Over analyzing is not a problem.
Underanalzying is.
Over thinking is not a problem.
Underthniking is.
Let me prove it.
There are two errors in the
the sentence shown here.
This is a problem.
This is not a problem.
Identify the least integer not nameable in fewer than nineteen syllables.
This is a problem.
This is not a problem.
.........Get it now?
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Rules of the Game
No matter what it is, it cannot be viewed as strictly subjective or objective.
Everything is debatable; no one side can ever truly claim to be in possession of the complete truth.
It is ALWAYS better to be clever than smart. Focus on what you know better than the other person and talk about that instead.
Don't bother trying to prove things that are not provable; you will end up dissappointed. Instead, focus on what is the most possible.
You should not let anybody sway your mind from what you believe to be true, because there will be some truth in it.
If something doesn't make sense to you, don't believe it.
If you are confident, you are right.
You will always know more about how you feel and what your morals should be than your dimwitted friends.
We have a brain for a reason- use it.
Now Philosophize.
Everything is debatable; no one side can ever truly claim to be in possession of the complete truth.
It is ALWAYS better to be clever than smart. Focus on what you know better than the other person and talk about that instead.
Don't bother trying to prove things that are not provable; you will end up dissappointed. Instead, focus on what is the most possible.
You should not let anybody sway your mind from what you believe to be true, because there will be some truth in it.
If something doesn't make sense to you, don't believe it.
If you are confident, you are right.
You will always know more about how you feel and what your morals should be than your dimwitted friends.
We have a brain for a reason- use it.
Now Philosophize.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
On Existence
For as long as people have been capable of cognitive thought, they have pondered what is real and what is not. In my opinion, this should not even be a question. It is usually broken down into two schools of thought: existence only in your mind, and existence only physically.
There are those who believe that everything that one sees and believes to be real is only real because their mind thinks it is real. If everything is truly imagined, like some claim, then is your mind not real? If neither one is real, nothing is real at all, which contradicts the assertion that all of our comprehension is a figment of the mind. Take this example. These words are not actually real- they only mean something in your mind. So they get a substance score of "0". However, one would undoubtedly agree that your mind is in your mind and comprehends your mind (the way we are cognizant of our sight), and by using the logic stated in the previous couple of sentences, your mind would also get a substance score of "0". This, obviously, equals zero, when added up in any fashion. Thus there must be more to existence than what is simply percieved in one's mind.
If everything only exists in the physical world and your thoughts are a direct result of these phenomona, then you would surely agree that the words in front of you are real. Put simply, what you can see exists (on some physical level....even if it is a representation, it is still composed of sound, electric signals, etc.). You can even go so far as to define emotion using the various chemicals and the way they work in our body. "Then", you ask, "what is the problem here?" The problem is that you cannot actually see or even percieve very basic certain things we hold to be true. Take this example: we cannot physically see light. It is impossible. We see the effects of it all the time, but never actually see it (this is an impossible task because light does not exist in terms of time- think about the electron cloud. We can never actually see the particle jump from level to level, but we know it does). So by thinking thusly, you would be saying that light does not exist. Using an If P is true, then the absurd is true approach to this dilemma, we can also rule out that the physical earth based on human comprehension is the only definition of reality.
Based on this exploration, I come to this conclusion: That which is provable is real. An extraordinarily simple answer to an extraordinarily complex question, I realize- but consider it. What exists that is not provable? The existence of God is another discussion entirely, and, if he does exist, philosophers for millenia have wasted their time. We will throw that out for the moment. Take this example. The existence of the "actual" Santa Claus has never been proven either physically or comprehended mentally, thus he does not exist. He is not provable; he must visit nearly 200,000 homes per second, and using the aforementioned If P is true, then the absurd is true approach, Santa cannot be real. Every thing, detail, and piece of minutiae that people have ever come across is provable. "Well wait", you think. "You proved earlier the very things that you just disproved." Yes and no. Your mind exists- that was never doubted. Everything that you mind deems to be real also exists, but in your mind, and that is very easily provable to yourself; you thought it in the first place. Physical things are even easier to prove; you can use any or all of your senses to know that. What about light and the other phenomona that could not be realized physically but we know is perpetually around? You can prove those exist by using a series of already proven data and givens. Thus everything that is provable is real.
There are those who believe that everything that one sees and believes to be real is only real because their mind thinks it is real. If everything is truly imagined, like some claim, then is your mind not real? If neither one is real, nothing is real at all, which contradicts the assertion that all of our comprehension is a figment of the mind. Take this example. These words are not actually real- they only mean something in your mind. So they get a substance score of "0". However, one would undoubtedly agree that your mind is in your mind and comprehends your mind (the way we are cognizant of our sight), and by using the logic stated in the previous couple of sentences, your mind would also get a substance score of "0". This, obviously, equals zero, when added up in any fashion. Thus there must be more to existence than what is simply percieved in one's mind.
