wellick as a twisted Patrick Bateman, the series depicts a world where the battleground has moved from consumerism to big data and surveillance. Unlike its cinematic predecessors, Mr. Robot<\/em> isn’t just about chaos; it’s a deeper critique of corporate culture.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top 10 rankings<\/b><\/span> (listicles)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the twisty Memento<\/em> and epic Lord of the Rings<\/em> to the gritty realism of City of God<\/em>, the 2000s delivered unforgettable films<\/a>. The Incredibles<\/em> charmed with superhero satire, while Children of Men<\/em> painted a bleak future. No Country for Old Men<\/em> and The Dark Knight<\/em> gave us iconic villains. And for a raw look at relationships, Closer<\/em> hit the mark. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The best time travel films offer fresh perspectives on human nature and time itself. From the cult classic Donnie Darko<\/em> to the iconic Back to the Future<\/em>, these movies demonstrate time travel’s complexities and paradoxes<\/a>, and yet transcends the narrative gimmick.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The best post-apocalyptic films bring the aftermath of global catastrophes to celluloid life<\/a>. From the iconic WALL-E<\/em>, which critiques consumer culture, to the gritty world of The Road Warrior<\/em>, these films offer compelling visions of survival and desolation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The best dystopian films consists of bleak societies that has degenerated to some type of authoritarian control.<\/a> From the futuristic noir of Blade Runner<\/em> to the chillingly plausible genetic stratification in Gattaca<\/em>, they display the dark corners of human nature and societal fears. This list includes the absurdist bureaucracy of Brazil<\/em>, the haunting fertility crisis in Children of Men<\/em>, and the chaotic rebellion of V for Vendetta<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The only game I reviewed was God of War III<\/em>, where mythology and intense action collide as you unleash Kratos on a revenge-fueled rampage against the Olympian gods<\/a>. With breathtaking graphics and brutal gameplay, this game delivers epic battles and jaw-dropping visuals. However, it sticks to a familiar formula and lacks depth in storytelling.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Game of Thrones<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was no way I’d pass the chance to review the last great monoculture event, Game of Thrones<\/em>. So, I started with “Winter is Coming,” a gripping opener that brings George R.R. Martin’s epic fantasy to life<\/a>, a promising start to an epic series that pulls no punches. In “Kingsroad,”<\/a> the show continued its gritty exploration of Westeros with more violence, intrigue, and complex character dynamics. While some adaptations from the book to screen feel lacking, particularly with the Dothraki scenes, the show began to find its footing by balancing humor, drama, amidst brutal realism. Then I finally reviewed the first season of Game of Thrones<\/em> <\/a>in its entirety. While show-only fans might miss the book’s depth, particularly in Daenerys’ development and the absence of major battles, the series did excel in intrigue and political drama. I was excited to see how it evolved!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Towards the end of the series, I began to realize Daenerys Targaryen might be the true villain<\/a>, particularly after her recent shift towards conquest without moral justification. But I knew Game of Thrones’ complexity was already beyond simple good vs. evil narratives. Drawing parallels with the War of the Roses and Queen Elizabeth I, I argued that Daenerys’ potential rule will be marked by necessary brutality, subverting the fantasy genre’s tropes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Best Anime<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I started watching Anime in earnest during the first half of the 2010s. That means following fansubbed anime 4 to 8 hours after they broadcasted in Japan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From genre-bending magic in Madoka Magica<\/em> to the mind-bending mystery of Steins;Gate<\/em>, 2011’s top anime offered unforgettable experiences.<\/a> Mawaru PenguinDrum<\/em> dazzled with symbolism, Mirai Nikki<\/em> thrilled with its chaotic diary battles, and Usagi Drop<\/em> charmed with heartfelt slice-of-life moments. The comedic Level E<\/em> and the epic Fate\/Zero<\/em> kept us hooked, while Un-Go<\/em> and Dantalian no Shoka<\/em> intrigued with their layered mysteries. Star Driver<\/em> shone with style but lacked depth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2012, anime delivered a standout lineup<\/a> with shows like the sports-drama fusion Chihayafuru<\/em>, the darkly intellectual Fate\/Zero<\/em>, and the cyber-dystopian thriller PSYCHO-PASS<\/em>. Nisemonogatari<\/em> brought unique characters and stunning animation, while Shinsekai Yori<\/em> shocked with its eerie, post-apocalyptic world. From the hilarious Space