Hello Pville Philosophy Clubbers,...
Sorry we're late to post this month. We had a house move, a dog escape, a french press break, and a bug attack to deal with. More of an excuse than a justification. Alas, as follows is some solid wiki-starter material to embrace and discuss. Hopefully, everyone had an opportunity to read Camus this past month, but if not, it's still a great subject to discuss. Without further delay,...the absurd:
In the essay, Camus introduces his philosophy of the absurd: man's futile search for meaning, unity and clarity in the face of an unintelligible world devoid of God and eternal truths or values. Does the realization of the absurd require suicide? Camus answers: "No. It requires revolt." He then outlines several approaches to the absurd life. The final chapter compares the absurdity of man's life with the situation of Sisyphus, a figure of Greek mythology who was condemned to repeat forever the same meaningless task of pushing a rock up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The essay concludes, "The struggle itself...is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Transitioning From Truth to Morality
The concept of absolute truth is ambiguous. To split it up, melt it down, reshape it, built it back up again... one is left standing in circles. no one knows the answers to this question. the subject itself has plagued philosophers since the beginning. humans might not ever find out what is absolute. we can only speculate. we can only form an opinion which best fits our understanding.
"I have already hinted, that our sense of every kind of virtue is not natural; but that there are some virtues, that produce pleasure and approbation by means of an artifice or contrivance, which arises from the circumstances and necessity of mankind. Of this kind I assert justice to be; and shall endeavor to defend this opinion by a short, and, I hope, convincing argument, before I examine the nature of the artifice, from which the sense of that virtue is derived." (david hume)
this is an excerpt from "Treatise of Human Nature" by David Hume, PPC new focus this month. morality and how it relates to justice. morals are a very personal concept. many philosophers have focused on morality and its place in justice. why do we have morals at all? where do they come from? how does society deal with the morality spectrum? Its easy for one person to agree with a law if it favors their moral belief. but what if it doesn't? do we flex our morality based upon governmental law? do we base it upon natural law?
opening the table to discussions and information....
"I have already hinted, that our sense of every kind of virtue is not natural; but that there are some virtues, that produce pleasure and approbation by means of an artifice or contrivance, which arises from the circumstances and necessity of mankind. Of this kind I assert justice to be; and shall endeavor to defend this opinion by a short, and, I hope, convincing argument, before I examine the nature of the artifice, from which the sense of that virtue is derived." (david hume)
this is an excerpt from "Treatise of Human Nature" by David Hume, PPC new focus this month. morality and how it relates to justice. morals are a very personal concept. many philosophers have focused on morality and its place in justice. why do we have morals at all? where do they come from? how does society deal with the morality spectrum? Its easy for one person to agree with a law if it favors their moral belief. but what if it doesn't? do we flex our morality based upon governmental law? do we base it upon natural law?
opening the table to discussions and information....
Member Input...take three!
As promised, here are some links to the works of Zizek and Badiou on ethics which others might find interesting:
Zizek on the Ethics of Violence
Badiou on Evil
Zizek on the Ethics of Violence
Badiou on Evil
Member Input...take two!
The following is taken from "An Introduction to Awareness" by James M. Corrigan
Excerpt from the chapter "Part One – Archaelogy":
"It is the one undeniable truth - we are present, as an awareness of that which we perceive, feel, or think."
Excepts from the chapter "Questioning Reality":
"... your perceptions have validity for you. This validity is the most important understanding that each of us has about our lives... it is self-assured. We know that we are real and our interactions with the world have taught us that it can cause effects that we experience personally ... we have experienced real interactions with the outside world - real because we directly experienced them ourselves - and those past interactions are now part of our selves - our memories, and our personal knowledge about the world and ourselves.
You also know that I am not some part of you; You know we are independent beings, and this knowledge has nothing to do with the validity of your experiences, it has to do with the form of the world. You are implicitly acting as if the form of the world is a certain way.
It seems to be the case that the first truth about the validity of our experiences is apodictic, while that of the form of the world is not."
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Excerpt from the chapter "Part One – Archaelogy":
"It is the one undeniable truth - we are present, as an awareness of that which we perceive, feel, or think."
Excepts from the chapter "Questioning Reality":
"... your perceptions have validity for you. This validity is the most important understanding that each of us has about our lives... it is self-assured. We know that we are real and our interactions with the world have taught us that it can cause effects that we experience personally ... we have experienced real interactions with the outside world - real because we directly experienced them ourselves - and those past interactions are now part of our selves - our memories, and our personal knowledge about the world and ourselves.