If everything only exists in the physical world and your thoughts are a direct result of these phenomona, then you would surely agree that the words in front of you are real. Put simply, what you can see exists (on some physical level....even if it is a representation, it is still composed of sound, electric signals, etc.). You can even go so far as to define emotion using the various chemicals and the way they work in our body. "Then", you ask, "what is the problem here?" The problem is that you cannot actually see or even percieve very basic certain things we hold to be true. Take this example: we cannot physically see light. It is impossible. We see the effects of it all the time, but never actually see it (this is an impossible task because light does not exist in terms of time- think about the electron cloud. We can never actually see the particle jump from level to level, but we know it does). So by thinking thusly, you would be saying that light does not exist. Using an If P is true, then the absurd is true approach to this dilemma, we can also rule out that the physical earth based on human comprehension is the only definition of reality.
Based on this exploration, I come to this conclusion: That which is provable is real. An extraordinarily simple answer to an extraordinarily complex question, I realize- but consider it. What exists that is not provable? The existence of God is another discussion entirely, and, if he does exist, philosophers for millenia have wasted their time. We will throw that out for the moment. Take this example. The existence of the "actual" Santa Claus has never been proven either physically or comprehended mentally, thus he does not exist. He is not provable; he must visit nearly 200,000 homes per second, and using the aforementioned If P is true, then the absurd is true approach, Santa cannot be real. Every thing, detail, and piece of minutiae that people have ever come across is provable. "Well wait", you think. "You proved earlier the very things that you just disproved." Yes and no. Your mind exists- that was never doubted. Everything that you mind deems to be real also exists, but in your mind, and that is very easily provable to yourself; you thought it in the first place. Physical things are even easier to prove; you can use any or all of your senses to know that. What about light and the other phenomona that could not be realized physically but we know is perpetually around? You can prove those exist by using a series of already proven data and givens. Thus everything that is provable is real.
Monday, December 22, 2008
The Scribble
I sit here at my computer utterly inable to accomplish anything.
I haven't figured out the answer to the universe, reduced all literature to two words, or made any breakthroughs in any field of merit.
No, I sit here in a private revolution, where no love can exist but lust abounds. I sit here where nobody loves their life. Nobody can love their life, because of the life I have chosen. I have chosen a life with an already prescribed result: I will toil away on my work for years and years to die alone, unhappy, and poor, only to have these scribbles unearthed fifty years after my passing and have some bloke exclaim "Oh! How clever!" and be awarded a posthumous Pulitzer, complete with cult following and the least flattering photograph of me ever taken emblazoned on all of the notable history texts of the moment.
"Don't let your ego blot out the sun", you think. Well why not? If you could access my thoughts for five minutes, your head would actually explode, and then all of the thoughts would be free to roam, wouldn't they? A breath of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned.
When was the last time anyone wrote anything worth reading? All the great litearture of today involves a fantastical world with a tween love story, a la emo kid college o' Shakespeare. Or the writings of the hipper-than-thou indie children, with literary devices and obscure allusions superimposed to the point of absurdity. Take your stories straight up. Do you actually realize how hard it is to get drunk on wine cooler?
But I suppose you need to try. You need to try, beacuse if nobody gets drunk, no words will ever flow again. Get so drunk that you slip and cut yourself on the bar and all the ladies in the room make that "Awwww" noise. Get so drunk that you can break a beer bottle on your head and not care, because hey, everyone that is watching you is hiding anyways. They are all embarrased with themselves, holding their shame in that shoebox underneath the bed and trying to cover their scars, because after this life, their stories will never be retold.
A prophetic and dramatic way to approve drinking.
I haven't figured out the answer to the universe, reduced all literature to two words, or made any breakthroughs in any field of merit.
No, I sit here in a private revolution, where no love can exist but lust abounds. I sit here where nobody loves their life. Nobody can love their life, because of the life I have chosen. I have chosen a life with an already prescribed result: I will toil away on my work for years and years to die alone, unhappy, and poor, only to have these scribbles unearthed fifty years after my passing and have some bloke exclaim "Oh! How clever!" and be awarded a posthumous Pulitzer, complete with cult following and the least flattering photograph of me ever taken emblazoned on all of the notable history texts of the moment.
"Don't let your ego blot out the sun", you think. Well why not? If you could access my thoughts for five minutes, your head would actually explode, and then all of the thoughts would be free to roam, wouldn't they? A breath of fresh air, as far as I'm concerned.
When was the last time anyone wrote anything worth reading? All the great litearture of today involves a fantastical world with a tween love story, a la emo kid college o' Shakespeare. Or the writings of the hipper-than-thou indie children, with literary devices and obscure allusions superimposed to the point of absurdity. Take your stories straight up. Do you actually realize how hard it is to get drunk on wine cooler?
But I suppose you need to try. You need to try, beacuse if nobody gets drunk, no words will ever flow again. Get so drunk that you slip and cut yourself on the bar and all the ladies in the room make that "Awwww" noise. Get so drunk that you can break a beer bottle on your head and not care, because hey, everyone that is watching you is hiding anyways. They are all embarrased with themselves, holding their shame in that shoebox underneath the bed and trying to cover their scars, because after this life, their stories will never be retold.
A prophetic and dramatic way to approve drinking.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)