My thoughts have gained international recognition

It is approximately 6 o’clock, post meridiem, on Thursday, October the eighth. To the excitation of my vanity, the number of people who have viewed my musings has risen significantly in the past few days. But what really sent me soul close to road to Vanity Fair was the realization of the meaning of the statistic showing that people have viewed my page on October the ninth. The ninth will not come to any part of the United States for at least another three hours, which means that there are individual persons who are viewing my writings from the other side of the world. The implications of this manifestation are undoubtedly paramount. If I can gain international acclaim on a not oft used blog then surely, surely, there is existent within me actual potential for the acquisition of a real writing position some place, some where.

“My logic is undeniable“

This was my reply when a professor asked me to write on my own personal epistemology

It was freshman year that I first became aware of the word epistemology. David provided a handy, catchy and easy to remember definition for it which consisted of the answer to the question “How do I know what I know and how do I know that I know it?” – a less tongue twister version of the same question would be “What does it mean to call something true, and what are the means for finding out that that thing is true?”. Some years later, I now find myself somewhat more familiar with the meaning and discussion of epistemology, but if one was to ask me what my personal epistemology was I would have to confess that I have no idea how to answer them.

There are, to my mind, two particular points of difficulty that form the crux of the problem which I face when confronted with this question.

The first point of difficulty lies in what I feel is a general lack of knowledge and ability to talk about the issue. I mentioned above that I am now more familiar with the conversation on epistemology than I was prior – but I mean that in the way that first year German student is more familiar with the language after taking classes for a few quarters than is a person who has gone completely without. Yes, he is able to speak and understand a few phrases and can grapple with the syntax a bit, but he is far from being able to engage in a conversation with a native German that has any degree of depth and profundity. This is how I feel about epistemology. I am familiar with the lingo, but when it comes to the epistemology of my life personally I feel again slightly perplexed as to what that means. It seems that what I have knowledge of is a smashing of scattered notions, camps, positions, categories and truth claims. But this scattering is rather incomplete, and what the significance and meaning of them beyond abstract theory is is completely beyond me.

This leads into the second point: how do these terms about truth play out in every day life? This is an even bigger point of tension: if I am being asked about my own personal epistemology then I am being asked how it is that these notions, camps, positions and categories take significance and impact my own personal existential existence. I cannot answer that because I am not sure what any of those terms mean outside of the abstract.

To at least provide something on the topic of epistemology, here is at least some information on the topic I am cognizant of:

On the subject of what it means to call something true, there are straight away two competing theories or perspectives that can be put on the table: the correspondence theory of truth, and the coherence theory of truth. Those who hold the correspondence theory of truth would say that to claim something is true is to say that there is a direct correspondence to reality, i.e., a statement is true is if is an accurate and legitimate manifestation of objective reality. Those who hold a coherence theory of truth would have none of this: for them, something is true if and when it is internally consistent, regardless of whether or not there is any correspondence to the external world. The distinction between this is best and most easily seen in the realm of mathematics. Euclid, a holder of the correspondence theory, would say that his geometry is true because it is a system of logically certain deduction based on true and indisputable postulates. Because his postulates are accurate representations of reality, his propositions are also accurate representations, and thus they are true as well. If his postulates were false, then he would call the system false, regardless of whether or not his deduction was flawless. As such, Euclid (or Aristotle, or Plato, or Reid) would call non-Euclidean geometry false – for the very reason that it had illegitimate postulates. Coherence theory of truth holders (Frege, Cantor, Russell) would contest this, and say that non-Euclidean geometry is just as true as Euclidean because both systems are internally consistent and merely have their own unique foundations.

Post-modern relativists would probably hold a similar claim and present a similar argument to those modern mathematicians, saying if you do not hold any views that are contradictory to one another, then your views are true – true for you.

Another pair of groups that are undoubtedly related in some way to the views mentioned above are the Realists and the Nominalists. These two terms are most commonly found in the realm of philosophy, particularly in regard to the problem of universals and particulars. Universals are broad, general concepts, such as justice, beauty, goodness etc. Particulars are individual instances of that concept that play out in the world. For example, a beautiful flower, a beautiful picture or a beautiful woman are all unique particulars of the same universal: beauty. Realists such as Plato or Aristotle would believe that these universals are real, actual, objective things – not just tags we create within our minds for the purpose of organization. Justice is a real thing separate from us, not just a category into which we put particular instances. Nominalists hold the inverse of this opinion. There are no actual universal ideas apart from our minds; they are but arbitrary distinctions that we/our minds create for the purpose of order and organization.

Another couple of terms that come up when the question of truth is on the table are rationalism and empiricism. These two terms are generally put into the context of scientific discovery and exploration, they are two different scientific modes of thought. Rationalism emphasizes mental reasoning over the use of induction and gathering of empirical data: if you think diligently and carefully you can come to knowledge of how things work. The stereotype mascot of rationalism is Descartes, sitting in an arm chair, speculating as to the nature of the world. Empiricism, on the other hand, emphasizes the use and gathering of empirical data and evidence. How do we come to knowledge of the world? By investigating it, not by thinking about it. Francis Bacon and David Hume and typical examples of adherents to Empiricism.

