Wednesday, 10 January 2018

Existence is a Joke


The Joke was on You and Me.

-- Birth of a Joke
"I started a Joke" released as a single by Bee Gees in December 1968.

"I started a joke which started the whole world crying
But I didn't see that the joke was on me oh no
I started to cry which started the whole world laughing
Oh If I'd only seen that the joke was on me."

What does this song mean for us today?

Nietzsche's 'The Parable of a Madman' (1882) provides some clues.

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"

As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter.

Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? ...-- Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him -- you and I. All of us are his murderers.

What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun?

Whither is it moving now? .... Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? .... Has it not become colder?

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?

Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo.

Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but:

"What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?""

(from Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125)

-- The Joke
Without religion, secular society drifts about looking for something to fill up an infinite vacuum left over from god's disappearance.

What is life for? How do we anchor our morals on an empty sky?

Nihilism, where everything is just meaningless and anarchistic, is a modern response as suggested by Sartre's title for his magnum opus, "Being and Nothingness" (1943).

He advocates. "The first thing we can be aware of is our existence, even when doubting everything else (Cogito ergo sum). In "Nausea", the main character's feeling of dizziness ... occurs "in the face of one's freedom and responsibility for giving a meaning to reality".

Sartre's philosophy can be summed up in the phrase "Existence precedes essence". We find ourselves existing without any predetermined directions. We have to create our meaning out of nothing by sheer acts of will.

In popular culture, nihilism is best typified in the Joker, the Tragic Clown. He personifies a life beyond ethics.

He mocks respectability, human sufferings and pain. He laughs at our feeble attempts with orderliness and rules.

“Don't talk like one of them. You're not! Even if you'd like to be. To them, you're just a freak, like me!

They need you right now, but when they don't, they'll cast you out, like a leper! You see, their morals, their code, it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble.

They're only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you. When the chips are down, these... these civilized people, they'll eat each other. See, I'm not a monster. I'm just ahead of the curve," The Joker with Batman.

When there's no eternal value, why take things so seriously? Good is same as evil. Or better, there's no such a thing as a good or an evil. Things are just there.

"Live and let be. Laugh and dare," says the Joker, Nietzsche's Madman.

If Nihilism is true, then the joke is on us, on all who live morally and meaningfully.

What a joke: to live deluded and according to rules when there're none!

Are you mad enough?

Watch: http://youtu.be/YPvI2rLCIFc

Thinking Mess


"What's wrong with you, can't you think straight?"

But...why must I think in only one direction?

Is there only one correct way to think about problems in understanding our existence?

Don't you agree a fool believes there's only one simple solution for every problem?

"Philosophy is more like research and design—it is creative, and tries new things in order to create new responses to perennial problems of human existence.

If this is what we aim to do in philosophy, then intellectual diversity is crucial, and the kind of “quality control” approach that we sometimes find advocated in the field, and which works very well for practical engineering and applied sciences, is veritable kryptonite to the philosophical project."

It's messy when you think deeply.

"When we are on a path of discovery, it is far more important to explore, allow for diverse methods, approaches, and styles.

We can only find what we do not already know when we allow ourselves to wander off the range."

Orthodoxy is more concerned with being loyal to the truth as defined narrowly by a sectarian authority.

Same with those who can only think in black and white when in reality there are many shades of colors like as in a rainbow.

"Either you are with us or you are against us," so they say. Really, no other possibilities?

And how would you know there's no other possibilities if you haven't explored them?

https://unpolishedjade.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/why-be-concerned-with-intellectual-diversity-in-philosophy/#more-464

Tuesday, 2 February 2016

What use is philosophy to businesspeople? - CMI

What use is philosophy to businesspeople? - CMI:



As Aristotle noted wryly, the problem with philosophers such as Thales is their general disdain for money. The thrills and rewards of delving ever deeper into the ultimate questions – “the meaning of life, the universe and everything” – tend to dull one's taste for material possessions and rewards.



I have done both: worked as management consultant and lecturer in Organizational Behavior AND still learning from philosophy as an independent researcher during my retirement.

Thursday, 5 March 2015

 Philosophers' Cafe: Questions for Reflection


Definitions1. What is the nature of Love?
a. Is love a blind passionate impulse that is beyond reason?
b. Does love spring from subconscious instincts, such as a drive for species survival or Freudian conflicts?
c. Is unconditional forever-love possible?


 Epistemology of Love
2. How do we know we are truly in love?
3. Can we trust our feelings of love?

Love, Lust & Sex (Erotic Love)
4. Suppose you have fallen in love with your friend. And now suppose you were offered the choice of two futures: Either you two cease to have sex but remain together seeking beauty, truth and God, or you lose all these and retain the wonders of sex? Which choice would you make?
5. Can we have sex without love? How is love related to sex?
a. What is the purpose of sex?
b. Does it make sense to speak of “unnatural-lawless sex”?
6. How is love related to friendship?

Politics of Love
7. What is the difference between heterosexual love and gay love?
8. Which mode of love is primary?

Wednesday, 21 January 2015

A Critique of Arguments for Animal Rights



I
n recent years numerous questions were raised about the morality of killing and eating animals. Do animals have right to live and not made to suffer? Should people stop eating animal meat? Should laws be enacted to protect animal rights?
This essay suggests the following two theses. 1) Animal rights arguments are not logically conclusive, 2) Someone may develop reasons in the future, but for now, there is no morally compelling reason to stop eating animal meat.
I shall address various major arguments for animal rights and their weaknesses.


Read here: Is It Immoral To Kill Animals?

Sunday, 18 January 2015

Are Humans Good or Evil?

Are humans good or evil? Or both?



There's Mother Theresa and there're Jihadists who behead innocent civilians. Are humans innately more like Theresa or more like Terrorists?



Or do we have a choice to being one instead of the other?



Perhaps there is no innate human nature. We form habits from frequent choice- acts over an extended time. We become habitually good or bad.



Read here:

Are Humans Good or Evil? by Clancy Martin and Alan Strudler | Harper's Magazine




Monday, 27 October 2014

What is LOVE? -- If you loved me, you wouldn’t want to change me !?

If you loved me, you wouldn’t want to change me | Philosophers' Mail



The impulse to alter our lovers appears to run counter to the spirit of
love. If we loved and were loved, surely there wouldn’t be any talk of
change? Isn’t love about the acceptance of an entire being, in their
high and low points?



But,  being told we simply have to love someone for all that they are, or else
think of ourselves as bad people, is asking too much.



How could someone
never want to change any part of us if they know us properly? Do they
lack all ambition for our true potential? Do we not ourselves aspire to
change and improvement? Then why blame them for wanting from us what we
at heart want from ourselves?



For the Greeks, given that we are all very imperfect, part of what it
means to deepen love is to want to teach – and to be taught. Two people
should see a relationship as a constant opportunity to improve and be
improved. When lovers teach each other uncomfortable truths, they are
not giving up on love. They are trying to do something very true to
love: which is to make their partners more loveable.