So I'm not even 100 pages into Invisible Man, and I can already tell this is going to be a book that confuses me until the very last page. Right now I just finished the part after the old white guy collapses in the bar, and the narrator is dodging people flying at him for his life. In the past chapters, there was a man who committed incest and a battle royale that put many Japanese talk shows to shame. And by the way, has anyone noticed that there's been a lot of incest in the books we're reading this semester? Anyways, this book is pretty weird. Before going into this book, one of my friends told me that it is reminenscent of The Wasteland and there's a large existentialist/futile theme in the novel, similar to Doestevsky's philosophy. Yet, call me stupid, I haven't really found too many thematic similarities up until this point. Yes, there was a lot of blood letting during the whole battle royale. No, when I read of black men being electrectuted for the entertainment of white men I do not think The Wasteland. What I do particularly like about the book, however, is its use of an unnamed narrator. And we all know one of the most influential books of all time followed a similar train of thought. That's right, I'm talking about Fight Club.
In the movie the narrator's name is Jack. In the novel, he has no name. This is supremely significant in the context of the novel, because as he moves through the coming abouts of this religion like organization the narrator rises to infamy without a name. The narrator, an insurance investigator prone to depression and insomnia, finds temporary joy and distraction by attending various support groups. But he keeps running into another support group fraud named Marla, which spoils his fun. Meanwhile, he also meets a free-lance projectionist named Tyler Durden, who splices frames from porn movies into mainstream features and suggests they undermine capitalist society with dangerous pranks and the Fight Club -- a group devoted to bare knuckles, all-out battles between similarly confused and frustrated young males. Its almost as if he's transcending God, yet God is not him its Tyler Durden. The importance of having an unnamed narrator is this: people fall through the cracks in society. There are people out there who won't have a say in important legislation, in the decisions for our generation, in the decisions for their very own life. Thus, they don't really have a name. In fight club, the narrator didn't even have an identity before Tyler Durden establishes the psuedo religion of Fight Club. As Fight Club grows and spreads across the country, Durden recruits the most loyal (and mindless) fighters and starts a new group, Project Mayhem. The group's ultimate goal is to eventually do away with consumerism and to initiate the downfall of civilization, a goal which the narrator is aghast at. The rise of the previous religion quickly turns into a pitfall of the religious mind set, and the narrator's identity is once again torn to shreds as he battles off the masses.
Yet, I wonder if the connection really exists in Invisible Man. Only time will tell.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Monday, November 9, 2009
Metaphysics in a nutshell
Inspired by chapter 5 in Grendel, I have decided to venture onto my own metaphysical quest. And, surprisingly, its not as easy as it seems. Metaphysics, in its whole, accounts for over ten subsects of philosophy. This ranges from metaphysical holism (similar to the beliefs of methodoligical holism) to metaphysical realism (there are real objects, they exist independant of other objects, and have independant properties). However, the belief system of just "metaphysics" is entirely different altogether. Metaphysics, is truly, the structure of reality along with the structure of nature and constitution of such. Although many believe that Metaphysics goes hand in hand with science, its essence actual presupposes science. Are there, for example, physical objects at all, does every event even have a cause?
Tuhs, the heart of metaphysics.
The dragon in chapter 5 only briefly touches on the realm of metaphysical philosophy - however try looking it up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. There are literally pages upon pages of information regarding metaphysics, each paragraph nearly contradicting the last. Some believe that metaphysics itself does not exist itself, because it is "cognitively meaningless" and not "emperically verifiable". By the next paragraph, however, the textbook asserts that metaphysics "is knowable only through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism. It is not a part of science itself." Wait...what? The only truth in metaphysics is that there is no truth, that maybe nothing in itself exists, that maybe our perception of objects reality is entirely wrong.
Metaphysics in itself applies to all of philosophies as a whole - think about it. Locke's social contract cannot exist if nothing in itself exists - anything philosophy investigates is assumed a part of reality. Knowledge, values, social constructs, reasoning all become lucid and insiginificant if nothing else within nature is true. Weird.
Dualism is the term coined for realms that are not real - what would be true if nothing truly existed. These worlds are known as spatiotemporal worlds, and this brings an entirely new debate of realism versus anti-realism. I took a philosophy class at Emory over the summer, and we talked extensively on Kant's philosophical assertions. And trust me, there are alot. But this reminds me of Kant's transcendentalist idealism - basically the world only exists because of what we see. Basically, every person's view of the world is adapted personally to their conceptions of the world - everything from the view of human kind to language. Metaphysics is truly a strange, engrossing concept. The aspect I love and hate about philosophy is that questions remain, despite all the extensive information on the topics. No matter what one philosophy asserts, theres always a contradictory opinion to destroy the previous opinion.
According to metaphysics, however, it doesn't matter because nothing really exists anything. Well it might exist. But its not actually a given. Is anything itself actually a given?
