Experience February 17, 2009
Posted by caesar in Georg Simmel, Philosophy.Tags: Philosophy, Simmel
add a comment
For one of my classes, I am reading Georg Simmel’s Philosophy of Money, which is extremely interesting and not an economics book. His claim in the book is that by understanding money and the function of money, one can understand the whole of human experience, so he talks about things outside of money. I am not yet sure whether his overarching claim can be upheld, but it is interesting to read nonetheless. Today, I was reading, and I came across the following section, this is only part of the paragraph, and I would quote more, but this is the most pertinent, so I will not quote the entire paragraph as I had originally planned.
“It seems to me that a vast number of life experiences that we enjoy derive their intensity from the fact that, for their sake, we leave unexplored innumerable opportunities for other enjoyments and for other ways of proving ourselves. A regal extravagance, a careless grandeur of existence, is revealed by the way that people ignore each other or pass on after a brief encounter, by our total indifference towards many to whom we could give much and who could give much to us. But there also emanates from this unique value of non-enjoyment a new, enhanced and more concentrated charm in what we do actually possess. The fact that this one among innumerable possibilites has become reality gives it a triumphant tone; the shades of the untried, neglected richness of life provide its victor’s retinue.
According to Simmel, each decision to do something is also a (implied) decision to not do many other things. This is unavoidable, but also provides richness to that which we decide to do. I think everyone is cognizant of this fact to some degree, but probably not fully aware of the lasting impact of each decision one makes. This of course is not meant to render one incapable of making decisions, because decisions of course must be made. Perhaps, however, it would be wise to not reveal such “a regal extravagance, a careless graneur of existence” about those decisions that we do make.
Philosophy of Money – ISBN 13 (pbk) 978-0-415-34172-1 (-8 for hbk)
The chicken and the egg February 13, 2009
Posted by caesar in Humor.Tags: Humor
add a comment
This is something which I wrote a little bit ago, purely for fun. Think of it as an exercise in defining and dividing, but this is (hopefully obviously) not to be taken very seriously, although I do think that I lay out the answer to the allegedly “age old question” quite well.
I’ve been thinking about the question, “Which came first the chicken or the egg?” People often throw this around as if it is some sort of eternal question that can’t ever be accurately answered, but the problem is, however, that the answer is ridiculously simple. So, here we go.
To begin with what is easiest, if somebody believes in creation, the answer is obviously the chicken came first, these people, however are not likely to actually think this question is difficult to answer, in their minds, it is plain that the chicken came first.
However, those who believe in evolution will perhaps find the question slightly more difficult to answer, as their presuppositions do not necessarily require a certain answer. In order to accurately answer the question, we must first further elucidate the question. “Egg” is a rather general term, but in this question, there are two specific ways that it can be taken. One, it can mean an egg of any sort, laid by any animal, as chickens are far from the only animals that lay eggs. The other option, obviously, is that the question is actually “which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?” In this interpretation, the egg is referring specifically to a chicken egg. We shall deal with these two interpretations separately, as the distinction is vital to finding the correct answer.
If egg is taken in a general sense of any animal’s egg, then the answer is, again, remarkably clear. As I understand it, unless it’s changed since I was younger, dinosaurs, or at least some kinds, were born from eggs. Again, as I understand it, according to evolution, dinosaurs were gone long before chickens were around. Thus, if egg is meant in a general sense, then, from an evolutionary viewpoint, the egg clearly came before the chicken.
Well, those two answers are fairly straightforward, which leads me to believe that the people that think the question is difficult must be interpreting in this third, and seemingly final, way. In this interpretation, “egg” is referring to a chicken egg specifically, not simply to egg as a means of bearing young. This question must also be further examined before it can be properly answered. Obviously, if one is going to answer the question, a definition of “chicken egg” must be available. Does it mean an egg which contains a chicken, or an egg which was laid by a chicken? These two different definitions will again determine whether the chicken or the egg came first, for obvious reasons.
In evolution, it is hard to draw lines between species as they change, or at least, if one assumes intermediate links, it would seemingly have to be difficult. However, at some point, an animal that was not a chicken, would have to become a chicken. If by chicken egg, we mean an egg which contains a chicken, then clearly, the chicken egg would come first. It would have been laid by some chicken-esque animal, that was not, in fact, a chicken. Thus, the chicken egg came before the chicken. If, however, by “chicken egg” one means an egg which was laid by a chicken, the answer is just as readily apparent, but the exact opposite. Again, this chicken, which was born of that-which-was-not-chicken, would lay an egg, and that egg would be a “chicken egg,” but the chicken would have come first.
Thus, in answer to the question “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” there are several ways of responding, all of which depend upon your beliefs and your definition of the question, to sum up:
-
A creationist: the chicken came first
-
An evolutionist, defining the egg in a general sense: the egg came first
-
An evolutionist, defining the egg in a specific sense, in which the chicken egg is the egg containing a chicken: the egg came first
-
An evolutionist, defining the egg in a specific sense, in which the chicken egg is the egg laid by a chicken: the chicken came first.
It seems to me that, for most people, option #4 is the most likely way they would define the question, because it simply makes the most sense that the chicken egg is the egg which is laid by the chicken. I say it makes sense because if one has an egg laid by a chicken which was not fertilized, and thus does not contain a chicken, one would still call that a chicken egg.
Parentheses February 12, 2009
Posted by caesar in Kierkegaard, Philosophy.Tags: Kierkegaard, Philosophy
add a comment
Leo Strauss, in his article “Literary Character of the Guide for the Perplexed,” writes: “May not a statement assume a different shade of meaning by being cast in the form of a conditional sentence? And is it not possible to hide the conditional nature of such a sentence by turning it into a very long sentence and, in particular, by inserting into it a parenthesis of some length?”
In that article, and also “Persecution and the Art of Writing,” Strauss claims that authors who wish to write a truth, but also conceal the truth from some, have to write in a certain way, so as to only allow the ones who are able to find the truth to discover it. The Guide for the Perplexed was written by Moses Maimonides, and he himself claims that this is what he is seeking to do. “For my purpose is that the truths be glimpsed and then again be concealed.” His purpose in this is to communicate the “mysteries of the Torah” without communicating them to the masses.
Kierkegaard also touches upon this issue, and forgive the long quotation, but why should I write something when it was already written better? “Suppose, then, that someone wanted to communicate the following conviction: truth is inwardness; objectively there is no truth, but the appropriation is thee truth. Suppose he had enough zeal and enthusiasm to get it said, because when people heard it they would be saved. Suppose he said it on every occasion and moved not only those who sweat easily but also the tough people – what then? Then there would certainly be some laborers who had been standing idle in the marketplace and only upon hearing this call would go forth to work in the vineyard – to proclaim this teaching to all people. And what then? Then he would have contradicted himself even more, just as he had from the beginning, because the zeal and enthusiasm for getting it said and getting it heard were already a misunderstanding. The main point was indeed to become understood, and the inwardness of the understanding would indeed be that the single individual would understand this by himself. Now he had even gone so far as to obtain barkers, and a barker of inwardness is a creature worth seeing.”
In that section, Kierkegaard (or, more accurately, Johannes Climacus) is discussing the fact that, for at least some ideas, indirect communication is the only true means of communicating them, because if they are communicated directly, the whole essence of what is communicated has been lost.
It would seem then, that perhaps the most important of things to be communicated are those communicated in the parentheses, the footnotes, and the passing remarks. Life, as well as simply communicating can also be seen this way. Perhaps the most important things in life are those small parentheses, the seemingly insignificant moments and those things that one does not even think about when they happen.