Brothers<\/em> to the earnest Mouretsu Pirates<\/em>, the year was a showcase of genre-blending brilliance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By 2013, I could tell that the anime industry was losing its high-level momentum from the 2000s<\/a>. This year brought a mix of standout anime, led by the unsettling Aku no Hana<\/em> with its unique rotoscoping and disturbing narrative. Highlights also included the hilarious Watamote<\/em>, the rich storytelling of Monogatari Second Season<\/em>, and the thrilling Shingeki no Kyojin<\/em>, which elevated its manga origins to new heights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2014, anime fizzled out with just two major hits<\/a>: Space Dandy<\/em> and Kill la Kill<\/em>. Space Dandy<\/em> dazzled with its anthology format, pushing creative boundaries in each episode, while Kill la Kill<\/em> delivered a wild, adrenaline-pumping spectacle with its over-the-top action and unique style. Despite the creativity of these two shows, the year was otherwise underwhelming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also reviewed a couple of animes by themselves: Mirai Nikki<\/em> is a wild ride of chaos and drama<\/a>, where contestants wield Future Diaries to survive a deadly game. Featuring the unforgettable yandere Yuno and reluctant hero Yukiteru, this anime masterfully balances absurdity with intense storytelling. It’s a thrilling, addictive experience that keeps you on the edge of your seat. Evangelion 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo<\/em> is a confusing mix of brilliant chaos<\/a>, with a jarring time jump and characters backsliding into old flaws. While it fails to deliver a coherent narrative, it excels at capturing the classic “WTF” Evangelion vibe, leaving viewers both frustrated and intrigued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Self-Portrait<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my 2005 blog, I explored the contrast between intellectuals and pragmatists.<\/a> Intellectuals often get lost in abstract ideals, missing out on life’s simple pleasures, while pragmatists excel at handling real-world challenges. The ideal person strikes a balance, combining deep thought with practical wisdom. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In my early Wittgenstein-inflected days, I argued that ethical judgments are essentially nonsense<\/a>, as they claim to be absolute but lack empirical validation. Since ethics can’t be tested or logically proven, they are inherently meaningless in describing reality, making all ethical judgments a useless passion without grounding in truth.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a follow-up blog on morality, I discussed the notion that moral beliefs are not universal truths but social constructs shaped by customs and power dynamics<\/a>. Morality often acts as a facade, hiding true intentions and stifling independent thought. I suggest that moral judgments don’t reflect inherent truths but are merely symptoms of cultural attitudes used to control behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My first attempt at blogging on hypocrisy<\/a>, what La Rochefoucauld defines as “the respect vice pays to virtue.” It’s despised today, especially when exposed in politicians. In Stendhal’s The Red and the Black<\/em>, hypocrisy is a survival tool in a society obsessed with appearances, forcing characters like Julien to fake virtue for success, highlighting the artificiality and inequality of societal norms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since this blog is named Heterodoxia, I felt obligated to expose dogmatism, how it stifles philosophical inquiry with rigid, unquestioned beliefs<\/a>. True philosophy thrives on skepticism and adaptability, questioning even fundamental principles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stupidity causes more suffering than outright evil<\/a>, as people rely on rationality to navigate life. Once rationality is abandoned, they become unbalanced, clinging to outdated dogmas like mummified concepts. Philosophy, as a tool of unlearning, combats these rigid beliefs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Good conversation:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I contextualized good conversation by determining what is out of bounds, such as politics & religion<\/a>. Those topics are dangerous ground for conversation, because conversation seeks social approval & has historically shifted from family values to consumer-driven identity. