Search This Blog

Sunday, August 30, 2015

On Death: Death can't be the end...

...because something happens after "death." Either our soul and/or consciousness is set free into the universe, thus continuing the life cycle, or we "die" with our body. If so, our body takes time to decay. Therefore, the body doesn't just die so much as decays progressively over time. It is nonsensical to think that there is a finger snap moment of death. The only death we tend to think about is the moment that a person's heart stops beating for a long enough period that it can't be restarted. Such a time is always called "gone" as in "he's gone," meaning the ability to communicate in a personable way is finished. However, coma patients cannot communicate in a personable way but they're not dead. Death is defined as an ending. As far as people (and possibly other living organisms) go, "death" is truly just a product of change. It can be one of freedom or decay but it's still change. As change is something that happens, a changing situation cannot be a dead one. Therefore, if we change as we "die," we are not truly dead. We change and are constantly changing. The universe creates and changes. As part of that universe, we change along with it.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

Critiquing Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason

I read a little Kant last night and I began thinking feverishly over this idea that synthetic propositions can be a priori. A synthetic proposition is an idea that has to be proven. It isn't self-evident. In contrast, an analytic proposition is one that is self-evident. "All bachelors are single," for example. This is self-evident and doesn't need any thought. Bachelor = single. We don't need to put it through experimentation to prove that. A synthetic proposition is one that isn't exact. "All bachelors are happy," for instance. We don't know if that's true or not. It isn't self-evident. We would have to ask every bachelor in the world whether they are happy or not. We would have to obtain and process date to prove whether it is true or not. The definition of "a priori" is the same as an analytic proposition. A priori knowledge is self-evident. "All bachelors are single," is an a priori statement just like an analytic proposition. Kant's argument in his work, Critique of Pure Reason, is that certain synthetic propositions can be a priori. This is a seeming contradiction. Synthetic propositions have to be proven. A priori knowledge is self-evident.

Kant's reasoning in this matter is founded on proving synthetic (only gained through experience) propositions and a priori knowledge (self-evident) are possible. He uses space and time as an example. We have an intuitive idea of space and time because we're programmed that way. We naturally see things spatially, therefore we have an instinctive sense of what space is. We also have a natural sense of time, such as a woman's "biological clock" of when she can have babies. Space and time are also something that need to proven through experience. There are natural laws of space and time that are arrived at through experimentation and calculation. So we seemingly have opposite ideas both being true, therefore there are some synthetic propositions that can be a priori.

While Kant's reasoning is sensible, many philosophers think it is a moot point. If two things contradict each other, they cannot both be true. I'll challenge the very idea of opposites. My thinking is that synthetic a priori judgments cannot exist because they are contradictory opposites. If two seemingly opposite ideas can both be proven true, logic tells us that they can't truly be opposites. If left is left and right is right, then the two can't be the same. Oil and water and can in the same container but they can't mix. Left and right seem to be opposites. One goes one way and the other goes the other way. But are they truly opposites? What if something goes left in a straight line? It's opposite would be something going right in a straight line. But what if the line going right is at a diagonal angle? It's still going right but it's not EXACTLY the opposite of the line going left. What if the line going left moves 10 feet? Let's say the line going right is on the same line as the one going left but only goes 5 feet. Are they opposites? One goes left, the other goes right but they aren't exact opposites because the logistics of one line are not the same as the other line. What if something goes up 10 feet, then down 5 feet? Up and down are opposites but are the details in this situation opposites? No. What seems like an analytic a priori self-evident idea can be proven false by actual mathematical facts. It seems Kant's ideas, which are matters of pure reason, are black and white. Trying to prove opposites disallows for a third option. A = B and B = C are seeming contradictions. If A = B, how can B = C? It's a seeming contradiction until we add that A = C. There are THREE aspects to this truth. If there are truths that can be arrived at in threes, is arguing how opposites can both be true, meaning we're dealing with TWO things, even important in the first place? Exact opposites cannot both be proven true in an argument. If there is one answer, it can't be both left and right. Kant makes excellent arguments for SEEMING opposites to be true. My criticisms are that his ideas of opposites are not truly opposites at all.

I hope I expressed this well as I thought of all this last night then slept on it. My thinking is trying to be out of the box. True opposites are absolute. All other "opposites" are simply based on one's perception of them being opposites.

Monday, August 3, 2015

Amy and Charles Schumer insult and stereotype the mentally ill on national TV

I'm bipolar. I was at a friend's house tonight and, sadly, saw the comments on Lawrence O'Donnell's show by Amy Schumer about gun violence. Firstly, I will say it isn't sad to want peace and to be against guns. I've been a moderate Democratic voter for years now and I understand the passion of left wingers on such things. That said, tonight, a very well meaning but vastly ignorant Amy Schumer got in front of a mic with her relative, Charles Schumer, smiling and nodding along, and lumped gun violence with "crazies." She said "people tell me you can't stop the crazies from being crazy." She then VERY OFFENSIVELY goes on to talk about treatment for the mentally ill as a way to stop such shootings. I've been through hell in my life. I don't have a gun and will never have a gun because I don't need a gun. Who the HELL does Amy Schumer thinks she is thinking she can comment on our community, the most marginalized of all minority groups in this country? I watched this crap in horror tonight as my peer group was stepped on and stereotyped in the name of gun control by a very well meaning young lady that doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground about the mentally ill. Conservatives think left wing people are a "mental disorder." Left wingers like Charles Schumer (with Amy as his ventriloquist's dummy) lump "crazies" in with gun violence. Who are we supposed to vote her? Apparently, if the left don't get us, the right one will (to use a boxing metaphor.) To say I'm outraged on this is an understatement. If a conservative said it, I'd be offended but I'd be able to move on easily because I expect that from the bigoted Right. A high ranking Democrat was behind this garbage tonight? Gun control and "lunacy" are not synonymous. In fairness to conservatives, I have also heard bigoted comments from the Left about people suffering from mental illness. I guess it's too much of a temptation for people with social power and influence to avoid running down a marginalized group that doesn't have the power or resources to force respect as gays and blacks do. As a moderate Democrat that voted that way the last three elections, I'm all for justice for gays and blacks. Hey, Charles and Amy Schumer! We're human beings, too! We're not a group to be thrown under the bus for your issues. I live in the swing state of Florida. I would like to vote Democrat again but I will NOT if I think our issues are not being considered with humanity and compassion. I've voted Democrat because I've viewed them as pro-social justice. Apparently, we don't fit in that group. The next election is key for Democrats because the Republicans have Congress. Maybe we "crazies" shouldn't support Democrats anymore. At times like this, I have no problem feeling that I'd love to see the Democrats thrown to the Republican sharks as fish food. Hopefully, my words are something for my community to consider. I've long considered social conservatives the enemy. Are the Democrats the same?