Required Reading: Ontology, Infinity, Existence of God
No two things can be infinite. Therefore whatever is infinite is that thing than which nothing greater can be thought. That is the gist of St. Anselm’s ontological argument; his proof of God. Basically Anselm’s argument is that the thing than which nothing greater can be thought is God. His proof of God is that a god that exists only in the mind is not as great as a god who exists in both the mind and reality. So any thing for which a greater thing can be thought cannot be God.
Most medieval versions of God describe it as being infinitely merciful, or knowing, or powerful. If God is infinite in one respect, then in accordance with Anselm’s argument, God must also be infinite in all other respects. A God which is infinitely merciful, but finitely powerful, is not that than which nothing greater can be thought. Likewise, a thing that is infinitely one thing, but finitely another can not be God if there is some being (which I can think of) who has infinite power, mercifulness, wickedness, penis size, volume, ductility, etc., and is not limited by finitude in any aspect.
Of course, Anselm’s proof has a flaw, which is that it only shows that if god exists, then god exists in both the mind and reality. I don’t intend to prove God’s existence, for reasons that ought to become clearer next week. The important thing is that provided that the “than which nothing greater can be thought” argument is sound - and I feel that it is - even if the proof that follows from it isn’t, the God must be infinite in every aspect. God must be an infinite thing.
Next Week: On the identity of the infinite, in which I fiddle with knobs and twiddle dials until my brain factory can reconcile three infinite things that we normally perceive as distinct.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
On infinite time and infinite space:
Required Reading: Absolute time and space, psychological arrow of time
I was thinking about merging these two bits in the first place, but then I changed my mind. Then I got sick last week and didn't bother to update, so I'm merging them again. Besides, this first one is terrible. These two arguments are basically the springboard for next week's ridiculous statement.
Time
Time is infinite, infinitely divisible, and absolute. Even if time is given beginning and end points, its infinite divisibility allows for it to progress eternally, on some small level. Those boundaries would face the same asymptotic relationship that faces measurements, as I’ve described previously.
Besides that, it is impossible to ascribe an endpoint for time. Following the endpoint, were there a mind to perceive it, that mind could easily extend time. The statement “It’s been one hour since time stopped” proves the point through the contradiction. (Indeed, the phrase “following the endpoint” ought to prove the point by inference). In this way, time is endless (infinite). So long as there is a conscious mind to experience time, time will be seen to continue its passing. As such, without a conscious mind to experience time, there is certainly no reason to assume that time would not continue to pass in its absence. Provided that we don’t traipse off into idealism, the object permanence we learn as infants ought to apply.
Space
Space is infinite and absolute. There is no such thing as nothing. All physical things occupy space. Space is an infinite medium in which arbitrary divisions are made, separating it into finite parts. The space between two points is occupied by invisible gases and particles, not nothing.
Every object we perceive occupies a space of the same volume. Our arbitrary measurements of volume allow that space to be reinterpreted in any shape. A sphere which has a volume of 72 cubed metres can be rearranged to take the form of a 72 cubed meter replica of the Taj Mahal.
Physical objects do not “push space aside.” They occupy as much space as is required for such objects to exist and retain their volume and mass. I have encountered the criticism that if space is infinite, and all space is occupied, nothing ought to be able to move (because the combined force of an infinite number of objects would absorb any force made by one object in its attempt to move).
Such a criticism implies nothingness, because it requires that there be “room” for space to displace into in order to make more room for objects to move around. In infinite space, there can be no limitation on the movement of anything, because there is infinite space for things to move within. As objects are merely finite divisions within one infinite space, it is hardly unexpected that space would remain space regardless of whether every part of it moves or is immovable.
Perhaps science has not fully been able to explain the way that objects occupy space. Perhaps objects exchange particles at such a rate that form and structure are retained, but particles no longer occupy the same part of space (again, divisions in space are arbitrary).
“Space” in this instance is not to be confused with Outer Space; a construct which is itself an arbitrary division of absolute space.
Next Week: On God as infinite, in which I bring this whole infinity talk thing to its logical conclusion, and tackle some common ideas about the big guy in the sky.
I was thinking about merging these two bits in the first place, but then I changed my mind. Then I got sick last week and didn't bother to update, so I'm merging them again. Besides, this first one is terrible. These two arguments are basically the springboard for next week's ridiculous statement.
