Recent Posts
September 12th 2009 07:30
In the bible, Matthew 7:16 to be precise, it states that "by their fruits you shall know them". What this means, by analogy of how well a fruit can bear fruit, is that you can know somebody by their outward manifestations. I will analyse and expand upon the implications of this in more detail:
Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, in Beyond Good and Evil:
"Gradually it has become clear to me what every great philosophy so far has been: namely, the personal confession of its author and a kind of involuntary and unconscious memoir"
In other words, he is professing the very same idea that Jesus proposed in the Bible, that is, you can know someone by their outward manifestations. This is almost an anti-philosophical idea, for the purpose of philosophy is to find that which is objective through the use of reason. According to Nietzsche, though, all someone's philosophy tells us is not that which is true, but that which they believe; in other words, their subjective outlook upon life.
Let's look at another example: my own blogs. What is interesting is that as I was writing them, I was trying to be as objective as possible. And really, I thought I was being objective, I mean, I was using reason after all, wasn't I? But let's look at some of the blog titles:
If you're bored then you're boring
Judge not, lest ye be judged
Familiarity breeds contempt (about how one gets tired of another after too much time with them)
You can never step in the same river twice (regarding identity issues)
Can you see a common thread here?? It is quite clear that in analysing these issues, I was also revealing the essence of my personality. Someone who is concerned with being bored, someone who is concerned about judgement from others, someone who gets tired from too much company with others... this person (me) is an introvert, with possible social anxiety and perhaps even schizoid tendencies. Their highly analytical nature suggests a strong logical thinking capacity, and the fact that it is applied to the subject rather than the object (the self rather than the world) means that this thinking is of an introverted nature. And here I was thinking that I was discussing pertinent issues! All I was doing was revealing my subjective experience of things, bearing my fruits if you will (perhaps on an intuitive level I knew this was true, and hence why I was a bit embarrassed about showing my blog to people I know).
Now a sceptic might say, "oh, but this is a personal blog, proper academic philosophy or something such as science is free from such subjectivity". Science is a hard one to answer, but philosophy is certainly not free from the subjective. Whatever your beliefs are, they will reveal as much about yourself as they do the world. The reason foe this is that through engaging in an activity, whether it's science, philosophy, sex or whatever else, we automatically reveal our preference for that activity. We obviously value it over other activities at that point in time, otherwise we would do something else (unless we're forced to do that thing, which would still reveal something about our subjective experience).
So where to now for me? For someone who desperately wanted to use the objective in order to escape from the suffering of the subjective? I'm not sure. My subject (self) has a unique relationship with the object (world) and the wrestling between the two is something that will occur as long as I'm alive.
I have been doing a lot of thinking recently, and a lot of observing (yeah I know, what's new). Something that has become clear to me is the truth of the saying, "it takes one to know one". Yes I know this comment is often used in jest, for example:
Kid 1: You're an idiot
Kid 2: Takes one to know one
but I think the saying has a far more profound truth as well. In fact, it could really sum up the whole idea of the subjectivity of truth and reality, and why idealists such Schopenhauer believe that the world is Will.
For example, I see myself as a philosopher in that I am concerned with ideas, with possibilities and with principles. This is actually a trait very typical of the introverted thinker. As such, anyone who is drawn to or resonates with my thoughts must be utilising introverted thought. If they do not have the capacity or interest for introverted thought in the way that I do, then what I am saying will fly right over their head, their eyes will glaze over and I will most likely be met with a blank look.
I used to think this lack of understanding I encountered in other people was due to a lack of intelligence on their part, but this is not always so. I have come across very very intelligent people who have next to no interest in what I have to say. Why is this? Well, it's very often because they are people who prefer extroverted thinking. These people are concerned less with abstract principles, and more concerned with externals that exist in the world. A quote which sums up, to me, this extroverted thought is one from Karl Marx:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. The point is, however, to change it.