You also know that I am not some part of you; You know we are independent beings, and this knowledge has nothing to do with the validity of your experiences, it has to do with the form of the world. You are implicitly acting as if the form of the world is a certain way.
It seems to be the case that the first truth about the validity of our experiences is apodictic, while that of the form of the world is not."
Reply
Reply to all
Forward
Member Input...take one!
Ok – this might be a little unusual for this group (and any other group too). May I suggest you consider “On Having No Head, Zen and the Rediscovery of the Obvious” by Douglas E. Harding.
Douglas Harding's message is simplicity itself yet stunningly enlightening. He is fond of simple experiments to explain his ‘no-head’ observation. An as example, here is an experiment I sent to a few friends of mine. For the purposes of this email, please consider yourself an honorary meathead and do the experiment yourself.
Dear Meat-heads,
Try this experiment: Point at something within your view; let's say your computer. Actually point at it with your finger. Notice it has color, shape, texture, size, etc. Try pointing at something else in the room: point at the mouse, let's say. Notice its physical characteristics. Now point at, let's say your arm. Again – color, shape, texture, size, boundaries, etc. So everything around you right now has physical characteristics which are clearly evident and which you can point at and experience.
You, of course, are in the room too somewhere, right? You are here right now, and your finger is pointing at all this stuff around you. So, where are you, exactly?
Just for fun, actually do this next step: Continue to direct your pointing finger up your arm till you are pointing directly at yourself – where you are looking out from. Isn't it true that you are pointing at yourself right now? If you are anywhere you are certainly right where you are pointing at and where you seem to be looking out from. For me, there is no color here, no shape, no size, texture, boundaries. There’s no-thing.
You now pointing at the real you. The everyday actual you. And, isn't what you are pointing at now what you have always been all your life? Of course, if you think about it, there is a head somewhere around there, and arms, feet, heart, computer, walls, etc. But you, yourself, are something totally distinct from all that, which is what you are pointing at!
Everything else you point at has physical characteristics, like color, size, shape, etc. What you are pointing at now has none of these characteristics. Which makes perfect sense if you are a non-physical, awake and aware presence as, from all direct present evidence, you seem to be.
You have no shape, color, smell, boundaries. None the less you are here. You are present and aware, period. You have a body, of course, a computer, a room, a world but you are not any of those “things” nor do you possess any of their characteristics (like color or shape).
Douglas Harding's message is simplicity itself yet stunningly enlightening. He is fond of simple experiments to explain his ‘no-head’ observation. An as example, here is an experiment I sent to a few friends of mine. For the purposes of this email, please consider yourself an honorary meathead and do the experiment yourself.
Dear Meat-heads,
Try this experiment: Point at something within your view; let's say your computer. Actually point at it with your finger. Notice it has color, shape, texture, size, etc. Try pointing at something else in the room: point at the mouse, let's say. Notice its physical characteristics. Now point at, let's say your arm. Again – color, shape, texture, size, boundaries, etc. So everything around you right now has physical characteristics which are clearly evident and which you can point at and experience.
You, of course, are in the room too somewhere, right? You are here right now, and your finger is pointing at all this stuff around you. So, where are you, exactly?
Just for fun, actually do this next step: Continue to direct your pointing finger up your arm till you are pointing directly at yourself – where you are looking out from. Isn't it true that you are pointing at yourself right now? If you are anywhere you are certainly right where you are pointing at and where you seem to be looking out from. For me, there is no color here, no shape, no size, texture, boundaries. There’s no-thing.
You now pointing at the real you. The everyday actual you. And, isn't what you are pointing at now what you have always been all your life? Of course, if you think about it, there is a head somewhere around there, and arms, feet, heart, computer, walls, etc. But you, yourself, are something totally distinct from all that, which is what you are pointing at!
Everything else you point at has physical characteristics, like color, size, shape, etc. What you are pointing at now has none of these characteristics. Which makes perfect sense if you are a non-physical, awake and aware presence as, from all direct present evidence, you seem to be.
You have no shape, color, smell, boundaries. None the less you are here. You are present and aware, period. You have a body, of course, a computer, a room, a world but you are not any of those “things” nor do you possess any of their characteristics (like color or shape).