Time
Time is infinite, infinitely divisible, and absolute. Even if time is given beginning and end points, its infinite divisibility allows for it to progress eternally, on some small level. Those boundaries would face the same asymptotic relationship that faces measurements, as I’ve described previously.
Besides that, it is impossible to ascribe an endpoint for time. Following the endpoint, were there a mind to perceive it, that mind could easily extend time. The statement “It’s been one hour since time stopped” proves the point through the contradiction. (Indeed, the phrase “following the endpoint” ought to prove the point by inference). In this way, time is endless (infinite). So long as there is a conscious mind to experience time, time will be seen to continue its passing. As such, without a conscious mind to experience time, there is certainly no reason to assume that time would not continue to pass in its absence. Provided that we don’t traipse off into idealism, the object permanence we learn as infants ought to apply.
Space
Space is infinite and absolute. There is no such thing as nothing. All physical things occupy space. Space is an infinite medium in which arbitrary divisions are made, separating it into finite parts. The space between two points is occupied by invisible gases and particles, not nothing.
Every object we perceive occupies a space of the same volume. Our arbitrary measurements of volume allow that space to be reinterpreted in any shape. A sphere which has a volume of 72 cubed metres can be rearranged to take the form of a 72 cubed meter replica of the Taj Mahal.
Physical objects do not “push space aside.” They occupy as much space as is required for such objects to exist and retain their volume and mass. I have encountered the criticism that if space is infinite, and all space is occupied, nothing ought to be able to move (because the combined force of an infinite number of objects would absorb any force made by one object in its attempt to move).
Such a criticism implies nothingness, because it requires that there be “room” for space to displace into in order to make more room for objects to move around. In infinite space, there can be no limitation on the movement of anything, because there is infinite space for things to move within. As objects are merely finite divisions within one infinite space, it is hardly unexpected that space would remain space regardless of whether every part of it moves or is immovable.
Perhaps science has not fully been able to explain the way that objects occupy space. Perhaps objects exchange particles at such a rate that form and structure are retained, but particles no longer occupy the same part of space (again, divisions in space are arbitrary).
“Space” in this instance is not to be confused with Outer Space; a construct which is itself an arbitrary division of absolute space.
Next Week: On God as infinite, in which I bring this whole infinity talk thing to its logical conclusion, and tackle some common ideas about the big guy in the sky.
Friday, April 9, 2010
On the infinite:
Required Reading: Infinite divisibility, the paradox of infinite divisibility, infinity,
Any thing that is infinite can be divided into an infinite number of finite parts an infinite number of times. That is infinite divisibility. For example, measurements take an indeterminate volume and use an arbitrary value or increment to divide that indeterminate volume into smaller and smaller finite values.
Every thing can be divided in that way. There is nothing that is not divisible into smaller and smaller parts; nothing that is not infinitely divisible. This applies to the infinite - which by definition is of indeterminate value - like it does to any other thing.
There can only be one infinite thing. That which is infinite is all that there is by definition. Infinity as a quality is absolute, which means that it refers to limitlessness, endlessness, boundlessness, as opposed to a vaguer incapacity for human measurement, which is inherent in the infinite in the first place. An infinite thing extends forever, in all directions, and in all ways (an infinite thing which is not infinite in every respect is not infinite - more on this later). There can be no infinite object which occupies the same space (or non-spatial plane, if such a thing exists) as another, because the infinite is endless such that any other object/entity would be a part of it necessarily.
Whatever is infinite is the only thing there is. That is a confusing statement because as humans we live in terms of the finite; we see differences between ourselves and other objects and we don't normally think of those objects and ourselves as being one thing. You are not the same as a hammer; you are not the same as a giant robotic badger; you are not the same as your identical twin, even. So the idea of being a small part (a finite division) of something much larger would, to quote the vernacular, “blow your mind.” So, in terms of human experience, there is either no infinite thing (because of our perception of objects/entities as being separate and different), or our ideas about the relations between objects must be changed, and all things must be part of the one infinite thing.
Next Week: On infinite time and space, in which I make a really lame argument for why time is infinite, just for the sake of saying so. Then I make a slightly more convincing argument about space, maybe.