I could go on presenting more terms and categories, but it would not serve to answer the question of what my personal epistemology is. The greatest difficulty here is finding out how it is all these terms and definitions work together. The way that I understand them is in relation to a particular field only. But if I isolate and separate these terms and relate them to particular categories only, then their significance will never leave the abstract. My own life and personal existence is not cut into particular distinct groups, and as such, it is hard to make epistemology into something that can be applied. When I look at life as a consistent whole, how can I make epistemology apply when it is cut up into particular segments?

This is the question that I face.

Post Cigarette Musing

It is often the case that a certain sequence flashes through my mind when I am nearing the end of a cigarette. Becoming aware of the smoldering tobacco closing in on the filter which is pressed between my fingers induces an image from an unknown movie, seen sometime long ago. My hand become the hand of a woman as she is crouching down near the floor of her apartment flat. She is gazing off into nothingness, her face completely blank – she is in shock. In front of her lies the body of a man, her friend, dead, lying face up. Police are only around, addressing the crime scene, a forensics officer is crouched down near her, examining the body. The woman started the cigarette because she was stressing – understandably, her friend just being murdered – but went into shock shortly after lighting it.

There is a beautiful moment that is about to occur. The cigarette continues to burn and before long begins to smolder the woman’s fingers as it burns down toward the filter; she does not know this, she is in complete shock. At this instant the forensics officer suddenly looks up and quickly removes the burning cigarette from her hand. There is a moment where awareness, acknowledgment and concern hit the officer simultaneously, in one instant, and he forgets his work and looks to this woman’s well being. This moment of connection plays through my mind again and again, and has come to me often through various cigarettes over the years.

Particles/Waves ~~ Freewill/Predestination

Erasmus and Luther – bless your souls, both of you! And this despite your propensity, and perhaps your requirement, to hash out to the end details of subjects which in the end might indeed be entirely unnecessary.  That poor horse was beaten to death oh so many times.  And continues to be beat, again and again, up unto this day.  There will be no rest and no peace for such a horse until the end up this age, thinks I, the speculative one.

With the reading of the exchange between Erasmus and Luther on PreDes and Freewill, the argument was brought back into class again.  However, I started thinking differently about it this time.  I began to compare it to quantum mechanics, and the conclusions I reached for myself there.  Look back.

So there’s particles.  And there’s waves.  These are two totally entirely different things.  Or perhaps entirely different ways of being for something.  Whatever.  And then there’s electrons (or photons and light etc if you want).  Is it a particle, or is it a wave?  With the experiements that started in the 20s, the question was completley blown out into the open.

You start with two options: 1 or 2.  1 is particles, 2 is waves.  Is the electron 1 or is it 2?  The presupposition up until then was that it must be either/or.  Experiments changed the options.  Instead of either/or, it was decided an electron was neither/nor.  My critique was that both/and was never explored.

Put this same matter of division on predestination and freewill.  Same categorical options.  There are four possibilities now.  Either 1, or 2; Neither 1 nor 2; Both 1 and 2.

~

Option 1: Men have freewill.  Predestination is false.

Option 2: All things are predestined.  Freewill is false.

——–

Option 3: Men have no freewill, neither are things predestined/determined.  All is indeterminate.

Option 4: Men have freewill and predestination is true.

~

This is a different way of looking at it, to me anyway.

Debates

I feel that often it is the case that the biggest arguments I have with people in discussion occur when they assert a particular point that I myself believe, but wonder if I ought not.

Hm.  I don’t think that captures the sensation I’m trying to articulate at all.  To be particular, I’m thinking of a particular discussion where Erin was arguing against the use of rhetoric – in a manner of speaking, that rhetoric is by nature an unjustified tool of persuasion.  I think that I hold the same opinion as her, and yet have inklings that I’m missing something.  As such, I argued vehemently (or at least did so mentally) against the notion she was presenting; even if I didn’t entirely hold my vehemently expressed arguments.

The less sure I am about something, the more fiercely I insist it.

The less sure I am about something, the more fiercely I insist it.

Am buried in the church-ground

“..the day that I am buried in the church-grounds…”

This is a phrase from a song that I was playing while diligently writing out my German flash cards.  It sparked a line of thought concerning what the signifiance was of being buried inside the church grounds.  A great many churches, perhaps more traditionally than presently, have graveyards on some portion of the church property; it is a common image, ghosts always haunting the church grave-yard.  And that sequenced another memory, from either a Martin Luther biography, or that Luther movie – one of the two.  Luther is causing a huge commotion by insisting on burying, eventually doing the work himself, a boy inside the church graveyard.  The raucous was due to the fact that the boy hung himself, suicide.  Suicides go directly to hell, no change of redemption.  As such, the boy does not have salvation and cannot be buried in the graveyard of the church.  The chuchyard is only for the redeemed.

Then there is the idea of demons and/or spirits and deities of any notorious variety being unable to pass the threshold of the church.  Or depending on which story you read, cannot pass beyond the church gate.

