Michel Foucault & Truth

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:15:20 -0700

I found this today. Pretty interesting quote, imo. Looks like I've found another book to read. :)

"My intention was not to deal with the problem of truth, but with the problem of truth-teller or truth-telling as an activity … Who is able to tell the truth? What are the moral, the ethical, and the spiritual conditions which entitle someone to present himself as, and to be considered as, a truth-teller? About what topics is it important to tell the truth? … What are the consequences of telling the truth? … And finally: what is the relation between the activity of truth-telling and the exercise of power, or should these activities be completely independent and kept separate? Are they separable, or do they require one another?"

-Michel Foucault, Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia (1983)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

QOTD

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:40:01 -0700

Bored at work, I'm doing some reading on my buddy, Nietzsche. It's been a while since I've actually been able to read something thought provoking. Today I actually found something interesting.

First, I found this great quote:

There is in general good reason to suppose that in several respects the gods could all benefit from instruction by us human beings. We humans are -- more humane. Beyond Good and Evil, aph. 295 (1886)

Second, I'm pretty familiar with Nietzsche's philosophy, but every now and then I'll read something and my reaction is, "Wow, now I actually get it." This happened with the following two paragraphs.

With the PARABLE OF THE MADMAN, Nietzsche has established that Christian morality is dead and we ourselves are responsible. There are no higher worlds, no morality derived from God or Nature because "God is dead." There are no natural rights and the idea of progress is a sham. All the old values and truths have lost their vitality and validity. Such an opinion is called nihilism. There are no moral values. Nietzsche said man could rise above nihilism. How could this be done? Well, first, one had to recognize the nihilism produced by everyday life. One had to become a nihilist. One could then rise above and go beyond nihilism by creating new values: man could then become his own master and be true to himself rather than to another. "Du sollst werden, der du bist." Man can overcome uniformity and mediocrity, he can overcome socialism, democracy, trade unionism, progress, enlightenment and all the other ills so consistent with western civilization.

According to Nietzsche, man could be saved by a new type of man, the "Übermensch," the Superman. These are the men who will not be held back by the hogwash of modern-mediocre-industrial-scientific-bourgeois-Christian civilization. The superman creates his own morality based on human instincts, drive and will. He affirms his existence not by saying, with the Christian, "thou shalt not." No. Against the Mosaic law, the new man shouts, "I will." The new man dares to be himself and as himself, traditional, Christian ideals of good and evil have no meaning and he recognizes them as such. His "will to power" means, for Nietzsche, that he has gone "beyond good and evil." The enhancement of the will to power brings supreme enjoyment. The Superman casts off all established values and because he is now free of all restraints, rules and codes of behavior imposed by civilization, he creates his own values. He lives his own life as one who takes, wants, strives, creates, struggles, seeks and dominates. He knows life as it is given to him is without meaning -- but he lives it laughingly, instinctively, fully, dangerously.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Does truth define us?

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:53:27 -0700

So, I've been thinking about truth a lot lately. Namely, I've been wondering how important truth really is in our lives. Does truth really matter that much? Most of us make a big deal out of it, but is it really that big of a deal? Does it define us? Does it determine our lives?

In other words, does truth determine our character, our virtue, who we are? I've been thinking about this because I wonder how many of us judge people based on what they think is true and a particular situation I'm in.

I've been hanging out with this girl for a couple of months. We finally had the "relationship" talk, and she essentially told me that my nonbeliever status may be problematic for her (She's a devout Christian). So, we are still hanging out but there's no relationship there. I hope I'm not setting myself up to get crushed....It's kinda feels like it because she hasn't told me that my nonbeliever status won't be a problem...

Anyway, I told her that I understand her concern but disagree with it. After she left, I was pretty bummed about it. She can't potential have a relationship with me because I'm a nonbeliever....Why does what I believe to be untrue or true matter at all? Shouldn't my character, virtue, my life goals, who I am, etc, matter more than what I find to be true? I think so.

It makes me wonder if truth is separate from what really matters about us. At the end of the day, I don't think it determines who we are and how we act. For some reason, I think other things do that. For example, you can't really discuss the truth of character, virtue, or your existence. These things just are; they aren't a function of truth. I haven't decided what they are a function of, though.

When I look at a person, I see a person. I don't see a Christian, Muslim, or atheist. These labels deal with truth propositions, not the person's character or virtue. I am not defined by my truth. I am defined by who I am. At least that's what I currently think.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

God Is Not Love

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:48:48 -0700

The phrase "God is love" is quite a popular phrase among Christians. It's an interesting phrase that doesn't make too much sense at first. But after thinking about it for a bit, one simply understands that God is considered to be the ultimate example of love, which, theologically speaking, makes sense. The thing is, love is supposed to be limitless, without boundaries. It is universal in that all can concretely experience it and see it in action. There is no presupposed truth that is necessary to make love valid. Love is simply love.

