Philosophistry

Amidst the legions of armchair philosophers, there exists a special breed; this philosopher is one who looks upon problems not to determine any inherent worth or value, but to find a way to reconcile it with his own beliefs. This philosopher is apart from those who debate such topics as a matter of sport, as they are not seeking amusement, but to counter anything that is contrary to their desired viewpoint. While not limited to such, this philosophist (A term apart from regular sophistry, as these people are capable of perfectly sound reasoning) are often found in the realms of theological philosophy – primarily on the side of defending theology, but also numerous on the opposite end of the spectrum.

The philosophist is similarly apart from typical apologists, as it does not strictly defend a belief against opposing viewpoints, but proactively seeks to take those viewpoints and shift them to reinforce something other than that which was originally intended. An example of this: Christian theology states that God made the Earth, as well as everything on it. While not every Christian is a young Earth creationist, there is still a general belief in the concept that God willed it, and it was. A philosophist reasoning would thus be that evolution is technically true; that God created the earth in stages through evolution.

The above would be a case of one philosophy attempting to absorb a separate, distinct philosophy (or other line of thinking, as evolution is not precisely a philosophy). There is nothing specific about evolution to require the addition of Intelligent Design, and nothing inherent within ID to require the usage of evolution as the primary model of creation. However, by combining the two, the Christian viewpoint gains a legitimacy that it previously lacked, by adopting and adapting an independent theory into its own intellectual framework. This assimilation of standalone philosophies has the potential to confuse or contradict other theories, by interjecting an irrelevant variable: the existence of a god.

It is important to note that philosophistry only borders the method of disproving a theory within its own framework. To refer once more to Christianity, there is a prevalent theological issue known as the “problem of evil” – the belief that a god that exhibits both omnipotence and omnibenevolence cannot therefore allow evil to exist. While the merits of this quandary are a constant subject of debate, it is a legitimate example of using the facets of a philosophy to disprove other facets of the same. The defining factor here is that the argument exists purely within an in-universe perspective, and does not introduce an independent philosophy to support or counter the claims of the first – it is a case of dogma eat dogma.

In summary, a philosophist must introduce an external philosophy or idea that exists independent of the philosophist’s own ideology, and use it to validate or support the aforementioned dogma; it may also be used in conjunction with the philosophist’s own views to refute a second independent philosophy. The second philosophy must similarly be unrelated to the first, making the connection rely upon argumentation that is only relevant to one of the two theories. Returning to the example of evolution: ID is independent of evolution, as the two are not related unless ID is independently true. However, one may argue that evolution is true, as fossils found within the earth show a change in shape and format, with the age established by radiometric dating. Radiometric dating is one form of proof, which exists independent of evolution, but uses the same evidence (fossils) to establish its validity.

For another example, take Mark Twain’s thesis “The Damned Human Race.” In it, he presupposes the existence of deontological ethics – a belief that an action is necessarily right or wrong, devoid of consequences – and that affronts to this philosophy are only the product of rational, thinking beings: humans. He juxtaposes this belief with an argument that non-sapient creatures do not commit such acts, thus inferring that the natural state is true deontology. This is a form of philosophistry, as it infers an independent philosophy upon an unrelated subject. The belief is that the natural state is so because it is the product of deontology, rather than a belief that deontology is the recognition of an ideal within the natural state.

In mathematical terms, X = true. This is fact, no matter what other variables are introduced; other variables all represent a value of 0. Therefore, if X = true, and a new theory states that Y + X = true, Y is irrelevant, as X = true with or without Y. The philosophist introduces Y as a justification for X, a reinterpretation of X, or an association with X; however, in all of these situations, X is true before Y enters the equation, thus Y is an extraneous factor.

To conclude, philosophistry is a form of logical fallacy, in that it presents an irrelevant variable to supplement or justify an independent truth or belief. It is a fallacy that should be avoided when arguing amidst the framework of two or more philosophies, as using this method within an existing independent framework is often feasible, depending upon the specifics of the scenario. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all correlations and associations fall under this category; if the variable is true from the same or closely related evidence as the given factor, then they are already linked; the justification for one is justification for the other, whereas in the fallacy, the justification for X is not the justification for Y.

She Held me through the Storm

With a soft padding of feet on the wooden floor, I make my way quietly down the hall, pausing for a moment before her door. It’s open a crack; there is light shining through, and the faint sound of music. Outside, the rain beats gently against the walls, forming a primal rhythm that resonates with the beating of my heart. I slowly open the door, my breath catching in my lungs at the fear of what I might find. She is dying, and may have already passed…though I, too, am dying, and am yet still here.