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cynicism, bah! Born from the Enlightenment’s dismantling of absolutes, cynicism leads to misery by forcing us to uphold principles we no longer believe in. <\/a>Thankfully, Sloterdijk offers an alternative: kynicism, which embraces cheeky realism and life-affirming irreverence. Unlike cynics, who are trapped in institutions they disdain, kynics reject hierarchical systems, opting for bold, playful defiance. Color & joy over bleak & chic nihilism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sure, we all like to think we have our own philosophy of life, but most of us stop short, settling on half-baked conclusions without real reasoning<\/a>. Such flimsy convictions quickly harden into dogmas, suffocating true philosophical thought. The best conversations? They come from the curious dilettante or the playful sophist, rather than the dogmatic fundamentalist who shuts down discourse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I analyzed how in the 11th episode of Fate\/Zero<\/em> presented a riveting debate between Saber (King Arthur), Rider (Alexander the Great), and Archer (Gilgamesh)<\/a> on their distinctive moralities. Arthur embodies the self-sacrificing savior, while Alexander personifies the conquering hedonist, reflecting Nietzsche’s “slave” and “noble” moralities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once I had the delusion of writing a book on the New Seven Deadly Vices<\/b>. <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ignorance:<\/strong><\/a> Willful indifference to knowledge stifles growth and perpetuates self-deception. In our postmodern world, it’s not just bliss; it’s a barrier. Embrace curiosity, reject complacency, and while knowledge liberates, ignorance enchains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Seriousness<\/strong><\/a>: earnest, grave, and self-righteous, seriousness is the gateway to dogmatism and hypocrisy. It kills levity, stifles flexibility, and locks you into rigid positions. Embrace irony, parody, and wit instead. A playful life isn’t just important\u2014it’s essential.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mediocrity<\/a><\/strong>: the lazy choice of conformity over individuality. In our mass market age, fitting in is the norm, leading to inauthenticity and irrelevance. Reject the banal, the clich\u00e9s, and the derivative. Embrace the new, take risks, and live dangerously. Your identity is yours to create.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Prudery<\/a><\/strong>: the enemy of pleasure and champion of hypocrisy. Obsessed with appearances and moral absolutes, prudes deny basic human nature, fostering repression and neuroses. Their self-righteousness masks self-loathing and fuels harmful judgments like slut shaming. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Humility<\/a><\/strong>: often a mask for pride, it’s a feigned submissiveness used to dominate. Historically, it\u2019s the tool of the weak and a strategy of control by the priestly class. Humility stifles ambition and fuels hypocrisy. Instead, embrace modesty\u2014honest self-awareness without false pretense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Self-Deception<\/a><\/strong>: the ultimate vice of lying to oneself. It disguises hypocrisy as virtue and feeds our vanity. We indulge in self-deception to avoid facing our true desires. To break free, we must reject complacency and embrace sincere self-reflection. It\u2019s the hardest vice to overcome, as we are our own best deceivers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boredom<\/a><\/strong>: the bane of the unimaginative. While modernity’s Langeweile<\/em> is inevitable, kurzeweile<\/em> challenges us to create. Only the dull and lazy see boredom as an enemy. Embrace it like Newton did, and transform drudgery into mastery. Life’s too rich to be boring\u2014find fascination in the mundane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I even created the master vices that contained about half of the aforementioned vices:<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intolerance<\/a><\/strong>: born from ignorance, mediocrity, and seriousness, intolerance rejects difference, fostering ignorance by confusing rejection of ideas with rejection of people. Mediocrity loathes the unorthodox, and seriousness stifles humor and wit, breeding narrow-mindedness. Tolerance, while not a virtue, is a lesser evil than intolerance. Embrace modesty in knowledge and avoid complacency of convictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hypocrisy<\/a><\/strong>: encompassing humility, self-deception, and prudery, hypocrisy is pretending to uphold values one doesn\u2019t possess. It distorts self-reflection to avoid inner conflict. Humility becomes a facade, and prudery hides true desires behind false propriety. Ultimately, hypocrisy turns sincerity into an ethical battleground, blending roles and reality until the actor forgets it’s just a performance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For graduate school, I wrote an essay discussing whether psychopaths were moral monsters or glimpses of our future<\/a>. I took a hard look at the unsettling world of psychopathy, and tried to challenge the traditional views of moral reasoning. While philosophers debate whether psychopaths threaten moral rationalism, the real threat may lie in our outdated understanding of the mind. With eliminative materialism and neuroscience on the rise, psychopaths could be the harbingers of a future where our brains\u2014and not our moral compasses\u2014dictate behavior.