Skip to content

Posts from the ‘Philosophy’ Category

Oct 17

2 Comments

Underdog Psychology

David Brooks as psychologist? He wrote a great opinion piece for the New York Times today ((Source: Thinking About Obama)) on the psychology of Barack Obama. Brooks is certainly conservative but he is always level-headed and critical – that’s why I like his editorials. I suppose in his logical, dispassionate analytics he finds Obama a kindred spirit. Of course, by the end of the article he raises his elephant flag but up to that point he gives a fair and cogent psychological analysis.

I’ve read both of Obama’s books and admire his story. Even now, campaigning against an American hero that casts a long shadow, Obama’s back story is still very compelling. It’s not compelling in the way McCain’s biography is compelling but it is a story – in many ways – of what it means to be an American. His history is not heroic or glorious but it is remarkable nevertheless. He began life as an underdog and through perseverance and determination he slowly made his way to where he is today. I believe a dispassionate, skeptical leader is what America needs right now. Like Brooks says in his article, Obama doesn’t need us … we need him.

Aug 12

1 Comment

The Matrix Monomyth

Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.

Jul 23

1 Comment

Analysis of “Bad to the Bone”

Here I will attempt an analysis of the philosophical work of George Thorogood, Bad to the Bone. First, just to point out the obvious, it’s clear that Thorogood is heavily influenced by the German Idealists. In particular, one can see a Hegelian theme throughout the work. The references to “bad to the bone” are Thorogood’s way of identifying what it would be like to experience life from the perspective of a “world historical individual” (WHI). The three main stanzas of the work represent what Hegel described in the Phenomenology of Spirit as the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

The Thesis
The thesis begins with Thorogood recounting his birth from a first person point of view. He states, “On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered ’round.” Even if Thorogood is referencing the WHI in metaphor it does not get around the troublesome fact that there is no evidence of any person remembering their birth. In fact, science tells us that long term memory formation does not occur until at least age two. It’s not clear how an individual would remember “nurses all gathered ’round”. For the purpose of explication, however, we will allow this minor detail to go uncritically reviewed.

Thorogood also references the hesitation the head nurse had upon discovering that she had delivered the WHI when he states, “The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone.” Here the author is making reference to Kant’s Metaphysics of Morals and the famous categorical imperative. Once recognizing the child as an individuated person apart from the mother, the nurse acted in such a way as not to impinge upon the freedom of the child.

The Antithesis
Thorogood states that he “broke a thousand hearts” and that he will “break a thousand more” before he is through. The reference is to Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea. By using the allusion to breaking many hearts, the author implies that hearts are merely and an idea in the world. Schopenhauer tells us that the world is an idea only insofar as it is an object in the mind of a subject. As a pure object of the mind, the antithesis is merely metaphor. This represents the opposite of Kant’s categorical imperative and thus the antithesis. The question is raised however whether or not the “thousand hearts” is only an illusion of the author’s mind.

The Synthesis
In the final section, Thorogood breaks with his usual Hegelian roots and turns instead to David Hume. In the best Humeian tradition, the author attempts to establish a necessary connection between his ability to “make a rich woman beg” or a “make a good woman steal” with his own ‘badness’. Inductive inferences such as these are often a violation of a logic argument. However, as Hume has pointed out, inductions power is its ability to infer from past regularities. For example, the fact that B has always followed A—to future and presently unobserved instances of that regularity—e.g., that if A occurs, B will follow. The problem then is one of epistemology. The a priori knowledge required to make the argument that Thorogood is putting forth requires us to believe that there is a connection with his ability to induce others into begin “bad” and his own state of being – “bad to the bone”.

Whether Thorogood able to establish his place as a Hegelian world historical individual by using inductive causality as a philosophical method is up to the reader. The irony is that Thorogood betrays his allegiance to Kant by violating his very own implementation of the categorical imperative. Certainly, making “a young woman squeal” could be considered as impending on the young woman’s freedom. The assessment of this reviewer is that Thorogood, while adhering to a basic Hegelian framework, betrays his own methodology by calling on induction to establish his being “bad to the bone”. In the end, though he fails to prove his own ‘badness’, he does seem to lay the groundwork for a prolegomena to any future individual claims to being “bad to the bone.”