She is lying on her side, a light blanket over her still form; her skin is cold, yet her face remains beautiful. With a start, I realize that her chest is still faintly moving. She has not yet been taken from me, though it is clear that she does not have long to remain. Without a sound, I crawl into the bed with her, placing an arm across her stomach, yearning for the touch of her body, for the warmth that I once knew. I cannot seem to remember why it is that we share this tormented fate, though it is so inevitable as to stay my questioning. It is enough that we are here.

My breath comes in shallow gasps. I gently kiss her neck, struggling to whisper what could be my final words, knowing that she can hear them despite my own shortcomings. She smiles at me, and my heart breaks. Her eyes smile at mine, and I know that she is still with me. The fear that had been clawing at my belly does not leave, but is somehow placated; throughout my life, I have not feared death, knowing that when it comes to take me, it will be the end to my sorrows. No inner peace, no afterlife…just rest. Sleep eternal. Yet as my mortality rises above my weighted shoulders, rearing its head in daft refutation to my every conscious thought, I am nervous. I feel fear, for the first time since my childhood, so many years ago.

I do not know how long I have wandered the halls of my sullen abode, mourning the loss of my own life even before that fateful hand is dealt. I have walked for miles through these same corridors, stalking for hours, days, perhaps weeks through one denial after the next. It was not until I realized that she was alone, and had possibly left without me, that I settled down to wait. So here I lay, on the firing line of mortal thought, knowing that my smile is uncertain and my hands will not stop shaking. Random muscles twitch about in a maniacal race, while my heart beats erratically. Perhaps this is it; the final passage of a boy too young to know his own worth.

As my eyes begin to close, my thoughts drift to family, friends, and the various acquaintances of a lifetime. While I feel sadness that I did not have the chance to say goodbye, it is with a detached state that I remember their faces; already the veil is covering my eyes, rendering this quiet room in shades of grey. Involuntarily, my arm tightens around her stomach. She does not mind, however; she has already faded into the night, dead within my arms without so much as a thought.

My mind grows heavy with sadness that I was not aware of the transition, that I was perhaps unable to ease the passage between this world and the blackness of the hereafter. Yet my own recriminations fall short, bearing my own mind away swiftly to that sullen realm, to sleep for an eternity. As my life fades away, my last thought is that I did not let her go; she is still within my arms, her mortal shell safe in mine, for whatever may come.

Taking Back "Porch Monkey"

If you’ve ever seen Clerks II, you know what I’m talking about. Randall, one of the characters, believes that the term ‘porch monkey’ signifies anyone who is lazy, rather than simply black people. As such, when he finds out his belief is mistaken he attempts to take back the term to his desired meaning. While some may be surprised to find wisdom in a juvenile comedy, that particular subplot has very specific real-world implications; it is something that should be done everywhere.

To put it simply, a word is a word is a word. It is an arrayed collection of letters intended to describe something that requires description. There is nothing inherent in a word that makes it ‘bad’ or offensive; many words have multiple meanings, further complicating the scenario when an arbitrary belief is placed upon the word. Therefore, logic dictates that there is nothing inherently negative about any word, regardless of its modern connotations. Yet even in this day of reason and understanding, uttering the wrong word in the wrong place or time may have dire consequences.

As a man of refined taste and utter verbosity, it is apparent that I have run into situations where my desired choice of epithets does not fit the requirements of the scenario as far as political correctness is concerned. Furthermore, as one who is amused by language in and of itself, I have had occasion to alter common phrases by substituting various words; where an ordinary curse is desired, a new level of inventiveness is possible by mixing and matching. One of my personal favorites is the term ‘mother niggering’ – a play on ‘motherfucking’, to which I am certain the majority of readers have had cause to utter at one time or another. Now, this desire of mine runs contrary to the general will and understanding of the population, as a white male using the word ‘nigger’ is outrageous and insulting, and obviously proof that the said individual is racist.

To make myself clear: I do not feel the need or desire to recognize any inherent differences, real or imagined, between myself and any other race, nationality, or skin color. With the exception of Michael Jackson, we did not choose our skin color, and as such, its meaning is purely what we make of it. The blanket term ‘black’ means absolutely nothing, as there are people with dark skin who are akin to Stephen Hawking, while others are reminiscent to 50 Cent. My own lineage is Irish and German; since coming to America in the 1600’s, my ancestors have resided in the Northern provinces, and have had no affiliations with any pro-slavery groups. There is nothing inherent in who I am or where I came from to suggest racism, and nothing in those who fall under the blanket term of ‘black’ to support such claims, regardless of intention.