Now that attitude is just about incommensurable with mine. If I was to meet Karl Marx, it is likely that he would see my opinions as kind of useless or irrelevant. He might say, stop trying to interpret the world and start trying to change it.
I don't want to make this solely about the introvert/extrovert difference, however I think it is a very good example of how it takes one to know one. I'll give more examples, and there are plenty of them, next time.
I have never been one for titles. I have little to no ambition for achieving a high position in anything, in getting letters next to my name, or in receiving any awards. I think that they are a very poor gauge of the quality of a person. The quality of a person should instead be measured by the person. And by "person" I don't mean the sum someone's abstract qualities, I mean what they put into life every day. For example, Jack Kerouac should be judged on his works, not by how many awards he has won. Pearl Jam should be judged by their music, not by how many records they've sold. The big difference in doing this, though, is that it's not really a "judgement" at all. If I listen to Pearl Jam and am moved, that has nothing to do with judging. If I am caught up in the words of Kerouac, that has nothing to do with judging. All that is is an affectation. Titles, though, are always about judging, about awarding someone according to their honour or achievements or some other abstract invention. All they do is reward the ambitious, and I dislike ambition. It is not honest. I read an article that ambitious students are much more likely to cheat on their exams. You see, ambition is all about getting titles or marks or sales targets or whatever. It is never about service or contribution, otherwise it would not be called ambition.
Back to my main topic, then: the little guy. I like the little guy because he is without titles or status. Diablo Cody two years ago was just a regular internet blogger, a "little guy", and now she is an Academy Award winner. What has changed in that time? One screenplay. But was she any different before that screenplay? If someone had a good eye, they would have spotted her quality regardless of her "little guy" status (and they eventually did). No doubt people will judge her more highly now that she has "achieved" something worthy. People will want to know her for her status. These are the ambitious people, the people who see only titles. I prefer people who see only quality, and do not concern themselves with frivolous titles and positions.
1. Jeff Buckley, “Grace”. Sheer aural bliss. There is nothing more beautiful and graceful in music than Jeff Buckley at his best, there really isn’t. I’d recorded Eternal Life on tape off the radio before I bought the album, and that song was just intense. Jeff Buckley’s music just has something that no other music does, and I can’t pinpoint what it is. Some sort of mix between sadness, passion, anger, vulnerability, soulfulness, beauty… maybe it’s just Jeff-ness. Anyway I heard that in Eternal Life, especially part where it quietens down and builds back up to where he screams “when will I find the strength to bring me release?”. I think one of the main things that is so amazing about Jeff Buckley is that every little part of the song is infused with this Jeff-ness beauty: the guitar intro blew me away, the chords of the verse; just every little part is a microcosm of wonder. And I could say the same about every single song on Grace. I like to say that if music just sounds like a bunch of notes or chords, that’s a sign of bad music. With Jeff Buckley, a C chord never sounded like a C chord, and a guitar never sounded like a guitar, it all just completely transcended that. It really is beyond music.