Any thing that is infinite can be divided into an infinite number of finite parts an infinite number of times. That is infinite divisibility. For example, measurements take an indeterminate volume and use an arbitrary value or increment to divide that indeterminate volume into smaller and smaller finite values.
Every thing can be divided in that way. There is nothing that is not divisible into smaller and smaller parts; nothing that is not infinitely divisible. This applies to the infinite - which by definition is of indeterminate value - like it does to any other thing.
There can only be one infinite thing. That which is infinite is all that there is by definition. Infinity as a quality is absolute, which means that it refers to limitlessness, endlessness, boundlessness, as opposed to a vaguer incapacity for human measurement, which is inherent in the infinite in the first place. An infinite thing extends forever, in all directions, and in all ways (an infinite thing which is not infinite in every respect is not infinite - more on this later). There can be no infinite object which occupies the same space (or non-spatial plane, if such a thing exists) as another, because the infinite is endless such that any other object/entity would be a part of it necessarily.
Whatever is infinite is the only thing there is. That is a confusing statement because as humans we live in terms of the finite; we see differences between ourselves and other objects and we don't normally think of those objects and ourselves as being one thing. You are not the same as a hammer; you are not the same as a giant robotic badger; you are not the same as your identical twin, even. So the idea of being a small part (a finite division) of something much larger would, to quote the vernacular, “blow your mind.” So, in terms of human experience, there is either no infinite thing (because of our perception of objects/entities as being separate and different), or our ideas about the relations between objects must be changed, and all things must be part of the one infinite thing.
Next Week: On infinite time and space, in which I make a really lame argument for why time is infinite, just for the sake of saying so. Then I make a slightly more convincing argument about space, maybe.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
On Simultaneity:
Required Reading: Simultaneity, Relativity of simultaneity, the present, the paradox of infinite divisibility
I'd like to note, before I get down to business that the wikipedia page for simultaneity has an interesting point, which is that the root of the word "simultaneous" - simult - is indicative of a supernatural or divine coincidence. Understand, as you read the rest of this entry, just how supernatural a coincidence it would have to be for two events to occur simultaneously. Thought for food.
Simultaneity is improbable for the same reasons that pinpointing “the present” is impossible. I say improbable, because it is possible that two events could occur at the exact same time - no matter how infinitely small the increments of time-measurement are.
However, the smaller the measurements are (and remember, the increments of measurement could become infinitely smaller) the more likely it is that you'll discover that two events that appear to be simultaneous are in fact set apart by such and such an infinitely small duration. So, simultaneous events are extremely rare, to the point that it is likely that they have either never occurred or will never occur.
That said it is possible for events in progress to be happening simultaneously, provided that the "happening" of the event is described in a nonspecific way. For example, “burning” refers to the process of being burnt, but does not refer to any specific part of that process. So, two candles can be burning simultaneously, but it can't be determined by any accurate means whether they were lit simultaneously, or burnt out simultaneously, or put out simultaneously, or reached the middle of the candle simultaneously, or began to melt simultaneously, etc.
Because the occurrence of events is asymptotic (approaching zero or infinity), we have to assume (again) that it is either impossible to determine simultaneity, or it must be the case that simultaneity itself is not possible.
Just like we need relative durations in order to talk about the present, we need to think of occurrences relatively in order to assume that some of them happen simultaneously. Without turning a blind eye to the indeterminacy that's packaged in with these concepts, we would lack the ability to experience or comprehend time in a stable and cohesive sort of way.
Meanwhile simultaneity as an objective concept cannot be considered a true possibility - rather, a theoretical concept.
Next week: On the infinite, in which I tackle infinite divisibility a little more directly and try to explain what it really means for something to be infinite.
I'd like to note, before I get down to business that the wikipedia page for simultaneity has an interesting point, which is that the root of the word "simultaneous" - simult - is indicative of a supernatural or divine coincidence. Understand, as you read the rest of this entry, just how supernatural a coincidence it would have to be for two events to occur simultaneously. Thought for food.
Simultaneity is improbable for the same reasons that pinpointing “the present” is impossible. I say improbable, because it is possible that two events could occur at the exact same time - no matter how infinitely small the increments of time-measurement are.
However, the smaller the measurements are (and remember, the increments of measurement could become infinitely smaller) the more likely it is that you'll discover that two events that appear to be simultaneous are in fact set apart by such and such an infinitely small duration. So, simultaneous events are extremely rare, to the point that it is likely that they have either never occurred or will never occur.