So then, why is it that using the word ‘nigger’ will get me shot in certain areas? Using the word at my place of work will get me fired, and using it at school will at least result in a number of raised eyebrows. Yet for the same word, a black man may use it at will, without anyone batting an eye. Two distinct cases of the same word being used, likely in the same manner, yet one is acceptable while the other is not. If a word is permissible due to situational concerns, what are the boundaries? Why do they apply to one group yet not the other? Allow me to pontificate on that question.

There is a sociological theory concerning this topic; in short, it suggests that the power of words is in the meaning assigned by society, and that ‘out-groups’ such as the African American culture within the United States can steal the inherent power by circumventing the desired meaning. If the word ‘nigger’ strictly means an ignorant or lazy black person, the black community can negate this pejorative by adopting it as a term of endearment, so that when it is used in anger it does not have the same psychological effect. Therefore, if the usage of this negative term became so widespread as to pervade common speech, absent any insulting components, the result would be to utterly rob the word of its intrinsic pejorative.

This will not happen overnight. To some people, the very fact that a person is using the word at all is offensive; the intended meaning is irrelevant. Yet society has shown a marked ability to alter the perceived meanings of words through nothing but repetition; ‘bad’, ‘sick’, and ‘bomb’ all meant good at one period in time; even completely irrelevant words like ‘tubular’ have been positive, suggesting that there are essentially no boundaries on what a word can mean. Whether the process takes months, years, decades, or generations, repetition becomes the norm; if that norm becomes a word with no inherent negative component, then language benefits. So spread the word, and take back porch monkey; we don’t care for yesterday’s beliefs of hatred and senseless pejoratives. Goddamned motherniggering right!

Feminism is...

Feminism is, at its core, a misnomer. It is the avaricious, casuistic, and narcissistic self-glorified pejorative intended to define the egocentric machinations of the oppressed in their attempt to gain dominance of social and economic fields. While purportedly holding the ideal of equal rights or benefits between the sexes, the very root of the word is that of female-dominance, a 180-degree reversal from the current patriarchal society of America and the world at large. As such, it is a movement predicated upon falsehoods and deceptions, preying upon the weak, the fearful, and those coerced into either inaction or action against their own self-interest, by virtue of guilt and persuasive exaggerations and misinterpretations. Society functions upon the willful acquiescence of its citizens; to upset the social order is to introduce anarchy, civil unrest, and incessant retaliatory predations justified by a cry for restitution and vengeance.

Yet even beyond these causal relationships of vainglorious proclamations of women’s achievements in comparison to the denunciation of male-dominated success, one must ask why it is that the woman seeks the damnation of strife inherent in the male world. By virtue of certain topics left untouched by the women’s rights movements – such as the fact that men must register for the draft, while feminists seeking equal rights do not desire that particular aspect – the assignation of women’s privilege supersede women’s rights. Such imperatives necessitate a refutation before offering the barest of considerations to their movement, lest the world come under a female-dominated oligarchy bent upon retribution for the perceived crimes in our shared past.

From the perspective of the economist, having the majority of citizens out of the workforce is an absolute necessity to maximize profitability. The American economy is arranged in such a way that the amount of goods required to supply the nation only necessitates the male population holding positions of management, production, and distribution. Introduce a new variable – the female employee – and the workforce increases while demand remains largely constant. This creates an excess of employees without an excess of demand, resulting in an astounding unemployment rate; such is one of the causes of our current financial distress. As American business grows largely robotized, the ideal workforce is one that gradually shrinks, not expands, thus making the feminist movement a leading cause for the dismal state of the American economy.

Even ignoring economy, or the ludicrous notions of morality adhered to be proponents of feminism, there is one primary reason to prevent the dominance of females in society: it would usher in a new wave of effective slavery. Indeed, the very fact that feminism concerns the growing of power and resources available to females, there is no evidence to suggest that the movement will cease and desist upon reaching parity with their male counterparts. The roles would reverse, and women – as all men know – have long memories of the grievances committed against them, whether real or imagined. To place the woman above the man is to consign the male sex to slavery and persecution, beginning the cycle once more, to repeat itself to exhaustion.

What if Hitler won the war?

Adolf Hitler and the Ballad of Judas Priest

April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler is found dead in his study, the result of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. His war of aggression, while not formally ending for another four months (As the Japanese resisted surrender until the advent of the atomic bomb, where the Axis surrendered within a week of Hitler’s death) had essentially come to a close. His coalition was defeated on all fronts, after having sowed immense destruction across the largest collective battlefield the world had ever seen.