2. Pearl Jam, “Ten”. No other band changed my life the way Pearl Jam did. Before I got into Pearl Jam, I was listening to whatever was playing on Ugly Phil’s Hot 30, including non other than the Spice Girls, whose album I even bought. But I changed over to Triple M for some random reason, and it wasn’t long before I came across Pearl Jam, whose songs they used to play on fairly heavy rotation. Songs like Alive, Daughter and especially Even Flow just blew me away. I already had Vitalogy sitting at home which my dad had bought years before, but never bothered to listen to it, so I got it out and gave it a few listens. It wasn’t until I bought Ten, though, that I was completely won over. There used to be a sort of magic about buying CD’s for me that unfortunately kids of the new generation will not be able to experience. I saved up the $30 required and headed over to Sanity Eastgardens with the sole purpose of buying Ten. Unfortunately I have to resort to a cliché here: words simply can’t describe how much magic that CD contained for me (after all, where words fail, music speaks). I was completely riveted, moved and inspired, and begun playing guitar in order to learn all the songs, in particular the main riff and solo to Alive. I listen to Ten today and it doesn’t have quite the same effect on me – I have listened to it far too much over the years and the shiny gloss has kind of worn off, but I still remember the feelings when I first used to listen to songs like Black, Release, Alive, Once
[ Click here to read more ]
"You can never step in the same river twice"
I've been thinking a lot recently about careers - what path to follow, what job to go after etc. This got me thinking about identity - if I am to know what job or career is best suited to me, then I first have to know who I am. Of course, this is a massively problematic question. Who indeed am I?? It's a question at the centre of a lot of philosophical and spiritual inquiry
[ Click here to read more ]
I was thinking about this blog, and it occurred to me that it's a bit purposeless. I initially started it because I found quotes to be interesting, and contain a lot of truth (or at least the potential for truth). Reading back over my blogs though, the various quotes used have just been excuses for me to splurge my opinion on things, and while I enjoy having that outlet, it doesn't seem to be very purposeful. In addition, it is very unlikely that people who type "quotes" or "quips" into Google are looking for a hyper-analysis of what a quote means or its implications. As such, I'm going to change this blog at some point into a format where the readers that find the site will be people who are actually looking for strongly opinionated analysis on generally held wisdom.
My blog is NOT intended to be light reading and I don't want anymore to attract readers who are just looking for some smart quips or their origins.
My top 10 songs ever (not necessarily my favourites now, but the ones that were the most significant etc):
1. Walk Away, Ben Harper. I have sung this by myself in my room with a guitar so many times I couldn't even count. And I feel more each time - such a simple song, but so much power between the notes
[ Click here to read more ]
Ok, so this isn't an often quoted quote, but I really like it. If you don't recognise it, Jimi Hendrix sings it in his song "If 6 Was 9". And this is the reason I like it:
I think a lot of people are being pulled in two directions: one is in the direction of how they want to think and act, the other is in the direction of how they are told to think and act. For example, I have always had a fairly casual demeanor - I don't like to take things too seriously unless they really require it. Now in the area of work and school, this has caused me no end of problems, because they want to pull me in the direction of being "professional", or in other words, non-casual. So I have these conflicting forces: one is inside of me, telling me to act not necessarily casually, but appropriate to the situation (which often is casual, because I don't believe everything requires my full attention). The other force is from outside of me, which tells me to be "professional" or to "work hard". One force is the self, the other is the world
[ Click here to read more ]
Yahoo news
I can't believe I just read this: the minimum age for school leaving in NSW will become 17 as of 2010. I am appalled. Does Premier Rees not know how many people simply hate school? To force them to stick around for another two years, particularly if they have family troubles and would not be able to support themselves if they had to leave home for whatever reason, is very very unfair in my opinion. And why? To have "the best educated workforce of anywhere in the world". The education kids receive in schools is mostly trite anyway, learning formulas and equations that they will never ever use or need
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Comments (2)
Add Comments
Read More
Comment by Banana Mango
on By their fruits you shall know them
Quotable Quips
Banana and Mango
My heroes are people like Casanova and Neal Cassady: people who lived full, sensational lives. But I don't think I have it in me to be like them. And I have tried, believe me. I accept it as my fate to be a somewhat detached intellectual (or pseudo-intellectual, as one person called me - I'm not concerned with semantics). It's actually not all that bad - my imagination is vivid and my mind can provide me with no end of stimulation. I can be alone for hours and not get bored. I feel strongly about art, music and literature. I get great joy from sitting quietly in a library and reading Schopenhauer. I really feel that I am better off accepting my fate as a thinker rather than resisting it, as I did for so long in my attempt to be "happy".
I hope that you begin to do, instead of thinking of doing and analyzing the difference
As Simone de Beauvoir said, "man never contemplates: he does". Contemplating is my way of doing. And really, if everyone in history took your advice, there would never have been a Schopenhauer, or a Socrates, or probably not even a Buddha. And that would have been a shame.