Monday, May 11, 2009
Morality and Justice
Hi Group,
I'm posting a quick post to allow the PPC followers to comment any information they may be finding and wanting to share. i full plan on heading home today and typing up and good amount of information. i have a lot of great updates surfacing and look forward to sharing this all with you.
stay tuned... tomorrow we'll have action...
enjoyed the day!
I'm posting a quick post to allow the PPC followers to comment any information they may be finding and wanting to share. i full plan on heading home today and typing up and good amount of information. i have a lot of great updates surfacing and look forward to sharing this all with you.
stay tuned... tomorrow we'll have action...
enjoyed the day!
Thursday, April 23, 2009
More on Truth
So i have been reading up on general views about truth. in a world with so much room for error can truth exist? well that depends on who you are asking. ask someone who measures truth by group consensus. if we all say its truth than it must be. this is a pre-socractic thought. Plato would say to that statement,,, well then we if all agree man can fly than can a man fly? NO! so i suggest you research plato, hume, neitzsche and others to find what might fit for you.
i look forward to May 6th meeting.
i look forward to May 6th meeting.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
on truth
“the question of truth- what it is and how we can recognize it- is among the oldest and most controversial in philosophy. Truth is also an important concept in mathematics. Historically, in both fields, truth has generally been assumed to be an absolute quality, elusive of definition or proof, perhaps, but invariable- although the ancient Greek SOPHISTS’ philosophy of RELATIVISM, holding that subjective judgments are “the measure of all things,” including truth, has long influenced the debate. The Euclidian idea that all mathematical axioms are statements of self- evident truths was challenged in the 19th century by the development of geometrics that did not assume EUCLID’s postulate concerning parallel lines. It was further undermined by 20th century mathematics, for example, set theory, according to which what is true in one sphere may not be true in another, and Kurt Godel’s incompleteness theorem, which states that not all true statements can be proven.
Most philosophical definitions of truth have been based on the notion of “correct description,” although there is a wide disagreement over what constitutes “correct.” Three major theories of truth have been proposed. The most intuitive approach is the correspondence theory, which was defined by Thomas Aquinas as “the correlation of thought and object,” that is, our idea of something is true is it corresponds to the actuality of that thing. An objection to this theory, that our subjective perceptions may not accurately capture reality, is addressed by the coherence theory, according to which something can be said to be true if it is consistent with the other elements in a coherent conceptual system."
Most philosophical definitions of truth have been based on the notion of “correct description,” although there is a wide disagreement over what constitutes “correct.” Three major theories of truth have been proposed. The most intuitive approach is the correspondence theory, which was defined by Thomas Aquinas as “the correlation of thought and object,” that is, our idea of something is true is it corresponds to the actuality of that thing. An objection to this theory, that our subjective perceptions may not accurately capture reality, is addressed by the coherence theory, according to which something can be said to be true if it is consistent with the other elements in a coherent conceptual system."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Perception Discussion- April 1 2009
To begin last night’s session we reviewed Cezanne’s paintings and the significance of his works to phenomenologist. Besides it being a French thing, Merleau-Ponty admired Cezanne for painting reality as he saw it in his mind and not as one would see it in a photograph. Cezanne would change angles and dimensions to have them make sense to his reality, he was among the first of impressionist to do this. Cezanne also used geometrical shapes and symmetry for the base of his paintings. The conversation then proceeded into perception and how it matters. Why does perception matter? Don’t we all see the same thing? Scott used the example of driving down the highway. Everyone driving down the highway must perceive the same thing or we’d all crash. This is a example. Yes. All of them see the road, the painted lines, the cars nearby; however everyone is acting in a different circumstance. Take for example a woman who just received terrible news. She is frantic and upset, emotionally displaced. And she is driving down this highway with little focus on her surroundings. Perception is distorted due to the circumstance of emotional conflict. She is less aware of her surroundings; her reactionary time will be delayed due to her focus being elsewhere. So it’s not just about the act of perceiving but rather how we react to what we perceive. And the woman’s emotional circumstance can applied to everyone else on that highway. Each human is equipped with their own concept of meaning. All things perceived lead to a meaning.
