A Joke on Postmodernism

I didn't make this up, but I found it hilarious.

How many deconstructionists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Even the framing of this question makes a grid of patriarchal assumptions that reveals a slavish devotion to phallocentric ideas – such as, technical accomplishment has inherent value, knowledge can be attained and quantities of labor can be determined empirically, all of which makes a discourse which further marginalizes the already disenfranchised.

On the Occupiers at UC Davis: A Dialogue

I recently saw a video of some protesters at the University of California Davis blocking off a public sidewalk. They refused to move, and were subsequently pepper sprayed. A friend of mine was outraged, and posted a Facebook status, stating:

"It sickens me to see the police force do this. Anyone else have any opinions on this?"

Here is the link to video: 


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ePH-1B2-gc

I gave him my opinion (This is unedited, and taken directly from Facebook comments. I have the names of the participators. Note the grammar of the individual debaters...)

Lain: Civil disobedience can be justifiable at times, but nobody has the right to do it at the expense of others. The protesters have no right to forcibly (through refusal to move) occupy public or private property. They were blocking public side...walks, and they deserved to be sprayed. There's a difference between freedom to speak and freedom to act; they aren't a package-deal. They took an anti-conceptual approach, and chose their bodies, rather than their minds. They chose to sit and complain, rather than stand and exchange ideas as rational humans. The whole hypocrisy of the thing lies in the fact that they want "rights" but are willing to violate the rights of others by blocking public property.

Darius: Even though you justify what the protestors did as wrong. What the cops did isn't any better. They call america a democracy, but that's not what it is. 

Lain: No, it's a Republic. Democracy would never work because of irrational morons like those protesters. Why, if you could elaborate, was it wrong? Sure, reason ends where force begins, but who truly initiated force first? The occupiers, by bloc...king the sidewalk and refusing to move. That is a form of force, and the police actions were taken in order to mediate that. What else should be done? They obviously aren't intelligent enough to present an intelligent argument, or they would be doing just that, instead of sitting around and rabbling "Shame on you!" As if that is how intelligent people get things done...

Darius: I'm not looking at it in a political view. Honestly, I could care less about politics. And maybe you do have a point, but don't you think they could've went straight to the hancuffing rather than poising their lungs with that crap?

Cato: What else were they supposed to do? They have no right to block public property.

Darius: They could have just went straight to handcuffing. And aren't they considered the public? 

Lain: It's not a political view, you made it that by referring to a "democracy." It's a moral issue. Should the police try and handcuff an angry mob? Think about how that would work out? No, the police tried to peacefully get them to move, but they showed aggressive defiance; the police did their job. And, there is no such entity as "the public;" It's merely a collection of individuals, with individual rights. There are no "collective rights." Individual rights were violated by their occupations. 

Darius: They went to handcuffing and arrest anyway. But okaay.. Maybe you have a point. Im not gunna put down your opinion. as you can see its mad some people upset on both sides. So either way there's no justice on both parts(towards the officers and/or towards the protestors). 

Cato: They were purposely blocking the police. The police would never have arrested anyone for simply "peacefully protesting," however the students did not allow the police to move through. That was a public roadway they hindered. There was no other way the police could have possibly handled that peacefully.


Darius: There are plenty of other ways. 

Lain: Name one.

Cato: Name one. 

Darius: Woah^^
I already have.. THEY COULD HAVE WENT TO ARRESSTING RIGHT AWAY. they did it anyway.
What if they lost their vision or it tampered with their lungs as there was permanent damage? Are you saying that wouldn't matter? 

Xerxes:  IT WAS THE QUAD IN THE UC DAVID EAST CAMPUS. Not a public roadway.... 

Lain: They won't have permanent damage. That's an outrageous claim. The mob was acting aggressive. Should a few police officers contend with the what, fifty angry protesters, who have not only demonstrated an unwillingness to follow the law, but have also shown increasing aggression at each attempt to move them? It's a danger to the officers.


Lain: It's a public school, i.e, public property.

Xerxes: It was the quad in the UC David campus. Not a public roadway.... People sit there everyday. 

Lain: Clear evasion of the argument. Never forget words have an exact meaning: "Public." They are blocking public property. Don't get into linguistics with me. It's absurd to debate whether it's a "roadway" or a "quad;" It is still public property. 