Yet in spite of the innumerable deaths and atrocities attributed to Hitler’s actions, the war served to unite an immense number of countries for a common goal, while similarly providing a framework of interdependence for years to come. Among the victories achieved post-WWII are the forming of Israel as a nation, the economic and military ties between America and Japan, the end of American isolationism (which proved a mixed blessing at times), the effective foundation of the European Union, the formalization of international rules and regulations governing warfare, and countless smaller items. As the world had already suffered a global conflict in recent memory, yet did not enact any of these benefits, it is logical to state that without the advent of the Second World War, they would not have happened.

Now, this is not to say that such occurrences could not happen, or that Hitler’s war was overall beneficial rather than detrimental. It is difficult to argue that the death of seventy-two million individuals equals the aforementioned benefit; however, it is a simple fact that the war did happen, the deaths did occur, and that a benefit – however inconsequential in comparison – was gained. Though the Nazi doctors performed horrible experiments on unwilling captives, they advanced modern medical science rapidly; that knowledge, while deplored from the method used to gain it, is still used today, and founded similar advancements.

Switching topics shortly, observe the phenomenon of Judas Priest – the epitome of Christian evil within man, a curse used to this day in all manner of foul ways. Judas Iscariot was purportedly one of Christ’s twelve disciples; there is nothing to state that this is true or fiction, yet the story is so pervasive in western culture that its truth is irrelevant for the example it provides. For the majority of American religious individuals, Judas was the man who betrayed the Savior for a handful of coin, to later commit suicide in regret. A classic example of a man doing a horrible act, similar to Hitler’s war of aggression.

However, when we look upon the larger scale of Christian ideology, it is apparent that Christ had to die in order to ‘save’ mankind. His death was part of a grand scheme concocted beyond this earthly realm, a plan that would ultimately benefit everyone, despite the personal loss suffered by Christ himself. In this sense, Christ had to die, and the instruments of his death were vital assets to the grand scheme. Therefore, Judas Iscariot was one of the foremost proponents of the crucifixion and therefore the salvation of all humans. Why, then, is Judas so reviled in society?

Throughout the world at large and America in particular, there is a strong desire to vilify the perceived negatives of an individual or collective, even to the point of diminishing or ignoring the gains reaped from their actions. As they say, ‘the good that men do is often turned with their bones; yet the evil that men do lives on.’ Is this simply a morbid attraction towards the deviant? Is it an overwhelming desire to prevent a recurrence of negativities, even when this suppression of ‘evil’ bleeds across to the suppression of the beneficial?

Returning once more to the example of Hitler, it is apparent to anyone of passable intellect that Hitler was a genius. His charisma and rhetoric won him a nation, while his oratory skills and overall political knowledge allowed him to maintain office and embark upon the single greatest (in terms of scale) undertaking the world had yet seen. Had he focused his talents upon peace through nonviolence, rather than peace through fascist domination of the ‘pure’ race, it is entirely conceivable that he would have succeeded where so many others have failed. Yet in a way, his war of aggression led to a fraction of that unity, for the reasons mentioned earlier.

Great deeds are often won through terrible acts. Yet the only perception of immorality resides within the forcing of another to be part to such acts, rather than the acts themselves. Of course, there will always be fanatics that deplore the actions purely for their own sake, without regard toward the willingness of the participants and the potential gains to be had. But that aside, what self-proclaimed humanist would truly object to a subject willfully and knowingly undergoing torture for the sake of advancing medical science?

There is an age-old debate of means versus ends. Now, the issue from this stems from the fact that until the ends are achieved, one cannot know if they will justify the means used to reach them. However, as it is commonly held that hindsight is 20/20, one may reasonably validate a past experiment to determine if the ends truly did justify the means. In the case of WWII, the results of this validation are conflicting by nature. For one, there is no realistic way to validate the death toll, unless the observer is a nihilist – or another comparable philosophy – and does not see a negative aspect to large-scale annihilation of humans.

However, if one can accept that the past is irreversible, it is reasonable to analyze the benefits gained from the past event with a neutral mind. As mentioned previously, the medical advances and national interdependence of the involved parties proved a distinct benefit for the extent of human history from that point forward. The war does not have to be glorified or even praised, yet it is Victor’s Delusion to vilify every aspect of it to the point of ignoring the resulting benefits. To even suggest that Hitler accomplished direct and indirect benefits to humanity is to incur the wrath of nearly everyone in earshot; such claims would result in the label of Nazi for the one who espoused them.

In the modern world of forced tolerance and vain ‘social awareness’, it is simply astounding to see the overt stigmatizing of any perceived negatives, provided they fall within the schemata of a common enemy. As history is written by the victor, this should not be a surprise to find the demonization of an adversary, yet it is disheartening to see the benefits and gains ignored or dismissed due to simple association. If we cannot dismiss the irrelevancies of ‘evil’ from the pursuit of human betterment, we will fail to progress as a race, until stagnation and decay has eroded every hope of evolution.