My brain just blew up.
P.s. – The pictures in the chapter are extremely amusing. I’ve been sketching Grendel faces for a few days now. I’m becoming quite extraordinary.
Tuhs, the heart of metaphysics.
The dragon in chapter 5 only briefly touches on the realm of metaphysical philosophy - however try looking it up in the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. There are literally pages upon pages of information regarding metaphysics, each paragraph nearly contradicting the last. Some believe that metaphysics itself does not exist itself, because it is "cognitively meaningless" and not "emperically verifiable". By the next paragraph, however, the textbook asserts that metaphysics "is knowable only through the methods of the sciences, is itself a metaphysics, namely metaphysical naturalism. It is not a part of science itself." Wait...what? The only truth in metaphysics is that there is no truth, that maybe nothing in itself exists, that maybe our perception of objects reality is entirely wrong.
Metaphysics in itself applies to all of philosophies as a whole - think about it. Locke's social contract cannot exist if nothing in itself exists - anything philosophy investigates is assumed a part of reality. Knowledge, values, social constructs, reasoning all become lucid and insiginificant if nothing else within nature is true. Weird.
Dualism is the term coined for realms that are not real - what would be true if nothing truly existed. These worlds are known as spatiotemporal worlds, and this brings an entirely new debate of realism versus anti-realism. I took a philosophy class at Emory over the summer, and we talked extensively on Kant's philosophical assertions. And trust me, there are alot. But this reminds me of Kant's transcendentalist idealism - basically the world only exists because of what we see. Basically, every person's view of the world is adapted personally to their conceptions of the world - everything from the view of human kind to language. Metaphysics is truly a strange, engrossing concept. The aspect I love and hate about philosophy is that questions remain, despite all the extensive information on the topics. No matter what one philosophy asserts, theres always a contradictory opinion to destroy the previous opinion.
According to metaphysics, however, it doesn't matter because nothing really exists anything. Well it might exist. But its not actually a given. Is anything itself actually a given?
My brain just blew up.
P.s. – The pictures in the chapter are extremely amusing. I’ve been sketching Grendel faces for a few days now. I’m becoming quite extraordinary.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Why sh** happens
Today was a particularly bad day in my life. I felt that my intelligence was completely undermined, embarrassed myself, proceeded to get sick, and now I have to testify in court. However, we all have those memorable days. Perhaps you get mud splashed on you from a car, or perhaps every single radio station is playing a song from the Black Eyed Peas. So I decided to google the science of a really bad day, and this is what I found.
Why Sh*t Happens: The Science of a Really Bad Day by Dr. Peter J. Bentley is a new book that expands on the science of those horrid days. Dr. Bentley asserts that nearly all bad days, and the events that occur within those days, are somewhat in our control. Although we may not be able to occur what is thrown at us, we are able to manipulate our response that will in turn affect the rest of our day. "Those who have a negative attitude are more likely to endow normal little mishaps with some mystical significance. Some psychologists even suggest that it's a way of subconsciously avoiding responsibility for our actions. 'It was Friday 13th, so I was bound to stick my fingers with superglue" or 'Accidents happen in threes, so after the first mishap the next two were inevitable.'" So essentially, after the first bad event in your day its kind of up to you. This seems enlightening and, yet, also frustrating - its as if the blame is put entirely on, well, you.
Dr. Bentley also talks on the point that bad days are so blatantly memorable in our minds because they are distinct departure from the norm. "We'll remember the time we drove off in the car with our bag on the roof, but forget the hundreds of times we drove off with the bag in the car. We'll remember the time our mp3 player went through the washing machine, but forget all the other occasions we used it to play music. So a sh*t day is immediately relevant and memorable to everyone." This too also makes sense. I could, right now, name in the past few months all the horrible, terrible, no good, very bad days I've had. However, if hard pressed to recall events from a stereotypical, normal day - I would most likely have a more difficult time. This, to me, raises the question - what does this say about humanity?
Apparently, by knowing the mechanics of a bad day, we can also interpret how to fix these days. Going back to the classic mantra, Dr. Bentley states, "Knowledge is power." By acknowledging that yes, perhaps we are to hard on ourselves, we can consciously change our behaviors. And what does this say about human kind and society? Dr. Bentley doesn't have an answer for this, but I believe this to be a throwback to perhaps our more dramatic sides. Perhaps we have a naturalistic need to have a bad day - to contrast with our better ones. Think about it: if we can gab to our friends and family on the horrible grade we received on our math test, it will be that much more rewarding the next test when we get an A.
But I'm still going to mope over that test.