Just the same Tim asked, “was Cezanne trying to say something through his paintings” and “how would we know”… we don’t. Art is unique in that it leaves the door open for interpretation. we applied the example of Cezanne’s still life of the apples. Say that when you were a child you had apples thrown at you by the neighborhood kids. Staring at Cezanne’s apples would generate anxiety which stemmed from your fear of apples. Now say you had vivid memories of picking apples with your grandmother every autumn Cezanne’s apples might bring you peace and clarity. In both circumstances we apply our own meaning to Cezanne’s apples. Again we only know meaning through perception. We know it because we have lived it. This then led us to photographs. Ryan state that “photographs are objective”. Interesting thought… but we apply meaning to the photograph making it subjective. And how we perceive a photo now isn’t going to be the same as when we perceived it 10 years ago. Why? Because we have more empirical knowledge. Scott gave the example of a picture of the world trade center. He said on September 10, 2001 he would look at the towers as two buildings, two really big buildings…but after September 11, 2001 when the buildings crash to the ground the photo takes on a whole new meaning. Why? Because of the events that took place between September 10th and September 11th.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Cezanne's Doubt
Well the trip to the Philadephia Art Museum was a success. Andrew, Bruce, Myah (my 6 year old daughter) and myself went to Cezanne's exhibit. the exhibit lacks a variety of Cezanne's pieces, however, it was an interesting display of how he influenced others when it came to art. He reformed impressionism. In the essay, "Cezanne's Doubt", written by Maurice Merleau-Ponty, he pointed out how Cezanne's fears of death and society were reflected in his paintings. Cezanne didn't want to paint objects as though they were picture, similar to that taken by a camera. he wanted to paint objects as he perceived them. by using this theory when painting he distorted objects allowing the observer to see the object from various points of view. He painted life as he perceived life. PLease read the essay. it's an easy read and very informative.
Cezanne's Doubt can be found at the link below.
http://faculty.uml.edu/rinnis/cezannedoubt.pdf
Cezanne's Doubt can be found at the link below.
http://faculty.uml.edu/rinnis/cezannedoubt.pdf
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
The Philadelphia Art Museum
Hi all,
hope your weeks are going smooth and easy. i just wanted to let everyone know that andrew and i are planning to go to the art museum this sunday, it's free. if anyone is interested...send me an email.
anything discovered lately?
jack
hope your weeks are going smooth and easy. i just wanted to let everyone know that andrew and i are planning to go to the art museum this sunday, it's free. if anyone is interested...send me an email.
anything discovered lately?
jack
Friday, March 6, 2009
Immanuel Kant and Paul Cezanne
I found a great website that compares the Kant and Cezanne check it out...
go to google books and search for Phenomenological Sociology by Harvie Ferguson
Also for a briefing on Cezanne: reference wikipedia :)
The book that I recommended at the meeting was Donald Palmer's "Looking at Philosophy". Its an expensive book, thus being because it's a text book...so don't feel obligated!
Andrew and I will be working on the Philosophy Tree this month and will have it ready for april 1st meeting.
Keep an eye on the blog for newly found information. If you find a good source of information...let us know!
Also make a note that the Philadelphia Art Museum is free on Sundays.
go to google books and search for Phenomenological Sociology by Harvie Ferguson
Also for a briefing on Cezanne: reference wikipedia :)
The book that I recommended at the meeting was Donald Palmer's "Looking at Philosophy". Its an expensive book, thus being because it's a text book...so don't feel obligated!
Andrew and I will be working on the Philosophy Tree this month and will have it ready for april 1st meeting.
Keep an eye on the blog for newly found information. If you find a good source of information...let us know!
Also make a note that the Philadelphia Art Museum is free on Sundays.
PPC- March 4th Meeting
Hi All,
I wanted to touch base and thank everyone for their input and participation. What an awesome group of people!
Okay to recap last night's meeting. we have the following attendees....
* Rich- the writer! check him out at<http://www.marimbadog.livejournal.com >. Most notable moment...the inspiration of David Byrne
I wanted to touch base and thank everyone for their input and participation. What an awesome group of people!
Okay to recap last night's meeting. we have the following attendees....
* Rich- the writer! check him out at<http://www.marimbadog.
* Whit- English Teacher. Loves physics and Bicycling. He's helping Jenny plan a wedding :)
* Jennie- she doesn't know "a lot" about philosophy. enthusiastic personality. loves eastern philosophy and is planning a wedding with Whit!
* John- took some introduction classes in philosophy...he mostly loves to analyze everything. He has a great connection of philosophy to fictional books.
* Tom- minored in philosophy...intrigued by Dystopia's Utopia and Thomas Moore.
