If there were any two words I could use to describe how I've been living my life, it would be: Third Person. Taking a page out of a (living) philosopher I sorely resent, I feel as if David Armstrong's account of mental states is actually getting at something. Basically:
Armstrong is suggesting that as a general principle as a model for judging the minds of others behaviourism works, but when looked at an individual, you the individual, there is so much more that is going on than what behaviourism would suggest. Behaviourism seems to be the only other sufficient model to judge what’s going on in someone else’s mind, you otherwise would have no insight.
Hence, a third person perspective, for with certain theories you may concoct containing explanatory power for shit happening around you, ultimately, you cannot apply such a theory to yourself. Why? Because you know yourself that such a theory cannot logically apply to yourself. You know that you are more than the theory can care to explain, you are unresolved, you are unsure, you lack guidance, and you are alone. When looking at other people, sure you can use your theory to expose people in a certain light, but in application of such a theory upon yourself, all you're really doing is placing a veil before your identity, a veil that allows your identity and who you really are to elude you further than it already is in a Coyote vs Roadrunner manner.
And it is probably as a result of this "Third Person" premise that I find it much easier and lacking in rigor to argue for theories that apply to society, to matters and issues outside of my perceivable consciousness. My consciousness, it eludes me now, it's telling me to sleep, but I must endeavor, I must see this through.
____________________
____________________
With that sorted though, I would like to discuss, or rather briefly mention something that's been playing a lot on my mind recently. It's a question of identity. Readers, if I were to ask you who you were, what would you reply with? The question posed is certainly one that I'm sure you've encountered at least once hitherto, and it is a question that is certainly not at all easy to answer.
Such a question is too diverse to answer in one blog post though, but I do believe that I have pinpointed an area of my consciousness that could very well explain a lot about me, if it were to be the case.
Argument from Final Consequence.
Such arguments (also called Teleological) are based on the reversal of cause and effect because they argue that something is caused by the ultimate effect that it has, or purpose that it serves. For example: God must exist, because otherwise life would have no meaning.
My problem lies within my very beliefs and foundations, and I feel I must know the answer to this question I'm about to pose. An answer would probably define who I am, given the vocabulary barrier.
Am I the sort of person who finds good reasoning behind an action first, before performing the action? Or am I the sort of person who makes a decision, and then fabricates reasons in a pitiful attempt to console myself of the decision made?
For me, the former represents strength of mind, the will to be logically brave, and the will to overcome rashness and timidity to find confidence in logic above all else. One who finds solid foundations first in order to make a well rationed decision. One who really leads with the head, stands tall, stands strong, like the fucking lion king who stands tall and affirming in the face of his pride.
The latter however, seems to represent weakness. One who makes a decision, and then fabricates lies and reasoning in order to re-assure themselves that they've made the right move. Such an act seems to dilute and place truth and character behind a veil, rather than exposing it for what it is. Weakness probably doesn't even begin to scrape the tip of the iceberg. It's lying, deceit, unethical - I mean surely you owe your ego honesty at the very least, rather than sticking your head in the ground in an attempt to hide the fact that you are ultimately lost, unaffirmed, lacking in conviction.
What's the difference between the two though? For the former, it's having reasoning to lead to a sound conclusion. For the latter, it seems more like finding a conclusion, and concocting reasoning in an attempt to wrongly justify your conclusion, or as the fallacy says, the Argument from final Consequences.
Case in Point.
I have decided against doing Enhancement Philosophy as a subject next year. My question is, did I decide this first, and then make reasons to make myself feel better about the decision, or did I really think it through, and ultimately decided it would be better if I were to keep formal philosophy classes to a minimum, given the time consumption of year 12?
Consequentially, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference, but intentionally, I think it says alot.
______________
______________
Happy New Years Everyone!
I spent new years in Saigon central, celebrating with my dirty gook racial family.
The celebrations were right, just not for me.
Sort of couldn't get down with it. music was horrible, all bassline, no melody. It was seriously as if the Government thought it would have been a good idea to only invest in subwoofers. I shit you not.
Highlights included
a shitty DJ who spent most of the hour clapping his hands, rather than mixing - he also played euro pop.
some jerkoff trying to pickpocket me.
Missing out on the fireworks because I was legitimately "sick of this shit".
Photos up on my tumblog.
notsoauthentic.tumblr.com
P.S.
I'm really sorry about how horrible this must have been to read, I will edit this appropriately in the morning if I remember.
Stay safe y'all.
No comments:
Post a Comment