Cato: This debate is just ridiculous. Everyone believes that the right party is the one who suffers when they don't consider that maybe the "victimized" party was the one who broke the law in the first place. Once again the police would never demonstrate violence or attempts at arrest if the protesters were truly "peaceful" however it couldn't be any clearer that the protesters were blocking public property. All they had to do was move and nobody would have been hurt. The students were completely wrong and there's no way handcuffing a huge angry mob was ever gonna do the trick

Darius: okay.. Sorry for stating what I believed to be right. But you never know.. What if the protestors had asthma or something. Who are you to say that's an outrageous claim? And you kept saying they were on public property. Are they not the public? Are they not citizens? All I'm saying is that the freaking pepper spray was completely uncalled for. I'm not going into the law I'm not going into political factors. 

Lain: It's not the responsibility of the police to know whether or not the person has asthma...As far as the "public," clearly my last argument didn't resonate with you. My apologies. Let me quote someone much more intelligent than me. The public "is an undefined and undefinable concept; there is no such entity as "the public"; the public or society is only a number of individuals." Essentially, you are arguing that "that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals." (Ayn Rand)

Xerxes: The protest was as peaceful as possible it was 20 kids sitting down. They weren't yelling or throwing anything. It was a sit down on an area on campus where people sit everyday. The area is public property and those students pay nearly 20k a year in fees to that school. They have the right to have a peaceful sit in. The pepper spray was over the top and not necessary. 

Lain: No rights may be gained by the violation of the rights of others.


Darius: They were standing up for what they believed was right, they didn't want raised tuition prices. THATS ALL. Give me proof stating students ATTENDING THIS SCHOOL are not allowed to sit in the quad. By saying CITIZENS are not allowed to sit in... public areas is just dehuminizing. Your definition of public is far different from the literal meaning. It's they're school. They sit in the quad everyday. Do you not believe in natural rights? WHAT RIGHTS OF OTHERS. the only ones complaining were the cops. I'm pretty sure no one else going to public schools would like the prices
To be raised. 

Cato: Stop changing the argument. They blocked a police vehicle. All they had to do was move and everything would have ended well. Of course you're allowed to sit in a public area. You certainly aren't allowed to block it though. The transgression falls upon the students for BLOCKING a PUBLIC area. I'm done with this debate.


Darius: THEY DIDN'T BLOCK ANYTHIG. the police went there to remove them. for no reason. I'm not changing the argument. 

Lain: They were sitting down for what they believed was right, without ever justifying why it was "right." Do you know what natural rights are? They rest on the premise that a person has the right to pursue their own happiness, as long as it is not at the expense of others. You are continuously avoiding the argument. Stop evading. Don't throw out cliche terms like "natural rights" and "dehumanizing" without justifying what they mean. Do you not understand that the "public" is an arbitrary concept; it has no grounds.

Darius: Your being rude :(

Lain: Reason hurts. 


I have to cut off the debate here, both because of the length, and because the other side simply began insulting Cato and me. Who do you think was right?

 - L.C.

Schopenhauer's "The Horrors and Absurdities of Religion:" Some Thoughts

I should preface this by writing that I do indeed believe in God; it is religion I reject.
It's always seemed to me inconceivable that one's passage to heaven should depend on the religion one was born into. Isn't faith supposed to be an individual choice? How can it be considered as such if we're indoctrinated into one belief system at a time when our brains aren't fully developed enough to make metaphysical judgments of our own?

Philalethes "...the capacity for faith is at its highest in childhood."

Of course a child will adopt a faith if he or she has it recited to them daily! After the childhood indoctrination,

Philalethes "...hardly one in a thousand (people) will then possess the firmness of mind to seriously and honestly ask himself: is this true."

One could make a child believe anything. Schopenhauer poses the example of teaching a child that it was his or her religious duty to kill others as an "essential condition for salvation." I'm inclined to agree; it's the ultimate incentive. 

Philalethes "The power of religious dogmas imprinted to early years is such that are capable of stifling conscience and finally all pity and humanity."

We need to stop giving our children so quickly to religion. It's an absurd notion that, based on the location of ones birth, one is more likely to enter heaven. One should not be forced to adopt metaphysical views. It stifles the intellect and limits the imagination.

Philalethes "...an incubus on all intellectual endeavours."

This kind of birth based faith is so absurd, and so stifling, that all one of the faith need do to "verify" one's viewpoints is to determine that another viewpoint differs; one never pauses to objectively ask which is right and why. I think I'm making some ground; I realize I'm taking a good amount from Schopenhauer, but I think the fundamental issue with religion is that it teaches one to ask "what" without asking "why." It's separated the essential questions; the dichotomy is absurd! In Schopenhauer's work, Demopheles argues that religion is a way to control the masses; just because it is pragmatical however, doesn't make it right. In regards to its pragmatism, 

Nego consequitiom!