What is perplexing, and what is ultimately (excuse) keeping me from my German cards is the question of what is so significant about being within the church yard/gate/threshold etc.  What makes it safe?  What about its  ground solidifies salvation?  Where in the world does the notion even come from?  For I have difficulty thinking that anyone could believe the idea that the soil changes somehow once a white-painted post is planted into the ground.  Would the amount of sacred ground have been increased if the contractor has built the white-picket fence ten feet further out?

How could the acting/placing of a physical substance upon another physical substance ever induce a spiritual consequence?  In the end, ultimately, this is not just a question about burials and churchyards.  It could be about spirituality in general.

Karl amazes himself at his ability to procrastinate

I dont think I have been this productive since, well since finals week last quarter.  I have my finances reasonably organized, contacted various venues that can earn me supplemental income in the coming months, repotted plants in my room that need repotting, cleaned my room unto a new level of orderliness, created blueprints for shelves that will be installed around my ceiling tonight, chopped wood for the wood-burning stove, cleaned my car (somewhat), searched all areas of my abode for change and then converted it into dollar amounts at the bank, paid all my outstanding bills, did complete maintence on my computer, purchased a new external drive via Ebay so that I can properly back up my data (and subsequently updated all my account information for both Ebay and Paypal), gotten back in touch with several friends and contacts mit whom i’ve been out of touch with…etc.

I wonder what other productive things I can do to put off writing my term papers.

Synopsizing ‘The Aeneid’

The Aeneid is the epic story of the founding of ‘greatest city in the history of the world’.  Composed by the poet Virgil – at the behest of Caesar Augustus – it is modeled after the style of Homer, combining together elements of both The Iliad and The Odyssey.  In addition to similar circumstantial content of the aforementioned writings, the themes are mimicked as well: the first six books of The Aeneid being the Trojan ‘Odyssey’ – in a manner of speaking – and the last six being the Trojan ‘Iliad’.

The tale begins with Aeneas leading a band of Trojans, the survivors of the destruction of Troy, across the sea.  Aeneas has been told by the gods that his people are destined to establish a powerful city in Italy.  The first half of the book is about the adventurous voyage and the trials the Trojans face along the way.  Upon arrival in Italy, the Trojans find that they are not exactly welcomed by the native Latins, but instead face hostilities on all sides: this is the context of the second half of the work.  Having arrived in Italy, the Trojans must now fight heroically to establish themselves.  And they do so – gloriously.

The most striking part of the work, and I think important not to miss, is the dealing with of fate and destiny.  The story is not just of the founding of Rome, but also of how Rome was destined to be.  Over and over during the voyage at sea the Trojans almost stop and settle but cannot – the gods have decreed that Rome must be.  And despite being warred upon by a greater foe, the Trojans triumph because they have been destined to do so.  Rome is not a city that happened by chance; glorious Rome was preordained in annals of history.  The Aeneid is the story of the founding of that glorious city, the city that was decreed by the gods.

The Aeneid – Books X-XII

As book X begins, a declaration is made by Jupiter, king of gods and men: no gods will be further involved; what is done now is done by the wills of men.  As the battle rages on, Aeneas returns down the river with thousands of reinforcements.  Valiant Pallas, leading the Arcadians against the Latins, is slain by mighty Turnus.  Aeneas, in turn, fells both malignant Mezentius and his luckless son.  Juno, frightened for Turnus’ life, whisks him back to the city.

The Latin line is beginning to falter when Camilla enters the scene with auxiliaries for Turnus.  She and her cavalry raise havoc amongst the Trojans and their allies until Arruns manages to snipe her from afar.  Aeneas and his men then charge to Laurentum’s walls before night finally falls.

As Aurora breaks, a pact is made to end the war by dual: Aeneas will battle Turnus hand to hand; winner takes all.  But the Latins break the pact before the dual can take place, sending both peoples back into open combat.  As fighting ensues, Aeneas pursues Turnus around the battlefield.  They circle the field five times before Aeneas finally manages to wound him.  The epic tale ends with Aeneas plunging his sword deep into Turnus’ chest.

The Aeneid – Books VII-IX

The Trojans have landed at Latium and sent emissaries to King Latinius, who who gladly welcomes them and beseeches Aeneas to marry his daughter – thus uniting the two nations.  Turnus, the would-be suitor to the king’s daughter, is furious (having been “branded” by Allecto), and rallies the kingdoms and tribes of Italy to fight by his side in driving the Trojans out of Latium.

But the Trojans will not be standing alone.  The god of the Tiber river sends Aeneas to King Evander, the Acadian king of Pallenteum, who is always at war with the Latins.  In him the Trojans find a valiant ally, potentially equipped with an army of Etruscans.  Additionally, Venus persuades Vulcan to forge for Aeneas a royal suit of armor, fitted with a shield that tells of the future victories of Rome.

However, while Aeneas is away Turnus has unleashed his machine of war, surrounding the Trojan encampment.  Blood is spilt on both sides, and heroic deeds flare.  Book IX ends with Turnus, having entered and raised havoc in the Trojan camp, being repulsed into the Tiber.