But there must be some presupposed truth in order to make God valid. And, well, God essentially lives in a box made out of limits and boundaries. (The box is called theology.) Plus, isn't our understanding of God finite, thus we will never be able to comprehend him fully? That's a huge limitation. So exactly how can something--that is, God--with limits and boundaries, and not really universal (there is a zillion concepts of God, all differing in some sort of fashion), be the ultimate example of love?

When it comes down to it, we shouldn't extend the most important human characteristic to a supernatural concept. In my humble opinion, humans should be the ultimate example of love. But I know what you are thinking, "We aren't perfect." Well, first, is love supposed to be perfect? Probably not. Second, if love is supposed to be perfect, and God is supposed to be the epitome of perfection and love, can we honestly say that God is perfect? After all, we can't exactly know that he is perfect if we can't fully comprehend him. Moreover, what good is perfect love if we can only experience and represent love that is far from perfect? This doesn't belittle our human love. If anything, I think it shows that we may not be as "imperfect" as we think.

Perhaps what I want to say the most is this: the only thing that can represent love is love. Love is love. Not God is love. Not cake is love. Not orange is love. Love is love. Why? Because only love itself is limitless, separate from our beliefs, non-beliefs and narrow-minded perceptions.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Interesting Quote

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:59:13 -0700

I normally give C.S. Lewis a hard time. But, surprisingly, I found this interesting quote:

Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art, like the universe itself (for God did not need to create it). It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.
-C.S. Lewis

Cool, eh?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Unnecessary Problems

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 10:36:37 -0700

We live in an age when unnecessary things things are our only necessities.

-Oscar Wilde

Hello everyone! It's been a while since my last blog. School, studying, life, socializing - all of these things have kept me busy. I've missed my solitude, time to just think about things. I guess it doesn't hurt to live more and think less, though :)

Something that has been on my mind lately is the problem of unnecessary problems. Unnecessary problems are problems that aren't worthy of being concerned with and are usually self imposed and justified by all-too-human reasons. The classic example of this is stress.

What purpose does stress serve? To me, it only causes unnecessary worry. It's a self imposed, unnecessary problem that actually has negative effects on one's health. What good does it do? I'm in graduate school, which can be an extremely stressful environment. I see my classmates panicking before exams. They stress out so much that they end up flunking the exam. I'm not going to kid myself, I can be stressed to, but we all have the ability to simply grab the bull by the horns and roll with it. Bunker down and get it done. Study, plan ahead, get organized -- all of these things get rid of stress. At the end of the day, stress is really an unnecessary problem and can be eliminated if one has the determination to succeed.

When I think about unnecessary problems, though, I really think about the problems that are associated with religion, atheism, and, perhaps most importantly, truth. Truth is one of those things that we search for as if it is out there waiting to be found. We all do it, Christians and atheists alike. The thing is we will never find the truth. The more and more I think about it, the more I am inclined to say that truth isn't supposed to be found. Instead, it's supposed to be experienced. What does that mean? It means that living one's life in the truth that she or he sees fit should be his or her main focus, not some insatiable drive to find truth. How can truth be an unnecessary problem? Well my buddy Mithrandir touched on this in one of my last posts.

Truth becomes an unnecessary problem when we focus on it too much and fail to realize that truth is a function of one's perspective. While I believe there are better "truths" than others, my "better" and my "truths" are my own, a function of my perspective. Sadly enough, truth becomes an unnecessary problem when it butt heads with love.

Mithrandir mentioned that someone asked his professor, "Why are you a Christian?" His professor replied, 'Because my wife is." The professor justification wasn't, "Because it's true and Jesus is the only way...blah blah blah." His justification was simple. It's because his wife is. It's because he loves his wife. When Mirthrandir mentioned this, I had my problems with the professor's justification. What about the search for truth? What about holding to what one sees as truth? How can he just throw truth out the window?

As a nonbeliever, I fear I'll fall in love with a Christian girl (problem an unnecessary fear). But she wouldn't be a "Christian" to me. She would be the love of my life, my companion, my beauty. Someone I love very much. Her truth, my truth -- none of this would matter. Love would be the only thing. And if I had qualms with her truth or if she had qualms with my truth, then I would simply say, "When love and truth come in conflict, you should pick love. For love can be known, the truth cannot."

I think I'm going to make it a goal of mine to rid my life of any unnecessary problems that I may have. I don't need them. Who does?

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Woot!

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:05:15 -0700

It's really refreshing to be ecstatic about something. I interviewed for a part-time job last week and I found out today that I got it! With bills to pay, and full-time grad school coming up, I was a little worried about having enough time to work, go to school, socialize, and still be financially comfortable. Well, with my hour rate being $20, I only need to work 20 hours a week. Actually, that's what they require me to work. I would be financial fine with 15 hours per week. Ah, such a good feeling.

Woot!