Feb 13

5 Comments

Does Time Move Backwards?

It is possible – in theory – that time may not just move forwards but backwards, too. And if time ebbs and flows like the tides in the sea, it might just be possible to foretell major world events. We would, in effect, be ‘remembering’ things that had taken place in our future. “There’s plenty of evidence that time may run backwards,” says Prof Bierman at the University of Amsterdam. Read more

Jul 29

1 Comment

Time Can be Turned Back?

Time has been one of the most complicated and least studied scientific issues since ancient times.

Eight years ago, American and British scientists who conducted investigations in Antarctica made a sensational discovery. US physicist Mariann McLein told the researchers noticed some spinning gray fog in the sky over the pole on January 27 which they believed to be just ordinary sandstorm. However, the gray fog did not change the form and did not move in the course of time. The researchers decided to investigate the phenomenon and launched a weather balloon with equipment capable to register the wind speed, the temperature and the air moisture. But the weather balloon soared upwards and immediately disappeared. In a little while, the researchers brought the weather balloon back to the ground with the help of a rope attached to it before. They were extremely surprised to see that a chronometer set in the weather balloon displayed the date of January 27, 1965, the same day 30 years ago. The experiment was repeated several times after the researcher found out the equipment was in good repair. But each time the watch was back it displayed the past time. The phenomenon was called “the time gate” and was reported to the White House.

Today investigation of the unusual phenomenon is underway. It is supposed that the whirl crater above the South Pole is a tunnel allowing to penetrate into other times. What is more, programs on launching people to other times have been started. The CIA and the FBI are fighting for gaining control over the project that may change the course of history. It is not clear when the US federal authorities will approve the experiment.

Famous Russian scientist Nikolay Kozyrev conducted an experiment to prove that moving from the future to the past was possible. He substantiated his views with the hypotheses on instant information spreading through physical characteristics of time. Nikolay Kozyrev even supposed that “time could execute the work and produce energy.” An American physics theorist has arrived at a conclusion that time is what existed before existence of the world.

It is known that each of us feels a different course of time under different conditions. Once lightning hit a mountain-climber; later the man told he saw the lightning got into his arm, slowly moved along it, separated the skin from the tissues and carbonized his cells. He felt as if there were quills of thousands hedgehogs under his skin.

Russian investigator of anomalous phenomena, philosopher and author of numerous books Gennady Belimov published his article under the headline “Time Machine: First Speed On” in the newspaper On the Verge of Impossible. He described unique experiments conducted by a group of enthusiasts led by Vadim Chernobrov, the man who began creation of time machines, devices with electromagnetic pumping in 1987. Today the group of enthusiasts can slow down or speed up the course of time using special impact of the magnetic field. The biggest slowing down of time made up 1.5 seconds within an hour of the equipment’s operation in labs.

In August 2001, a new model of the time machine meant for a human was set in a remote forest in Russia’s Volgograd Region. When the machine even operated on car batteries and had low capacity, it still managed to change the time by three per cent; the change was registered with symmetrical crystal oscillators.

At first, the researchers spent five, ten and twenty minutes in the operating machine; the longest stay lasted for half an hour. Vadim Chernobrov said that the people felt as if they moved to a different world; they felt life here and “there” at the same time as if some space was unfolding. “I cannot define the unusual feelings that we experienced at such moments.”

Neither TV nor radio companies reported the astonishing fact; Gennady Belimov says the Russian president was not informed of the experiment. However, he tells that already under Stalin there was a Research Institute of the Parallel World. Results of experiments conducted by Academicians Kurchatov and Ioffe can be now found in the archives. In 1952, head of the Soviet secret police organization Lavrenty Beria initiated a case against researchers participating in the experiments, as a result of which 18 professors were executed by shooting and 59 candidates and doctors of physical sciences were sent to camps. The Institute recommenced its activity under Khruschev. But an experimental stand with eight leading researchers disappeared in 1961, and buildings close to the one where experiments were conducted were ruined. After that, the Communist Party political bureau and the Council of Ministers decided to suspend researchers of the Institute for an uncertain period.