* Bri- a software developer who just wants to learn more about philosophy. Interested in social evolution.
* Bruce- has no real philosophical background. he's trying to see the world in colors...bored with black and white
* Andrew- loves camus and the absurd. he's fascinated by natural law
* Jackie (me)- focused in phenomenology and loves Maurice Merleau-Ponty
who we were missing last night but will attend next month's meeting...Darin, George and Dwayne. We are very excited to meet you guys.
so onward and upward. Our discussion last night was about picking topics of interest. we went around the room and talked about what we could study, and here's what we came up with:
* Taoism and eastern philosophy
* Cognitive Thinking- phenomenology
* Social Behavior and how it manifests in large groups
* Economy and Social Structure
* Existential questions
* ichung, synchronizing, carl jung
* Religion
* Scientific Philosophers
* Evolutionary Psychology
* Evolution- Darwin
* Subjectivity vs Objectivity
* No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre
That being said, we closed out the meeting with Immanuel Kant and Paul Cezanne's art. (Whit you were right) Cezanne painted in the 1800's and Kant wrote in the 1700's. Cezanne is considered by many as "the Kant, if not the Husserl, of paintings". i will be posting the information about this subject on the blog later today (<http://www.phoenixvillephilosophy.blogspot.com >). So the thought is to study the connection between Kant and Cezanne. Cezanne's paintings are on displayed at the Philadelphia Art Museum. If you have the opportunity, read up on Kant's third critique from the "Critique of Pure Reason" and go analyze Cezanne's art.
Again, please check out the blog later today. I will suggest books and websites to look at. and if anyone has suggestions please feel free to put them out there.
thanks,
jackie
* Jennie- she doesn't know "a lot" about philosophy. enthusiastic personality. loves eastern philosophy and is planning a wedding with Whit!
* John- took some introduction classes in philosophy...he mostly loves to analyze everything. He has a great connection of philosophy to fictional books.
* Tom- minored in philosophy...intrigued by Dystopia's Utopia and Thomas Moore.
* Bri- a software developer who just wants to learn more about philosophy. Interested in social evolution.
* Bruce- has no real philosophical background. he's trying to see the world in colors...bored with black and white
* Andrew- loves camus and the absurd. he's fascinated by natural law
* Jackie (me)- focused in phenomenology and loves Maurice Merleau-Ponty
who we were missing last night but will attend next month's meeting...Darin, George and Dwayne. We are very excited to meet you guys.
so onward and upward. Our discussion last night was about picking topics of interest. we went around the room and talked about what we could study, and here's what we came up with:
* Taoism and eastern philosophy
* Cognitive Thinking- phenomenology
* Social Behavior and how it manifests in large groups
* Economy and Social Structure
* Existential questions
* ichung, synchronizing, carl jung
* Religion
* Scientific Philosophers
* Evolutionary Psychology
* Evolution- Darwin
* Subjectivity vs Objectivity
* No Exit by Jean-Paul Sartre
That being said, we closed out the meeting with Immanuel Kant and Paul Cezanne's art. (Whit you were right) Cezanne painted in the 1800's and Kant wrote in the 1700's. Cezanne is considered by many as "the Kant, if not the Husserl, of paintings". i will be posting the information about this subject on the blog later today (<http://www.
Again, please check out the blog later today. I will suggest books and websites to look at. and if anyone has suggestions please feel free to put them out there.
thanks,
jackie
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Physiology of Perception
i have this fondness for phenomenology, particularly, perceptions. in my quest to learn more i stumbled upon a well written article. A man by the name of Walter J Freeman, professor of Neurobiology at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote this: "the brain transforms sensory messages into conscious perceptions almost instantly Chaotic, collective activity involving millions of neurons seems essential for such rapid recognition." so what does this have to do with philosophy? for me, everything. it's the scientific part of what happens when one perceives. phenomenology has a focus point in perceptions. what happens when we perceive? how is it interpreted? moreso, what meaning does this perception have? day in and day out we perceive, and, both physically and psychologically, we are affected by the meaning it delivers. i'm seeking to find the bridge between the physical and mental. what merleau-ponty described as the intentional arc...standby
Monday, February 9, 2009
and so it begins
" i want to create an omelet that expresses the meaninglessness of existence and instead they taste like cheese"
this blog is designed to empower thinking. welcome aboard!
this blog is designed to empower thinking. welcome aboard!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