Philalethes "I cannot see why because other people are simple minded, I should respect a pact of lies."

The masses, Demopheles says, are incapable of answering "why," so religious allegory substitutes. The "what" is indeed there, but its justification is counterfeited. Are we incapable of answering "why," through reason though? One only need look at Ancient Greece to show we are not. When no "why" is supplied, humans are forced to use reason to answer it as an essential condition to survival. Religion destroys these inner promptings, however, by artificially creating a "why." Children need to be allowed to find reason and faith largely by themselves; familes and churches should be mere guides in faith, not instructors, especially in the early years. Humans are not innately incapable of answering "why;" religion renders us so. If we recognize the fact that faiths are largely based on where one is born, and not any voluntary choice, we can realize its detrimental effects to the rational center of the brain. Only by eliminating this emphasis on religion can we regain our reason and individually answer the metaphysical questions. Indeed it is time for mankind to

"...grow out of religion as out of its childhood clothes."

-L.C.

Thoughts in AP Calculus

Absurdity of absurdities. My math teacher won't let me make use of the class Academic Tutor because I scored too high on my last test. Never mind it was the tutoring that helped me learn the material last time, not her! She says only the students who failed the test can use the tutor. This is absurd! The students who achieve the highest should have access to the tutors, not the slackers who can't even score a C. My math teacher and all public school teachers for that matter, can forgive everything but greatness; they've made mediocrity the standard for special privilege. It's disgusting. I feel like Sisyphus.

The Anti-Conceptual Wall Street Occupiers

I've recently seen a number of interviews featuring members of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and I was struck by a common theme that appeared in all of the interviewees: an anti-conceptual philosophy.  Definitions, to them, are arbitrary constructs that have no bearing on reality. How could they have bearing, when they implicitly state that reality is unknowable? Let me provide an example of this: One of the interviewees, a woman, demanded she be refereed to as a "female bodied person." She found the term "female" offensive because she thought that not all "female bodied people," identify as "females." Essentially, she is stating, (I say state, not argue, because one can't rationally argue such an absurd position) that a judgment, or a definition, has no real bearing on reality, and that it cannot be separated from the person making the judgment. Concepts don't exist, in her way of thinking; A is only A because we say it is. A female is only a female because we've said so, and a female can be something different if "she" chooses.

By this "logic," 2+2 only equals 4 because we say so. Somebody could be equally justified in saying it equals 5. The occupiers deny the facts of reality, saying that there are no absolutes, no facts, just opinions. The contradiction in this is blatant; one can't absolutely argue there are no absolutes. By arguing against concepts, they're subconsciously trying to form one, only, it can never hold. One need only look at science to see that men and women are genetically different. This is not to say that one is better than the other (it's sad I need to include that to shield myself from the women's libs), they're just different, and that's good! Nature intended it to be that way! These occupiers seem to think that feeling trumps reality; that one can feel something and it can be true based on feeling alone. This is absurd and disgusting. A human being is only different from an animal because he or she can concretize the facts of reality into concepts. The occupiers wish to exist on the sensational and perceptual level, claiming that feeling is truth, and perceptions are arbitrary from person to person. I'll elaborate more on this later.

-L.C.

The Hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats Alike in Modern Society

I don't have much time, and I'll elaborate on this more thoroughly later, but I need to get something out. I've been watching political debates recently, and the hypocrisies of both parties are making me sick. I suppose I should say right now, I'm a Libertarian Republican, but that doesn't stop me from attacking Republicans just as much as I do Democrats. I'll be brief:

The stance of modern Republicans: Let's have a capitalistic system because we're individualists! At the same time, lets make drugs illegal, ban gay marriage, allow religion in government, and listen to our citizens private phone calls without a warrent.

The stance of modern Democrats: Let's allow gay marriage because we want individualism. We want a secular society so everyone can be an individual. Let's have a regulated economy! Let's force people to buy insurance! Let's tax people more!

It makes me sad I even need to point out the ideological inconsistencies. We have Republicans supporting an individualist economic theory, but denying the individualist social theory, and we have Democrats supporting social individualism, but denying the means of achieving it, ie, free market capitalism.

One can't compromise with freedom! You either have it, or you don't. Capitalism is the corollary to an individualist social theory. We've created an artificial dichotomy and we wonder why there are so many problems today? The government needs to stop interfering with both. Both sides of the political spectrum say that the other side "supports big government," but in reality, both do; they just mask it in different ways. Let me provide a simple solution.

