Pointless Man

It took me quite a while to understand the Kantian concept of treating people as 'ends in themselves' rather than means to an end. --Frankly, my philosophy professors and TAs at the University of Washington did not help with their circular definitions. I'm not sure they got it, either, but perhaps I was just dense.-- Not to offer an explanation of Kant*, but from my own perspective, treating people with dignity or as an end rather than a means entails acknowledging we all have our own situations, motivations, and needs. It means accepting that one approach will not work for everyone, and requires us to modulate our interactions accordingly. It necessitates an attempt to understand people, their thoughts and feelings, without jumping to hard and simple judgments. I try to follow through on this, as best I might, when I have the wherewithal. It is not easy, but interacting with people who seem to disregard these notions entirely only confirms the moral imperative. *Sti...

No.

For a while, with all the talk of 'post-truth', I had been wondering if we hadn't stumbled into a dumbed-down post-modernism. Pidgeon Post Modernity, if you will. But that didn't feel right. Something simpler, and thus harder to grasp, was driving all the denialism and dissembling of American conservatives and so-called populists. Here it is, crystalline in clarity: " This is as clear a distillation of Trump’s epistemology as you could hope for. Simply put: Might makes right ."

Perhaps driven by character and feeling, I have always considered effect to be at least as important as intent--and almost always more so. When it matters, intent tends to augment, mitigate, or determine the degree of fault or laudability, rather than rendering an act moral or immoral. If no one is actually harmed (or is at some point likely to be) by an act, we don't generally worry too much about it. If you accidentally push somebody in a crowd, or push them to get past while being chased by murderous mobsters, that's not so bad as pushing the same person simply because you can, and it may be excused, but you probably still owe them an apology. If they stumble and fall after you shove them, you are responsible for whatever injury may occur. If you push them into traffic, and they are run over, your possible sentence and likely charge may be less than if your actions had been malicious, but there's a good chance you'll need legal representation. Broadly, if no one...

The world around us is in no way required to conform to our expectations, beliefs, or desires. Rather, it is all but guaranteed to disappoint us, at least once or twice a lifetime. The loftier (or more deeply felt) our ideals, the more this may be true. When we accept this incongruity and are keenly aware of it, but cannot change our thinking, absurdity steps in. T he world no longer quite makes sense. It is untethered from rational or moral concerns, adrift in a bizarre joke told by no one. Desire for normative order is often irrational and misplaced. Placing ethical constraints on amoral matters makes no sense. Yet these appear (sometimes, seemingly) inescapable conclusions. Hence the sensation of absurdity. We can apply these incongruous demands to anything and anyone. But this is not a universal philosophy. It is a philosophy of the self, a diagnosis.

The tiny text at the bottom is about Wang Yangming , a general, governor, and neoconfucianist scholar from the Ming dynasty. He earned the nickname 'Mad Ardour' after keeping his newlywed wife waiting all night long, while he spent his honeymoon in a marathon conversation with a Taoist monk.

My apartment needs new flooring.

I work at a supermarket. This might surprise you, but it's a job. The other day, I was stocking the frozen aisle when I made eye-contact with a white haired lady who seemed like she needed help. "Hello," I said in my most professional manner. "Am I not seeing frozen cranberries?" came her confusing reply. I raised a finger. My mouth opened, then quickly closed again. "Why are you asking me?" I wanted to inquire. "Surely you know what you're 'not seeing'. Or were you using 'to see' as a verb of achievement, where whatever you might perceive, you cannot see it unless it is actually there? Do you think I have more direct access to reality than you, or are you checking to see if I'm psychic?" In my fantasy conversation, I let this sink in. "Either way, that's weird. I'm not sure how to address your bizarre question, ma'am." It took me a moment of mouth-closed, finger-raised pondering to get t...

In many martial arts, there is a sort of pervasive holism. The mind, body, and soul must be of a piece;  weapon and wielder must be one; it even helps to think of the bricks one is about to break as part of oneself. The studios I attended as a child all stressed the place of the student as a part of the school, and the school as a part of the community.  Each move imparts a greater understanding of the art, illuminating the self, which in turn assists in acquisition of the art. Self improvement is a duty of the student to the master, the school, and the community, whose qualities are reflected in the student. Implicitly, each thing dovetails into all things, becoming a unity. A similar line of thought exists in behaviorist psychology and philosophy, which (to simplify) holds thought to be action, and the components useful and conducive to mindful action  (i.e. thought) to be an extension of the mind. As I understand it, Andy Clark claims this makes us all 'natural cybor...

I am an atheist.  I make comics and write a blog, both entitled 'Pointless Man'.  From these bare facts, one may arrive at two questions: 1) Do I believe life is meaningless? 2) In order to remain consistent and coherent in my thinking, should I believe life is meaningless? and a corollary: 3) If I take life to be meaningless, should I (or be considered) a nihilist? The short and overly simplified answer to these queries is, "No." Religions tend to hold there must be some great arbiter (or set thereof) in order for there to be meaning.  Those who think so will naturally assume atheists either admit to no meaning at large or else have made a mistake somewhere along the line (aside from not adhering to some particular spiritual dogma), but it is not necessarily so.  After all, few will deny me the ability to comprehend what I have written so far or that I have a purpose in doing so.  Nor is it clear how a deity must be around for me to write this, unde...

