Sunday, November 5, 2017
[Daylight Savings Time Ends]
But an action (properly speaking of the word) requires an intention; an action isn’t just a bunch of motion. And since automatons lack intention, they also lack the capacity for action. Only persons can perform actions because a person knows what she is aiming for, and why.
Saturday, October 7, 2017 🌦️
Some of us, I suspect, have grown excessively lazy in satisfying this special duty of ours. We let other people speak for us, when they shouldn’t. We passively accept the words, explanations and reasons that come from so-called “authority figures” (some of whom are philosophers), without investigating our own hearts and minds to see whether they’ve gotten it right or not. We just accept that they must know, somehow, since they are the so-called “experts.” But by settling for pragmatic or comfortable explanations, we inevitably settle for an existence that lacks genuineness.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017.
I think that it helps to say that what we often consider to be “objectivity” is actually a “universal subjectivity.” According to the Hesiodic Muses, the only true objectivity is the fact of the existence of matter, force, void, numbers, contrasts, motion, location — but also our own minds. The conceptual content produced by our minds are not objective things. Nevertheless, the phenomenological experience of our world may indeed be universal to beings like us. But, to my understanding, “universality” isn’t quite the same thing as “objectivity.”
Monday, October 2, 2017.
And also, sometimes people even equate “being rational” with “being the same” — ie, being “homo.” For instance, people who share a certain relevant physiological feature might come to similar conclusions about things when presented with the same body of evidence, or they might have similar appetites when presented with the same stimulus.
Monday, September 18, 2017 .
“I learned this, at least, by my experiment; that if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.” (Thoreau, Walden)
Saturday, September 16, 2017
In the stories of old, the cosmos is different. In the stories of old, even Zeus (who is also called “Mind” by some) bends and acquiesces. Thetis is said to have forced a nod from Zeus by tugging on his chin. And Zeus is not immune to Aphrodite’s powers, nor is he above the appraisal of Hera or the judgments of the fates. The pantheon of polytheism requires a balance between powers which is not always found in the cultures with the tyrannical history of your typical kingship. These latter are the ones that are eventually overthrown — if not in name, then in actuality. What lasts is not a monotheism, but a polytheistic pantheonism. It is the way of Zeus, for he does not “rule” as a basileus, does but as a god does among fellow gods. That is aletheia, for whatever it’s “worth”.
Monday, September 11, 2017 🌜
I can see why consistency and reliability is in general a beneficial thing, but I also don’t think that consistency and reliability is the actually best thing to have by itself. I would think that a bit of irrationality is what allows us to not only exist safe and sound, but also to thrive.
Sunday, September 10, 2017.
Now, I take all of what she has said up to this point to mean that a person can assent to theoretical beliefs and even give justifications for holding them etc, and still not be convinced of the truth/goodness of such beliefs. That is, she can entertain them as theories — even great and excellent and optimal theories — but, it would still remain the fact that she does not have sufficient faith in such theories to act on account of those beliefs.