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I wrote two blogs on narcissism. For the first one, it all started with a mirror\u2014the birth of self-consciousness and the tragic tale of Narcissus<\/a>, who drowned in despair after falling in love with his own reflection. From Ovid’s myth to the moralists of the 17th century and Freud’s psychoanalytic theories, narcissism has evolved from a simple self-love to a complex force that drives human behavior. Whether as a paralyzing self-interest or a creative energy, narcissism shapes our identities, reflecting both our enchantment with ourselves and the melancholy of our separation from the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the 21st century, narcissism has shifted from personal relationships to social media followers, reflecting a deep cultural malaise<\/a>. Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism<\/em> warned of a society obsessed with self-image and external validation, a prophecy now fulfilled in our technocapitalistic echo chambers. As we indulge in our self-love, we become trapped in illusions, detached from reality. The millennial generation’s Occupy Wall Street movement, with its ironic double standards, exemplifies this narcissistic culture. Can we escape this cycle, or are we destined to remain a society of self-absorbed phonies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rage fuels today\u2019s political chaos, yet it’s often ignored. As the ancient concept of thymos<\/em> shows, rage is both destructive and transformative<\/a>. In a world of widening inequality and social impotence, rage can be a tool for justice\u2014if harnessed with purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I also argued that we should Get off Facebook<\/a> for many reasons: Facebook promised connection but delivered chaos. Our utopian dreams of social media reshaping politics have instead given rise to misinformation, division, and the erosion of privacy. Digital communication has replaced meaningful interaction with noise and narcissism. As we drown in a sea of information, the line between reality and hyperreality blurs. It\u2019s time to face the unsettling truth: we\u2019re all part of the digital swarm, but escaping it might be our only chance for a better tomorrow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science Fiction<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since 1968, every sci-fi film has been in conversation with Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey<\/em><\/a>. Unlike typical sci-fi, 2001<\/em> transcends the genre through symbolic imagery and philosophical exploration, posing profound questions about existence. In contrast, its sequel 2010<\/em> and other genre films often feel dated, tied to their era’s limitations. The true successors to 2001<\/em> are those that, like it, break free from genre conventions to become cinematic masterpieces.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science fiction is split along a fault line of optimism and pessimism<\/a>. Yet, the future won’t be purely utopian or dystopian\u2014more likely, it will be a chaotic mix of both. As sci-fi continues to reflect our hopes and fears, it reminds us that to shape the future we want, we must confront the one we have.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Science fiction has lost its edge, retreating into nostalgia and irony rather than confronting the future<\/a>. As it blends with fantasy and leans on alternative histories, the genre has become inward-looking and complacent, losing its relevance and vitality. Without the courage to engage with reality, sci-fi risks fading into irrelevance, trapped in its own past.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Westworld’s finale did more than deliver a bang; it explored Julian Jaynes’ theory of the bicameral mind.<\/a> Instead of a typical glitch, the hosts break free through the evolution of complex language, echoing the ancient shift from divine commands to self-awareness. The maze isn\u2019t a journey upward, but inward\u2014a path to consciousness that only the hosts can navigate, leading to a revolt that feels both inevitable and deeply satisfying.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

 <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Today is my 45th birthday, so I thought I’d do a retrospective. After 10-plus years and 200-some odd posts, I thought it was about time to write a post about this blog, and re-contextualize some of them for new readers. A little history: I originally started this blog over at blogspot.com when it was hip … Continue reading Heterodoxia Blog Compliation<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p1Af2X-qZ","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1673"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1673"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1673\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2033,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1673\/revisions\/2033"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1673"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1673"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.hyperboreans.com\/heterodoxia\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1673"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}