Why Sh*t Happens: The Science of a Really Bad Day by Dr. Peter J. Bentley is a new book that expands on the science of those horrid days. Dr. Bentley asserts that nearly all bad days, and the events that occur within those days, are somewhat in our control. Although we may not be able to occur what is thrown at us, we are able to manipulate our response that will in turn affect the rest of our day. "Those who have a negative attitude are more likely to endow normal little mishaps with some mystical significance. Some psychologists even suggest that it's a way of subconsciously avoiding responsibility for our actions. 'It was Friday 13th, so I was bound to stick my fingers with superglue" or 'Accidents happen in threes, so after the first mishap the next two were inevitable.'" So essentially, after the first bad event in your day its kind of up to you. This seems enlightening and, yet, also frustrating - its as if the blame is put entirely on, well, you.
Dr. Bentley also talks on the point that bad days are so blatantly memorable in our minds because they are distinct departure from the norm. "We'll remember the time we drove off in the car with our bag on the roof, but forget the hundreds of times we drove off with the bag in the car. We'll remember the time our mp3 player went through the washing machine, but forget all the other occasions we used it to play music. So a sh*t day is immediately relevant and memorable to everyone." This too also makes sense. I could, right now, name in the past few months all the horrible, terrible, no good, very bad days I've had. However, if hard pressed to recall events from a stereotypical, normal day - I would most likely have a more difficult time. This, to me, raises the question - what does this say about humanity?
Apparently, by knowing the mechanics of a bad day, we can also interpret how to fix these days. Going back to the classic mantra, Dr. Bentley states, "Knowledge is power." By acknowledging that yes, perhaps we are to hard on ourselves, we can consciously change our behaviors. And what does this say about human kind and society? Dr. Bentley doesn't have an answer for this, but I believe this to be a throwback to perhaps our more dramatic sides. Perhaps we have a naturalistic need to have a bad day - to contrast with our better ones. Think about it: if we can gab to our friends and family on the horrible grade we received on our math test, it will be that much more rewarding the next test when we get an A.
But I'm still going to mope over that test.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Campbell's Chick Noodle Soup. Mythology too.
Today, I really thought that the movie we watched on Joseph Campbell was extremely interesting. Apparently, he devised the entire field of comparative mythology and there is an extensive library on this subject from Campbell alone. In fact, there are many reoccurring themes in universal works that most of us would recognize from the stories we’ve grown up around. Take for example, the “flood” story. We all know about Noah, and if you need a reminder let me take some time to recite you the true story:
“The Lord said to Noah
Go build me an arky, arky
The Lord told Noah
Go build me an arky, arky
Make it out of hickery barky, barky
Children of the Lord…
It rained and it poured
For forty daysie, daysies
It rained and it poured
For forty daysie, daysies
Nearly drove those creatures crazy, crazy,
Children of the Lord.”
Credits go to whomever wrote Rise and Shine. Anyways, Gilgamesh also has a great flood in the epic work, as does Hindu mythology, Aztec mythology, and the Greek myth of Deucalion. That’s all great, but the most interesting thing to me is the reoccurring role of the hero. Essentially, there are seventeen common themes to all mythological hero stories and in that regard nearly all of our current hero stories as well. There are eight steps, which are:
1. The Call to Adventure
2. The Road of Trials
3. The Vision Quest
4. The Meeting with the Goddess
5. The Boon
6. The Magic Flight
7. The Return Threshold
8. The Master of Two Worlds
No, this really does work out. Whether it be Odysseus or The Lion King (an extremely deep film in my opinion!) there is essentially a formula that can be formatted to all of the hero archetypes. However, I don’t really think that you have to fit every one of the steps to be able to be categorized as a universal hero archetype. Take for example nearly any episode of the classic series “The Twilight Zone”, written by Rod Sterling. One of the episodes, entitled “Death Ship”, follows the lives of three American Astronauts as they find themselves in a parallel universe. The captain of the mission is the first to discover an exact, identical spaceship of their own – with their dead doppelgangers in the ship. From this alternate universe, they must find a way back to Earth, while also solving the mystery behind their alternate selves. In this example the call to adventure and even the road of trials would occur before the beginning of the story, but they are still implied by the nature of their careers. They are adventurers, heroes in the strictest sense of the word – and their quest eventually leads to their demise, in stead of revival. The magic flight they take is a literal magic flight, repairing their spacecraft from things found from the environment of the planet. And the Return Threshold would represent their supposed return to this parallel universe, however the twist ending occurs when they discover they have entered the reality in which they are dead. Rod Serling truly was a master of science fiction, but I still find it extremely interesting that even a hit U.S. T.V. series can be similar to that of my pal Odysseus.