Any ant we observe can seem to disappear, perhaps into its colony.  The colony is itself obscured by the ground or ant-hill it is in.  The signs of any such lair are diminished or consumed by their surroundings.  The whole scene is rendered insignificant by the world at large.  On this scale, the ant's civilisation is nearly invisible.  Satellite photos of North America will not show the crack in the pavement on this street from which ants crawl.  Still, the ant lives.  His existence, experiences, and import go on, or stop, unaffected by what we see in satellite born images. Those who would dismiss them may cast us all as ants.  They say the individual is illusory, transitory, and unimportant; in the big picture, his time and place on Earth are insignificant or else nothing at all.  What a weird fate it must be to reason oneself out of existence. Yes, we are indeed each individuals much smaller than skyscrapers, planets, or galaxies, yet ...

Does anyone else find 'Sisyphian struggle' not just hard to say, but also ironic? Sisyphus's tale, as metaphor, isn't really a lesson in what will happen to you if you piss off the gods multiple times (say, by skipping out of Hell and chaining Death up), though there is that element.  It's more about how daily tasks and the cyclical, repetitious aspects of life can be crushing.  They may require something heroic in us, and yet remain mundane (because everyone faces them in some form, and no one can shirk them all).  Worse, if we accept the metaphor fully (or are taken with arguments for a universal viewpoint, where we are but specks in the big scheme of things), our labours are ultimately futile and fruitless. Camus thought this especially pertinent to modern living--though I suspect the ancients faced challenges not too removed from our own.  His answer, that we must imagine Sisyphus happy at times, seems to require a leap.  After all, how can a man curse...

[From April 09] Rational thought (a system or as a line of thinking) is not inerrant. It is not supernaturally endowed with its own special light. It is, more often than not, done in pursuit of rationalising our dispositions, prejudices, and actions. But this does not deny its usefulness, or condemn such thinking to the patent absurdity of gibberish. Instead, it makes the rational into a real practice, like others: fallible, common, and not some shining ideal. Rendering such thinking little more than an attempt to fashion itself into something more internally consistent, and perhaps better in tune with the world it is a part of,

An anti-Kantian strip (from 2003) in direct opposition to a previous post . I have more respect for Kant's epistemological work nowadays, but still feel roughly the same about his ethics. Boo, Kantian ethics! Features the infamous Bottle of Injury and that familiar trope of the artist as God.

I posit: A cup is half full if you are filling it. A cup is half empty if you are emptying it. If it is just sitting there, it is half a cup of whatever's in the damn thing.

I came across the odd statement, "Though many of the themes are similar, Beckett had little affinity for existentialism as a whole." Right. Name me an existentialist for whom that isn't true. How many grains of salt must one have before one is prepared to read an encyclopedia?

Some will counter by calling humanity a cancer upon this earth. Fie. Nature, for all its beauty is not ethically pretty. Life feeds on life. The world-without-man is no guide for moral living. It is, by and large, amoral. The awesome power of humanity is only further evinced by its impact upon the globe. Consider its scientific feats, its aesthetic achievements, its incredible willingness to crash in upon itself through war and economic strife. Humanity's arm is as God's. It's voice thunders across the globe. It is decked in majesty and excellency, arrayed with glory and beauty. It casts abroad the rage of its wrath. It looks upon every proud beast, and debases him, bringing him low, and hiding him in the dust; binding his face in secret. Even the Christian God would confess man is capable of bringing about his own salvation. --Further rambling which may readily be ignored:-- But, while the human race is amazing, most humans are less impressive. Most humans kind of suck. So...

Let us assume for a moment there are some rules which should typically be followed in war, and that these rules are generally agreed to have legal and/or moral force. For those who think rules, laws, and ethics do not or cannot apply to war, that war is too barbaric or too disorderly to allow for rules, or that a sort of cruel pragmatism which places victory as the sole and ultimate value attains during times of war, I ask that you pretend to deal within other people's views and follow this post's assumptions for its duration. So there are rules. As rules, they probably have exceptions. Let us say, "Killing civilians tends to be wrong," is among these rules. People have argued over whether going after those who indirectly supply the war effort is just or justifiable, in talking about allied bombing raids of civilians during WWII. As a result of the Gazan conflict, there has been some debate on whether it is wrong to kill civilians being treated by one side as human sh...

--Preamble: I would like to flesh out my remarks from June 23, 2008 . This is an attempt to make a more coherent whole out of comments made at the Forum over at GameFAQs. Those familiar with my postings there may find little new in this entry.-- There are no acts of will. For there is no will. Thus concepts such as 'free will' or 'constrained will' are meaningless. In denying the usefulness, meaningfulness, and existence of the will as a special faculty (and thus any basis for questions of free will), I deny terms and distinctions such as 'determinism'. Of course, not everyone agrees with me. Determinists claim we do not have free will because either some deity, arbitrary fate, or the laws of physics constrain the will in an important and meaningful fashion (typically due to everything being thus predetermined), perhaps leaving us without personal responsibility. Some supporters of 'free will' (as concept) respond, 'Determinism is meaningless to eve...

I have often wondered how to distinguish moral rules or claims from other normative statements (being statements about right or wrong, or what one should or shouldn't do). The subtle differences between 'should' and 'ought' (where 'ought' alone is thought to be objective or to lack contingency) are not enough, because there are many moralities and moral systems which intelligent people of goodwill can differ on, and because it is not clear that morality is something which can escape contingency. So, what implicit difference is there between the normative statements, "It tends to be bad to sacrifice your queen early in a chess match," and, "It tends to be bad to lie, cheat, or steal"? --You can substitute 'one shouldn't' for 'it tends to be bad', if you like.-- Without simply saying, "Well, one is obviously about morals," which self reference does nothing to help distinguish moral claims, the only thing I am a...