If one is to advocate free market Capitalism, one must realize that is foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights one must recognize that Capitalism is the only system that can do this.

-L.C.

Consciousness and the Will to Act

It's interesting; I almost stopped myself from writing this, and it was only once I re-read the title I had given it that I decided to continue. It's so easy to set a goal and not follow through with it; one needs simply to rationalize an excuse not to do it. "I'll do it later." "I don't feel well." "I'm tired." "I'm busy." "I'm too depressed." Bah. My excuse lately has been depression mixed with anger. I won't elaborate much on the specifics of it, that's not the point. Rather, my point is that our mind, the source of all of these goals and ideas, prevents us at the same time from accomplishing them. I've allowed myself to wallow in thought so much that lately, I haven't been doing anything worthwhile; I haven't been doing anything at all actually. Consciousness can be a disease, they say, and I've been afflicted more than my fair share of it. I feel like Dostoevsky's Underground Man"

"Oh, gentlemen, do you know, perhaps I consider myself an intelligent man, only because all my life I have been able neither to begin nor to finish anything"

Naturally this hasn't been going on my entire life, but recently, I've been trapped by inertia. It's so easy to wallow in self pity and to analyze every possible scenario; it's even easier to choose the negative outcome as your solution to that scenario. I'm not entirely sure why yet, because it seems that it would feel better to expect the best, yet, it seems humans always choose the worst. My answer to this, though cynical, is that humans like suffering. Well, we don't LIKE it, but we enjoy to talk of it. Suffering gives us a claim to uniqueness. Humans are actually proud of their suffering, because it gives them something to have "overcome." This is absurd but this is the way we live. How often do I hear my peers explain some awful tragedy that has just occurred in their lives? How often do I see Facebook status's from people hoping to get pity? It's absurd, but suffering is so much more fun to talk about then happiness. Happiness is boring (to most people). 

"Ha, ha, ha! You will be finding enjoyment in toothache next," you cry, with a laugh."

I'm digressing slightly, but only to explain better my situation. I chose to suffer, and to live in fear of finding certainty. I chose, rather than to act, to live in pain, because it gave me some claim to hold on to. I was a victim! It's sick really. I went as far to create negative fictions about my situation, to use as an excuse to hold on to the suffering. I would literally come home from school, and do nothing but think. I would think up the most horrible possibilities ever, knowing it hurt me, but never once choosing to act in order to become certain. I was fearful of the outcome of conscious action. The mind can make a coward of us all if we let it; I think Hamlet said that. I put thoughts and actions onto other people, and worried myself into inactivity. My will to act was gone because I willingly let it go and exchanged it with the will to suffer. It's awful and naive, but I feel I'm not the only one who has done this. During the last week, I neglected my homework, my eating, my sleep, my manners; I neglected myself. I didn't take active initiative to do this, but rather, it was my lack of action that brought this about. I knew I was being hurt, but I continued on the path because my mind had created an uncertainty that prevented me from doing something; I wasn't sure what would happen if I took action. At least I knew that if I didn't I would suffer. Suffering was an absolute, and I think that's the key. People are always looking for certainty; they'll choose it over uncertainty 9 out of 10 times, even it it means suffering. Inertia dictated I didn't take action, so I didn't.

"…tearing and consuming myself till at last the bitterness turned into a sort of shameful accursed sweetness, and at last – into positive real enjoyment! Yes, into enjoyment, into enjoyment! I insist upon that. I have spoken of this because I keep wanting to know for a fact whether other people feel such enjoyment? I will explain; the enjoyment was just from the too intense consciousness of one's own degradation; it was from feeling oneself that one had reached the last barrier, that it was horrible, but that it could not be otherwise; that there was no escape for you; that you never could become a different man; that even if time and faith were still left you to change into something different you would most likely not wish to change; or if you did wish to, even then you would do nothing; because perhaps in reality there was nothing for you to change into."

My grandpa came over to the house today, and he told me something I'll never forget: "Either shit, or get off the pot." He was right. I thought over-analyzing my situation, and suffering from it, would somehow, in the end, make things better. Really, it's activity, any activity, that fixes suffering. We're in charge of our mind, and we choose what thoughts enter it. I can let the negativity enter, and prevent me from taking action; it's certainly easy, but that will never bring anything good about. It's the will to act that can fix depression, and that comes from controlling one's mind. It's late and I realize this may not be my best work, but if we can grasp anything from this, let is understand that action cures consciousness.

 -L.C.