That said it is possible for events in progress to be happening simultaneously, provided that the "happening" of the event is described in a nonspecific way. For example, “burning” refers to the process of being burnt, but does not refer to any specific part of that process. So, two candles can be burning simultaneously, but it can't be determined by any accurate means whether they were lit simultaneously, or burnt out simultaneously, or put out simultaneously, or reached the middle of the candle simultaneously, or began to melt simultaneously, etc.
Because the occurrence of events is asymptotic (approaching zero or infinity), we have to assume (again) that it is either impossible to determine simultaneity, or it must be the case that simultaneity itself is not possible.
Just like we need relative durations in order to talk about the present, we need to think of occurrences relatively in order to assume that some of them happen simultaneously. Without turning a blind eye to the indeterminacy that's packaged in with these concepts, we would lack the ability to experience or comprehend time in a stable and cohesive sort of way.
Meanwhile simultaneity as an objective concept cannot be considered a true possibility - rather, a theoretical concept.
Next week: On the infinite, in which I tackle infinite divisibility a little more directly and try to explain what it really means for something to be infinite.
Friday, March 26, 2010
On the paradox of infinite divisibility:
Required Reading: Asymptotes, Zeno's Paradoxes, Infinite Divisibility, On the Present
Preface: Last week, I went on about how there was no way of pinpointing any moment in time accurately, because accurate measurements require infinitely smaller increments. It is a dynamic relationship which means that truly accurate measurement of anything at all is impossible.
While it seems obvious that events do happen, and must have begun to happen at some point; any attempt to figure out at which point an event actually occurs only tells us the times when the event was or wasn't happening.
The starting point for an event is always a moment that we get close to, but never meet; a sort of asymptote (remember calculus, kids?). For convenience sake, I'm applying the concept of asymptotes to any thing that gets close to, but never reaches a given measure (anything that approaches zero or infinity). Asymptotes imply infinity in that no matter how close a curve gets to an axis, it will never intersect with it because of the infinite divisibility of the space between them.
The fact that accurate measurements for beginning and end points are asymptotic (see what I did there?) suggests that each event has either always been occurring, never occurred, or is actually one event that has no beginning or end; an infinite event. The best guess of anyone as to the starting point of an event is defined by when it did not commence, as opposed to the moment that it did - because we'll never figure out what that moment is.
It’s important to note that here, as in Zeno’s original Arrow and Dichotomy paradoxes (remember the required reading?); the infinite divisibility of both space and time seems to preclude movement (or in this case, commencement of events). However, as in all of Zeno’s paradoxes, we know from experience that despite the fact that from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing exactly when something started moving and where it moved to, the fact is that it does start moving, and does move somewhere.
Here is a possible explanation for this problem: Just as objects in space do not displace space by existing in it (they are the space they occupy - more on this in a few weeks), objects and events in time do not displace time. Basically, what I'm saying is that space and time are absolute - not relational (these are fancy philosophy terms). We estimate when the beginning and end of events happen, in terms of time. The unity and identity of each event is maintained no matter how many divisions are made in the duration between those beginning and end points - just as objects maintain their form from one point in space to another. No matter how many arbitrary divisions we make in time, an event maintains its duration, just as an object maintains its size no matter how small the increments that we measure it with are.
So, the interpretation of the present as being a relative estimate rather than an exact point is a useful fiction, which allows us to distinguish between relative (and inaccurate) starting points and relative end points in time or space.
Are relative time and space a valid substitute for knowing exact values? My position is that, technically, we can't tell the difference in our every day life, and the problem doesn't really have any noticeable effect on us as it is.
On the other hand, the indeterminacy of one of the fundamental elements of human perception is at once puzzling and intriguing. What does it mean, on a subconscious level, that events never actually start happening?
Next Week: On Simultaneity in which I dance around the idea of whether or not two things can happen at the same time, when one thing can barely seem to happen in the first place.
Preface: Last week, I went on about how there was no way of pinpointing any moment in time accurately, because accurate measurements require infinitely smaller increments. It is a dynamic relationship which means that truly accurate measurement of anything at all is impossible.
While it seems obvious that events do happen, and must have begun to happen at some point; any attempt to figure out at which point an event actually occurs only tells us the times when the event was or wasn't happening.
The starting point for an event is always a moment that we get close to, but never meet; a sort of asymptote (remember calculus, kids?). For convenience sake, I'm applying the concept of asymptotes to any thing that gets close to, but never reaches a given measure (anything that approaches zero or infinity). Asymptotes imply infinity in that no matter how close a curve gets to an axis, it will never intersect with it because of the infinite divisibility of the space between them.
The fact that accurate measurements for beginning and end points are asymptotic (see what I did there?) suggests that each event has either always been occurring, never occurred, or is actually one event that has no beginning or end; an infinite event. The best guess of anyone as to the starting point of an event is defined by when it did not commence, as opposed to the moment that it did - because we'll never figure out what that moment is.
It’s important to note that here, as in Zeno’s original Arrow and Dichotomy paradoxes (remember the required reading?); the infinite divisibility of both space and time seems to preclude movement (or in this case, commencement of events). However, as in all of Zeno’s paradoxes, we know from experience that despite the fact that from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing exactly when something started moving and where it moved to, the fact is that it does start moving, and does move somewhere.
Here is a possible explanation for this problem: Just as objects in space do not displace space by existing in it (they are the space they occupy - more on this in a few weeks), objects and events in time do not displace time. Basically, what I'm saying is that space and time are absolute - not relational (these are fancy philosophy terms). We estimate when the beginning and end of events happen, in terms of time. The unity and identity of each event is maintained no matter how many divisions are made in the duration between those beginning and end points - just as objects maintain their form from one point in space to another. No matter how many arbitrary divisions we make in time, an event maintains its duration, just as an object maintains its size no matter how small the increments that we measure it with are.
So, the interpretation of the present as being a relative estimate rather than an exact point is a useful fiction, which allows us to distinguish between relative (and inaccurate) starting points and relative end points in time or space.
Are relative time and space a valid substitute for knowing exact values? My position is that, technically, we can't tell the difference in our every day life, and the problem doesn't really have any noticeable effect on us as it is.
On the other hand, the indeterminacy of one of the fundamental elements of human perception is at once puzzling and intriguing. What does it mean, on a subconscious level, that events never actually start happening?
Next Week: On Simultaneity in which I dance around the idea of whether or not two things can happen at the same time, when one thing can barely seem to happen in the first place.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
On the present:
Required Reading: Infinity, Infinite divisibility, Zeno's paradoxes
Prelude - The following propositions and notes are based largely upon extrapolations and inferences I made from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (and certain of his followers) and the rationalist metaphysics described in the Ethics of Baruch Spinoza. There are elements of this philosophy that seem like science fiction, or don't seem plausible. It is the nature of metaphysics that concrete proof is not likely to exist.
The present is not a single point in time.
This is because time is infinitely divisible into smaller parts. The divisions we make within time are arbitrary, such as 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour, 60 seconds per minute. Seconds divide into centiseconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds, picoseconds, and so on. These divisions are not inherent in time, and could easily have been different.
You could make an infinite number of divisions in time, be they infinitely smaller or infinitely larger. As a result, any attempt to pinpoint the present to an exact point in time is practically impossible. By any human standard, that exact moment has already become the past by the time it is perceived. For that reason, it's convenient for us to think of the present as an approximate value of time; a relative duration.
For example, you might think of today as the present, but one day is a pretty large increment of time by human standards. One day has the capacity to be divided into several smaller parts - but the same is applicable to minutes, and any other measurement. The upshot is that any attempt to describe the present in human terms becomes a clumsy “the present is now, now, now, now, now, now, now, etc.” This is to say that the present is transitory. This moment; this present is already past.
By that same token, if the present is past before we fully perceive it, then the present has a firm grounding in the future, though, admittedly, it does not extend forward very far. To explain: the perception of the present as being a duration of time rather than a specific point means that the duration includes both a moment that has already happened and a moment that is about to happen. Without that anticipatory element, the duration would only be past.
The result, if you can keep up, is that the present is both the past and the future at once, so far as our perception is concerned – it sits on the fence, so to speak.
Obviously our brains can't even conceive of the infinitesimally small increment of time that would be required to actually pinpoint the present. This is made worse by the fact that such an increment would be getting infinitely smaller (because the smaller it is, the more accurate). The result being that a measurement could never actually be made, because the increments we measure with would always be getting smaller and smaller, and never actually reach the point.
Even if humans had the capacity to experience a nanosecond as though it were an hour or a day or a year, that nanosecond itself is infinitely divisible into infinitely smaller increments, such that pinpointing the present cannot be possible. In other words, the present, as anything other than a broad, relative duration (like we normally perceive it), cannot exist.
Next Week: On the paradox of infinite divisibility in which I try to deal with getting from here to there without any idea of where and when here and there actually are...
Prelude - The following propositions and notes are based largely upon extrapolations and inferences I made from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (and certain of his followers) and the rationalist metaphysics described in the Ethics of Baruch Spinoza. There are elements of this philosophy that seem like science fiction, or don't seem plausible. It is the nature of metaphysics that concrete proof is not likely to exist.
The present is not a single point in time.
This is because time is infinitely divisible into smaller parts. The divisions we make within time are arbitrary, such as 365 days per year, 24 hours per day, 60 minutes per hour, 60 seconds per minute. Seconds divide into centiseconds, milliseconds, nanoseconds, picoseconds, and so on. These divisions are not inherent in time, and could easily have been different.
You could make an infinite number of divisions in time, be they infinitely smaller or infinitely larger. As a result, any attempt to pinpoint the present to an exact point in time is practically impossible. By any human standard, that exact moment has already become the past by the time it is perceived. For that reason, it's convenient for us to think of the present as an approximate value of time; a relative duration.
For example, you might think of today as the present, but one day is a pretty large increment of time by human standards. One day has the capacity to be divided into several smaller parts - but the same is applicable to minutes, and any other measurement. The upshot is that any attempt to describe the present in human terms becomes a clumsy “the present is now, now, now, now, now, now, now, etc.” This is to say that the present is transitory. This moment; this present is already past.
By that same token, if the present is past before we fully perceive it, then the present has a firm grounding in the future, though, admittedly, it does not extend forward very far. To explain: the perception of the present as being a duration of time rather than a specific point means that the duration includes both a moment that has already happened and a moment that is about to happen. Without that anticipatory element, the duration would only be past.
The result, if you can keep up, is that the present is both the past and the future at once, so far as our perception is concerned – it sits on the fence, so to speak.
Obviously our brains can't even conceive of the infinitesimally small increment of time that would be required to actually pinpoint the present. This is made worse by the fact that such an increment would be getting infinitely smaller (because the smaller it is, the more accurate). The result being that a measurement could never actually be made, because the increments we measure with would always be getting smaller and smaller, and never actually reach the point.
Even if humans had the capacity to experience a nanosecond as though it were an hour or a day or a year, that nanosecond itself is infinitely divisible into infinitely smaller increments, such that pinpointing the present cannot be possible. In other words, the present, as anything other than a broad, relative duration (like we normally perceive it), cannot exist.
Next Week: On the paradox of infinite divisibility in which I try to deal with getting from here to there without any idea of where and when here and there actually are...
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Drinking human tea
It seems to me
that used bathwater
is simply human tea.
Human tea
would be
caffeine-free.
So, what do you do with a first blog post, anyway? Write a mission statement?
How 'bout I just write some words, and then we'll talk about what happened when I'm done.
For the last year or so, I've been sitting at work, mourning my university lifestyle. Not so much the social aspect, because, as you will no doubt discover, I have no social skills and not much interest in cultivating them. I am an asshole.
What I've been missing is learning things.
"Mein gott! What kind of crazy talk is this?" you ask, because you're German.
Well, mein Liebling, the truth is, in my field of study - Philosophy, I was actually learning stuff that mattered to me. Stuff that explains... the sorts of things that normal people accept at face value. My favourite subject was metaphysics, and as can be assumed from the name, it talks about the way things work, rather than getting bogged down with all that boring math crap.
So, for the past year, I have been trying to stimulate my brain in an otherwise mind-numbing office environment by surfing wikipedia. I had already been harbouring dreams of publishing some kind of compendium of "all the things that I know to be true," - something in the style of those 18th and 19th century philosophers who thought they were all that and a bag of carp (many of them had moustaches!).