This summer has been great, though it has caused me to not blog as much. I moved into an apartment with my best friend; I meet a girl who is really cool; I developed a social life; and I got a nice paying part-time job. The only downside is that graduate school starts next week. But my academic spirit will most likely be renewed by getting into the swing of things for school, which will get me thinking about things again. Needless to say, I'll be blogging more often.

As a matter of fact, I started reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Nietzsche. The man essentially tried to rewrite the Bible. It's an interesting and confusing read -- so many parables! I'll be blogging about it some time this week.

Here are some tunes that I am jamming out to:

Slim Thug, T.I. & Bun-B - Three Kings (RATATAT REMIX)

A State of Trance 2009-Monogato - Miami Vibe (Omnia Remix)-Arin Van Buuren

Drake - Best I Ever Had REMIX (feat. J.Reyez)

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Love

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:26:41 -0700

There are numerous types of love: platonic love, romantic love, humanistic love. It's been quite a while since I've experienced romantic love. And, to be honest, I'm not sure I will any time soon. As one of my females friends recently told me, I seem to be an emotionally distant person, someone who is emotionally detached. While I've never really noticed this (it's hard to see your own flaws), I don't doubt her statement. For quite sometime, I've just been somewhat emotionless. Now, I'm not saying I'm an emotionless robot or something, but I am someone who watch his emotions and tries to understand when I should be emotional and not. In my life thus far, I've found that we, as humans, are too dramatic and sensitive. It would seem to me that most of our emotions are unjustified--we make a big deal out of nothing. Yet, making a big deal out of nothing is what makes us human because, well, there is nothing, everything is ultimately meaningless, so we have to make something out of nothing.

Anyway, back to the romantic love bit. Recently, I've been hanging out with a girl that I am beginning to really like. Problem is, she is a Christian. Now, this isn't really a problem for me. My current worldview is that we all have our own unique perspectives, which are founded upon subjective grounds, thus making them meaningful. This doesn't mean that I agree with the truthfulness of particular perspectives, but it does mean that I am willing to work with a perspective as long as it produces a meaningful outcome, like living a good life, helping others, etc. Thing is, my nonbeliever status may be a turn off for her (we haven't had this discussion yet).

You see, my Christian friends all believe that a Christian should only marry a Christian. Moreover, they also believe that a Christian should only date a Christian, and should not date if there is no reason to believe that you may end up marrying your boyfriend/girlfriend.

So I'm helping my Christian friends feed the homeless this morning. After the feeding is done, my buddy comes to me and asks how last night went. I tell him I had a wonderful time with the girl I was hanging out with (the Christian girl). He then proceeds to ask me, "Do you know how strong of a Christian she is?" "Uh, not really. We haven't talked about that," I replied. "Oh. Well, I'm just wondering because it may be problematic down the line." The "it" he is referring to is my atheism.

Naturally, this really bothered me. Because I'm not a Christian, this girl may not be able to love me romantically? Mmm, since when did love become constrained? This all led me to ask the question, "Can religion destroy love?" I think it's a good question. I thought love was supposed to have zero constraints. Oh, right, it does if you meet said requirements. If not, then you have problems. You can't be loved by a group if you aren't a part of it.

Now I wonder if I should talk to this girl about our differences, thereby insuring that neither one of us is wasting our time. Sucks....

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Life is good

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:35:48 -0700

Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.

-Howard Thurman

For the longest time I really felt like I was in a state of constant allay; I didn't feel alive. Life wasn't exciting, but it wasn't horrible. But what's life worth if it isn't exciting or fun? Hardily anything. At that point, life becomes a chore.

Luckily, my attitude has changed and I'm starting to have fun with life. I have my own apartment and a really cool roommate. I'm meeting new people. I'm having fun with my friends and my brother. I'm getting 4-5 hours of sleep a night. I'm seriously starting to feel like a 22 year old. I'm having fun. What's more interesting is that I've been having fun with girls--that is, hanging out with the female kind in a social, chill atmosphere. This is something I haven't done in years. Social fail!

All of the sudden I have this "Let's do this!" attitude. It's refreshing.

Life is good.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Brad Pitt is A Nonbeliever

nobody@vox.com(Koios) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:44:14 -0700

I'm probably 20 per cent atheist and 80 per cent agnostic. I don't think anyone really knows. You'll either find out or not when you get there, and then there's no point thinking about it.

-Brad Pitt

It turns out that Brad Pitt is a nonbeliever. According to an interview with BILD.com, when asked the God question, Pitt smiled and replied, "No, no, no!" I am not surprised at his answer, but I'm glad he decided to answer honestly. If anything, Pitt should help bring a positive representation and light up the proverbial darkness that seems to be synonymous with the terms "atheist" and "nonbeliever."

Here is a man that is considered to be a very accomplished actor and a wonderful example of do-gooding. He has 4 adopted children. He supports numerous organizations, such as the ONE campaign. He's donated huge sums of money to different charitable and relieft organizations. He has even meet with President Obama and the Speaker of the House to discuss green building the the rebuilding efforts of New Orleans. What a guy!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend