philosophy, physics and politics
philosophy is not a branch of science, it's not a type of religion. It appears to defy definition, and that frustrates many a young philosopher, at a loss to explain what they are trying to do. Yet the answer is in the word itself, the love of knowledge. philosophy is the human brain's attempt to grasp the surrounding universe, to understand and explain all aspects of it. It necesarily leads to religion, to politics, to physics and to biology. For these are aspects of philosophy that have developed so far that they need to be studied distinctly, with no time to concern ourselves with how they correspond. So philosophy has degenerated from the study of all things to the comparison of the various studies of a bunch of things. Questions asked in philosophy range from "Does Hitler's biology mean he is not culpable for his actions?" to, "does a quark think?" With this in mind, I have sought to frame a great many questions. for the of questioning is where the most interesting developments take place. Sport -------- Whenever a sports figure arises from the ranks of the norm and throws a ball further or punches a face harder, coaches go on record say they have "great potential." And they always seems so excited about what might happen, rather than looking at what has already been accomplished. This seems funny, this celebration of something that has not happened. Counting chickens and all that. Yet, it is the future that holds promise, that holds events and excitement never before experienced. The past is dead, gone, bottled up and over with. Perhaps you won a championship 20 years ago, but what have you done for me recently? The future is the final frontier, not space, not the ocean, not the wild west. We give a physical direction to that future since we are wont to use our eyes, but it is through time that we travel, not through space. We all know what happened to Muhammed Ali, we can't get worked up and enthusiastic about watching a rerun of his greatest fights, because they're already won and lost. The future is a question, the past is an answer. Which one holds all the promise? politics -------- I call this, "philosophy for the masses" because we make subtle decisions about what is good and bad, and then we use those to decide broad brush-strokes across nations and continents, to shape the entire world. Neitzsche's pedantic pondering is a far cry from the crude war grunts of the nazi, yet the connection is inevitable. With this in mind, I venture farther afield. liberal vs. conservative ========================= A liberal is literally one freed from social norms. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal, Marx was a liberal. Jesus was a liberal, and Neitszche Yet in modern parlance liberal means one who buys into and accepts the standards laid out by middle-america. A man like Clinton, who never once defied the roles laid out for him since birth, is called a liberal. Weaklings like Jesse Jackson are "liberal." and of course, let's not forget Tipper Gore, mother of the "Parental Advisory" label. These are liberals, OverMen, leaders who defy the rules and define standards for themselves. Great leaders and freedom fighters, one and all. Such folly is without bearing. In contrast a conservative is one who avoids and hampers change. Abraham Lincoln was a conservative, fighting against the redevision of the American colonies. Pontias Pilate was a conservative, allowing the salvation of all mankind. Conservatives are for the most part forgotten pieces of history, for only change makes it into the history book. "There was this great war, and then the conservatives took over and didn't do anything, and then we were liberated by this other great war." When nothing much was being written down, the conservatives were at the helm, holding to the course. George W. Bush is a change-bringer. Not in many years has so many aspects of American life changed so quickly. The new Parlance for this is a "Radical Conservative" and "NeoCon," but this is just a bastardization of language. George W. Bush is a liberal. He looked at the rules, the boundaries, the way things have always been, and he rejected it outright. His assumption that change will always bring improvement, (such as in Iraq) is a basic tenet of liberalism. He said there shall be a new paradigm, and there is. fascist gov. ============ The law disallowing illegal immigrants to obtain a license to drive in California is a fascinating legal contortion. Under the American paradigm, it is typically assumed that people have rights until a law is written especially to allow government to take it away. I am not obligated to carry proof of citizenship with me, since the government must assume I am a citizen until they can first show cause to believe I am not. This is necesary in a free society, for otherwise the government need only find me once without my passport to strip from me all my rights. Anyone who has also experienced military rule knows that I am speaking literally. Yet, the INS has merged with the DMV to demand that I show citizenship in order to own a car. It turns out, the government can demand proof of citezenship without any justification whatever before allowing me to drive, and can take away my car if I fail to provide it. This is not an issue of whether or not immigrants may drive, this is an erosion of my right to privacy. If someone can demonstrate a public need that is met by this erosion of my rights, then we can discuss whether the exchange is worthwhile. But so far, nothing has been given to me, only things stolen in the night. Privacy ++++++++++ Now, many people ask, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?" Because, dear children, the truth is we all have something to hide. We are all sinners with our sins laid bare to a perfect God, well enough. Yet the government is no benevolent and wise God, it is a tortured and contorted work of human creation. Every time more power is granted to the government, more abuse of power becomes possible. Only by limiting government power to the minimum necessary to maintain civility do we guarantee a minimum of government corruption. Change ----------- People mis-read my name a lot. They assume I am here to shake things up, to challenge what is simply because it is. In short, they think I'm a liberal before they even read my words. This is unfortunate, the coincidence between the name my parents gave me and a feared word in the english language. Yet, they are not the same, and the difference is significant. I am a moderate, in the purest sense of the word. I don't care for change, I don't care for discomfort. I am interested finding a better way when things are not going well, but I don't assume that replacing a bad system will automatically bring a better one. I am looking for sensible, proven solutions. Not too much, yet neither too little.