Why would I want to do that, when others had done it already? Well, as it turned out (and here's one of the reasons that I am not a social animal), "all the things that I hold to be true" are radically divergent from all the things that everyone else thinks to be true.
So, combining wikipedia's information and my deductive reasoning, sometime last year I started writing that compendium, so that others could read it and summarily be converted to my way of thinking - or, you know, tell me to fuck off.
Here's the point I've not been coming to: I'm going to start posting hunks of that compendium to this blog. Up to this point, it has been languishing in a 30 page Word file on a USB key. Soon it will be stagnating in the void that is the Internet.
For your better understanding, here is a basic rundown of the way that these posts will work:
1. The title - This will generally take the form of "On blank:" denoting that a) i will be discussing something, and b) that something will be blank.
2. Required reading - This will usually be a wikipedia link, or a link to a previous entry that you'll want to read in advance, so you know what the heck I'm talking about. I will try not to use this much, and actually explain new stuff as I go.
3. The words -I will do my best to describe "the things that I hold to be true." It won't be very academic. I'm not just restating other people's ideas. I am forcing their ideas to have sex, and then running off with their babies. I've done my best to translate academic language into English. Sometimes, it'll be something heavy like religion, other times it'll be something dumb like why I sometimes think I hear music when I'm standing in a crowd. I've also got pages and pages about time travel. I'm a geek.
4. Recommended reading - this will be the stuff to read if you're hardcore. I'll list books you should read if you really want to get up to your ears in junk that I barely scratch the surface of.
Feel free to poke holes in my ideas. I'm only posting this stuff on the recommendation of someone else.
that used bathwater
is simply human tea.
Human tea
would be
caffeine-free.
So, what do you do with a first blog post, anyway? Write a mission statement?
How 'bout I just write some words, and then we'll talk about what happened when I'm done.
For the last year or so, I've been sitting at work, mourning my university lifestyle. Not so much the social aspect, because, as you will no doubt discover, I have no social skills and not much interest in cultivating them. I am an asshole.
What I've been missing is learning things.
"Mein gott! What kind of crazy talk is this?" you ask, because you're German.
Well, mein Liebling, the truth is, in my field of study - Philosophy, I was actually learning stuff that mattered to me. Stuff that explains... the sorts of things that normal people accept at face value. My favourite subject was metaphysics, and as can be assumed from the name, it talks about the way things work, rather than getting bogged down with all that boring math crap.
So, for the past year, I have been trying to stimulate my brain in an otherwise mind-numbing office environment by surfing wikipedia. I had already been harbouring dreams of publishing some kind of compendium of "all the things that I know to be true," - something in the style of those 18th and 19th century philosophers who thought they were all that and a bag of carp (many of them had moustaches!).
Why would I want to do that, when others had done it already? Well, as it turned out (and here's one of the reasons that I am not a social animal), "all the things that I hold to be true" are radically divergent from all the things that everyone else thinks to be true.
So, combining wikipedia's information and my deductive reasoning, sometime last year I started writing that compendium, so that others could read it and summarily be converted to my way of thinking - or, you know, tell me to fuck off.
Here's the point I've not been coming to: I'm going to start posting hunks of that compendium to this blog. Up to this point, it has been languishing in a 30 page Word file on a USB key. Soon it will be stagnating in the void that is the Internet.
For your better understanding, here is a basic rundown of the way that these posts will work:
1. The title - This will generally take the form of "On blank:" denoting that a) i will be discussing something, and b) that something will be blank.
2. Required reading - This will usually be a wikipedia link, or a link to a previous entry that you'll want to read in advance, so you know what the heck I'm talking about. I will try not to use this much, and actually explain new stuff as I go.
3. The words -I will do my best to describe "the things that I hold to be true." It won't be very academic. I'm not just restating other people's ideas. I am forcing their ideas to have sex, and then running off with their babies. I've done my best to translate academic language into English. Sometimes, it'll be something heavy like religion, other times it'll be something dumb like why I sometimes think I hear music when I'm standing in a crowd. I've also got pages and pages about time travel. I'm a geek.
4. Recommended reading - this will be the stuff to read if you're hardcore. I'll list books you should read if you really want to get up to your ears in junk that I barely scratch the surface of.
Feel free to poke holes in my ideas. I'm only posting this stuff on the recommendation of someone else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