Monday, October 19, 2009
The supreme degradation of the moral filter
This might just be me, but whenever I get tired my moral filter goes down the hole. No, I do not mean that the moments before I enter sleepdom that I rip open a cliffnotes book and find the cow's milk in Tess symbolizes abandonment. I am talking about a physical dreariness that allows humans to become more "real". Say for example, after a great night's rest, you come down stairs and your child is watching TV when they are suppossed to be doing homework. You are more likely to simply scold them, and just turn off the TV. However, reverse the setting to nightime, when you're exhausted from the day, you're more likely to curse at them and perhaps throw a chair (maybe they only do that on Jerry Springer). But, is the happy well rested side more real than the angry, annoyed, and tired side? Or vice versa?
Perhaps after supreme degradation from the day's work that you just turn off your moral filter. That, not to be offensive, you're more crude just because you don't really care. Isn't that the same thing as showing your "true colors?" I'm not exactly sure myself, but I've certaintly said regretful things when my moral filter has been shut down.
The end. Feel free to comment what your own personal belief is on the issue of a moral filter.
P.s. - I know from personal experience, although not truly a moral issue, my vocabulary goes from "splendiforous" to "great" to "awesome" to (positive sounding grunt) as the day goes on. Its interesting to watch the effect of dreariness on people.
Perhaps after supreme degradation from the day's work that you just turn off your moral filter. That, not to be offensive, you're more crude just because you don't really care. Isn't that the same thing as showing your "true colors?" I'm not exactly sure myself, but I've certaintly said regretful things when my moral filter has been shut down.
The end. Feel free to comment what your own personal belief is on the issue of a moral filter.
P.s. - I know from personal experience, although not truly a moral issue, my vocabulary goes from "splendiforous" to "great" to "awesome" to (positive sounding grunt) as the day goes on. Its interesting to watch the effect of dreariness on people.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Heeeeeelter Skeeeeelter
Okay, so right now I'm reading (for pleasure) Helter Skelter, the true account of the Manson murders. Essentially, Manson was able to interpret the lyrics of Helter Skelter so that he was Jesus, the Beatles were descendants of God, and a huge race riot was going to occur. Thus, a new world order would come about, leaving the whites dominant. According to former "family" members, Manson told the group around 1968, "Are you hep to what the Beatles are saying? Helter Skelter is coming down. The Beatles are telling it like it is," (Helter Skelter). Which is so silly, because anyone who's watched Doctor Oz on Oprah would know skin tone is extremely minute in relation to your DNA. And I'm also a huge Beatles fan, although not incredibly insane like Manson, so I wanted to really examine the lyrics of Helter Skelter.
When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn
and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah Do you don't you want me to love you
I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you
Tell me tell me come on tell me the answer
and you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer
Okay, so this part to me strikes me as a drug trip. "Miles above you" seems to be a nod at a high, and with this vivid imagery of coming down a slide, I bet its something along the lines of an acid trip. The shallow examination of this part leads me to believe that perhaps the girl won't practice drugs with them. But, of course, there has to be more. Helter Skelter is apparently a twisty slide in England, thus the reference of "when I get to the top of the slide." However, I've also heard that the song could also be referencing the fall of the roman empire. Which, we all know from AP World, is because of those darned barbarians.
-Carson
When I get to the bottom
I go back to the top of the slide
Where I stop and turn
and I go for a ride
Till I get to the bottom and I see you again
Yeah, yeah, yeah Do you don't you want me to love you
I'm coming down fast but I'm miles above you
Tell me tell me come on tell me the answer
and you may be a lover but you ain't no dancer
Okay, so this part to me strikes me as a drug trip. "Miles above you" seems to be a nod at a high, and with this vivid imagery of coming down a slide, I bet its something along the lines of an acid trip. The shallow examination of this part leads me to believe that perhaps the girl won't practice drugs with them. But, of course, there has to be more. Helter Skelter is apparently a twisty slide in England, thus the reference of "when I get to the top of the slide." However, I've also heard that the song could also be referencing the fall of the roman empire. Which, we all know from AP World, is because of those darned barbarians.
-Carson
Should I stay or should I go?
Most of you probably have a Facebook, and if not you are soooo 2003. However, if you DO own a facebook then you may be aware of an "application" called Friend Cicle. What this facebook application does is illustrate the various networks and friends you have, and how diverse your friend base is. And if you take a look at mine, you will see that I have a vast array of friends from all over Georgia. From transitioning from public to private, from middle to high school, my contacts are all over the place. Which leads me to my point: isn't it strange how those who you used to be extraordinarily close to come and go so fast?
It's so strange to me how relationships are nearly recyclable. I mean, for your extremely close friends this doesn't typically apply, but I've certaintly had my fair share of friends go astray. This wasn't supposed to be a long, engaging rant on my past, or anything like that. I just find it strange. Perhaps it's just me?
-Carson
It's so strange to me how relationships are nearly recyclable. I mean, for your extremely close friends this doesn't typically apply, but I've certaintly had my fair share of friends go astray. This wasn't supposed to be a long, engaging rant on my past, or anything like that. I just find it strange. Perhaps it's just me?
-Carson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