The program was resumed in 1987 when the Institute already functioned on the territory of the Soviet Union. A tragedy occurred on August 30, 1989: an extremely strong explosion sounded at the Institute’s branch office on the Anjou islands. The explosion destroyed not only the experimental module of 780 tons but also the archipelago itself that covered the area of 2 square kilometers. According to one of the versions of the tragedy, the module with three experimenters collided with a large object, probably an asteroid, in the parallel world or heading toward the parallel world. Having lost its propulsion system, the module probably remained in the parallel world.

The last record made in the framework of the experiment and kept at the Institute archives says: “We are dying but keep on conducting the experiment. It is very dark here; we see all objects become double, our hands and legs are transparent, we can see veins and bones through the skin. The oxygen supply will be enough for 43 hours, the life support system is seriously damaged. Our best regards to the families and friends!” Then the transmission suddenly stopped.

Source: Pravda

May 2

2 Comments

Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction

For over 10 years I’ve been bumping up against Arthur Schopenhauer just about everywhere. His influence on continental philosophy is everywhere. Though I somehow managed to get through Goethe, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, and Jung, for some reason I had just never picked up Schopenhauer. At Barnes & Noble tonight I decided to wade in slowly and picked up “Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction.” Maybe this is just what I need to get motivated to continue this next chapter of my studies in German Idealism. Read more

Mar 22

Joseph Campbell: Psychological or Metaphysical

This is a very interesting topic and I find myself wondering exactly where Campbell’s ultimate passions were. The first image that is called to mind is Campbell’s rather amazing recounting of a story he read in a Hawaiian newspaper (source: Power of Myth). It was about a guy on a bridge about to commit suicide. I am sure most here know the details of the story.

Campbell called into play Schopenhauer’s metaphysics by recounting the German philosopher’s premise that the “other” was a part of ourselves … And further that all things are connected. Of all the videos I’ve seen, books I’ve read, and lectures I’ve listen to, I would say that this metaphysical assumption of Schopenhauer’s was one that Campbell took as a priori. I believe that this a priori assumption was vindicated time and time again throughout Campbell’s life by evidence collected throughout the world.

I’m not sure that you can really separate out metaphysics from religion and mythology, but if you could I would say that Campbell is a closet philosopher that was just too much of a pragmatist to allow his deep beliefs to stand on their own as Schopenhauer did. Campbell wanted evidence for his metaphysical assumptions and I believe he found it.

Campbell was a close follower of C.G. Jung and agreed in principle that these underlying (a priori) structures were archetypes. I think that Campbell had a much more practical approach to archetypes than Jung did, but he nevertheless embraced the idea. Again, though the idea of archetypes could, in principle, be proven as an empirical fact it nevertheless, stands a metaphysical belief that one either accepts or does not. Many of Campbell’s, and Jung’s, observations follow from this metaphysical assumption. Indeed, if Campbell and Jung had not begun with this position in mind much of their subsequent work would not have followed … They would have reached much different conclusions.

My conclusions is that Campbell was first and foremost an empiricist, but like Einstein, Heisenberg, Jung and many other brilliant intellectuals of the 20th century, they began with an intuition (or metaphysical presupposition) about that way the universe ought to be – the evidence followed from there. Einstein, as a child, imagined riding on a beam of light; Heisenberg came up with the uncertainty principle, not while doing mathematics at the chalkboard, but while sitting overlooking the mountains; Jung had almost no evidence for archetypes or the collective unconscious, yet his entire body of his work post 1918 stand upon this premise. These are people that held very strong convictions about the world and the natural order of things. They did not spend alot of time trying to substantiate their metaphysical assumptions. Nevertheless, they held them strongly and much of their passion was derived from exactly these metaphysical presupposition.