Bohemia Strikes Back

Bohemia for Sale

It is 12:24 A.M. Monday has just broken across the troubled visage of the Eastern United States, as the world sleeps amidst restless dreams of hookers and dollar bills. Monday, the beginning of the week for the almighty dollar and its fawning sycophantic followers. The day that ushers in another frantic race for the American dream; even those who do not live in the emotionally bankrupt provinces of the world’s superpower are chasing this dream, this desire to become Americanized in the baptism of filthy cash.

Without a thought, I light up another cigarette; I’ve lost count of how many that makes, yet am not so far gone within my inner ramblings to escape the irony caused by the simple act of smoking an overpriced, mass-produced stick of cancer. Ah well, we only live once. A light rain is falling around me, turning the night air calm and peaceful, as if the moisture could dampen even the ethereal presence of capitalism’s city lights. The neighborhood is quiet save the gentle sounds of the rain. I sit on an old wooden chair, placed wisely and regretfully beneath an awning. I regret this because such a position divorces my skin from the tactile pleasure of the cooling rain, yet it is wise, as the guitar on my lap would be mighty unhappy to face this sudden bath.

I find that I am not wearing a shirt. This is neither by design nor happenstance, as the night is warm despite the cooling presence of the rain. The wooden guitar feels good against my skin. Holding the cigarette casually in my lips, I strum a few simple chords along the C Major scale. Such a beautiful sound, yet one entirely unsuitable to the mass markets of the world. But is this not what beauty is? If true beauty could be packaged wholesale and sold to the adoring fans, would it truly be beauty? If this simple melody were fit to ensnare the hearts of a nation, it would become the norm; would not something more beautiful, more profound, rise to take its place? And would this simple tune thus return to its position of true beauty, or would something new rise to fill that void?

I do not know the answer to this. In this tired old soul’s opinion, beauty is the unattainable dream, the ongoing search for something more. In that sense, true beauty does not exist; what we see are simply the echoes of its passing, the hint that what we’ve desired for so long is simply around the next corner. Our minds whimsically search for this concept, all the while knowing on some level that we will never truly be satisfied should we attain the ultimate in beauty. All my life, I have searched for beautiful women, beautiful songs, and beautiful vistas. I have found that which I hold dear, as the closest example of beauty that I know, yet it always falls short.

It is in this sense, as well, that capitalism is the antithesis of beauty. Perhaps the Mona Lisa was beautiful sitting upon da Vinci’s wall, with its paint still wet. Perhaps the untamed mountains of California were magnificent in their unspoiled homes. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. But what beauty is there in the million dollar smile of a TV princess, one that is offered without thought or hesitation for countless screaming libidos? Carlos Santana can make his guitar cry the most poignant sounds ever heard on an album…but what does it matter, when it enflames the hearts of millions alike? Is beauty the tanned stomach of Jessica Alba, or the shy smile of that girl who just agreed to go out with you? Is it both? Perhaps neither?

This is the sale of bohemia, the destitute sanctuary of the hapless and the idealistic, the humble abode of a nation’s artists and free spirits. Their unimposing melodies and visions are available at two for the price of one, feeding the stomach while robbing the mind of its desires. This beauty cannot be sold, should it even exist, yet that does not stop the inevitable transactions. The merciless onslaught of capitalism cannot be halted for the sake of finding beauty, nor should it be! Society marches on, waiting for no one. Thus, I reach for another Marlboro, having wasted away the last one without a thought. Lighting up, I return to my guitar, to make another simple melody, while the dollar signs roll past my eyes.

Welcome to the Vertigo Underground

This is the place where power only exists in the form of words, where thoughts and ideas separate the intellectual few from the brainless masses. Vertigo is a sensation of motion, one in which the world appears to spin around the observer; this is the vertigo underground, where the world above spins endlessly in circles, chasing its own tail through some vain belief that it is for the best. This futile effort is a consistent drain on the collective will of the people, forcing them into the gyrations of a confused oligarchy for the sake of narcissistic validation; this is why we remain underground.

We exist everywhere and nowhere at once. We cannot be seen, and that which is unseen proves the most frightening to the self-absorbed upper echelons of society. We cannot be found, thus we cannot be stopped. We emerge at will, always at random, always with a purpose. This is not a call to violence, but a call to knowledge; the ignorant can never truly affect the course of an empire, as the brutality of chance rests its favor upon the ranks of the dominant. Only by educating our fellows and ourselves can we truly determine what is best for this world. Join the underground, and let your voice ring out from the depths.