That's not a very nice title, is it?
I know, I know...but I'll try to keep it light.
I think every question or problem in the Universe boils down to one topic in particular, and that topic is called 'Subjectivism'.
Now back in Philosophy, where I grew up, subjectivism was the doctrine that 'all knowledge is restricted to the conscious self and its sensory states'.
Basically, You determine your own reality.
And that's remarkably accurate, for Philosophy!
Apparently, it's promounced thusly:
(s







Basically, in knifeyland, subjectivism simply dictates that my experience of a thing, and your experience of a thing, will differ from each others experience, due to a difference in...well...experience!
Example.
When I was a kid, my Mothers hands smelled like coconut milk. So now, when I smell coconut milk, I think of my Mummy.
To my friend Gretchen, she discovered coconut milk at the State Fair, and so she thinks of hot dark nights, with lights and candy apples, and screams from the rides.
We're talking about the same coconut milk here, but it is transformed by 2 different peoples experience of it.
But this is coming off kinda condescending, like 'Sophies World', and I don't mean it that way.
OK, so we know, what the damn thing means already.
Now let's crack this coconut open, and get with the subject matter...
Have you ever had a fender bender?
They really do sort out the sheep from the goats, and I think most of us have at least seen what I'm about to discuss firsthand.
Some people, no matter how responsible they may be, for causing an accident, cannot be wrong.
In whatever reality they are broadcasting from, it is simply a Universal impossibility, for them to be wrong.
Sure, you saw them drive right into the side of your car as you went around the roundabout, when they should have given way.
But what you're hearing, is them relating a story of how you suddenly appeared in front of their car, how you are responsible, and how you must pay for their damaged vehicle.
Traditionally, these people do not have insurance.
Now, let's swoop in, and cut open their brain, shall we?
Inside, we find all manner of behaviourism (or for those not versed in the pleonasm the rest of us nerds know as Philosophy- 'life experience').
And you can bet your bottom dollar every time, that in there somewhere is an experience where they were wrong once before, and they have never gotten over it.
They have never dealt with it.
And they have never accepted it.
Another example:
Your Father died alone in a nursing home, because you were working 7 days and nights a week to get your business established, and didn't have time for family.
You couldn't stop him from dying, but you could have been there for him, supporting and loving him, when he did.
And your mind knows it.
It absolutely knows it.
But in order to stop you from going crazy with guilt, your subconscious mind takes that file, and deletes it.
And it writes you a new file.
This file is called "My Father didn't leave me any money. If he had, i would have had some time to spend with him, instead of having to bust my ass to get up".
That's how it works.
And it's all about you.
So, back at the scene of the fender bender, it wouldn't matter if you, Judge Judy, God, or the mans Father appeared to explain his culpability in the matter, he can't be wrong.
Not gonna happen.
And everyone standing around scratching their heads at the sheer idiocy of this guy, walks away and chalks it up to subjectivism.
But it doesn't just work for traffic accidents!
If subjectivism was any more user friendly, it would seriously come endorsed by Chuck Norris, with a free set of steak knives, and an ab-flex for the first gazillion-thousand callers.
It really does work on anything.
I just turned a girl down, because she likes getting stoned.
I have no respect for people who get stoned (if that offends you, I really don't give a fuck, there's the red 'X', don't come back...), and I'm not going to have a relationship with anyone who does it.
Case closed.
My subjective experience dictates to me that no matter how mindful she tries to be of the situation, sooner or later, it will come up, and I will break up with her.
I can't not break up with stoners.
Her subjective experience thinks I'm an uncaring bastard, and that I'd rather throw everything we could have together away, over a total non-issue.
She's right about the bastard thing, i was born out of wedlock.
But it is an issue, because I say so.
Just ask Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat (if you have a time machine).
We all have these differences of opinions, and because we all don't subscribe to the same set of moral values or guidelines (apart from 'The Law', which is so full of holes they should have called it 'The Swiss Cheese'), we will always continue to have these differences of opinion.
Individuals will differ from other individuals, groups from groups, classes from classes and nations from nations.
And everywhere in between.
So what this all boils down to, is, because we're all different and diverse and thoroughly Benetton right now, all this difference and diversity and uniqueness, as great as it is for culture (and hopefully for acceptance of cultures that aren't yours), means we're all fucking doomed.
Unless we all grew up in exactly the same way, in exactly the same time/space, place, perspective, whatever...we are all guaranteed to come off the line different.
Yet another way Mother Nature has taken a really great and unique thing, and made it useless and pointless.
At least, that's my take on it, but I'm sure some of you will disagree.
That's subjectivism for ya!
Id | Search Engine Name | Search Keyword |
1 | google.com | adalita |
2 | google.com | knifey sibling |
3 | google.com | "Ivanka Trump" + "Blog" |
4 | google.com | wilson hard salami nutrition |
This is knifey, from 'the internet'.
8 comments:
I was going to pust a comment but I just realized that I had a dream about the nursing home at which I used to work.
In the dream I broke the law to be an advocate to a neglected patient and Kevin Smith was proud of me.
And Kevin Smith was gay.
I gotta go look that shit up.
what??...huh?? i am just here for the hard salami.. now hand it over knifey !
Aughra- I'm proud of you too, and I'm not gay.
3.O.M.- Ummm.. the hard salami is at Mark from jet's house. It's his thing, I just blogged about it, I swear!
I only have Dutch sausage here...it's salty.
Knifey, are you famililar with Martin Buber?
"Buber's most lasting achievement was his philosophy of Dialogue, described in I and Thou (1923). In this treatise Buber differentiated between the I-Thou and I-It relationships. The former depicts the relationship between man and the world as one of mutuality, openness, and directness - a true dialogue. The latter - the I-It - is explained as the absence of these I-Thou qualities. The partners are not equal in the I-It relationship. However, the I-It dialogue cannot be discarded because it leads to objective knowledge, and must necessarily interact with I-Thou. Yet the ultimate objective is not only the I-Thou relationship between man and the world, but between man and the eternal source of the world, namely, God. God, Buber maintained, can be known through this subjective view of the universe. One can encounter God in the revelation of everyday existence. Indeed, Buber asserted that the Bible is a record of this dialogue experience between man and God. He stated that the essence of religious life is not the affirmation of religious beliefs but rather the way one meets the challenges of existence."
(http://www.emanuelnyc.org/bulletin/archive/34.html)
Sweet mana from heaven, you are so totally my paramour right now.
Let's talk anti-objectivism sometime.
Oh, and I know that the "GOD" part above is a little off putting, but essentially what he is talking about is how humanity catagorizes each other/itself into two groups called "I" and "Thou."
If you are an "I," like me, then we are amigos.
If you are a "Thou," you are a sub-human and then NOT like me so we are not compadres.
Technically you don't have to be friends with another "I," but you still respect that they have importance and value in the whole scheme of things.
While "Thou's," on the other hand, traditionally get trounced. Matter of fact, Iraq is one big friggin "Thou" right now. Which is why our government can get away with the shit that they're pulling.
He came up with all this shizzle before WW2 and its concentration camp mentality.
Blow's me out of the water.
Sorry for the long comment K, but philosophy gets me juiced up.
You can drop a long comment on me any time, oh paramour of mine!
Yeah, I read him at University, and I didn't really get down with it, because as much as the subjective nature of our realities bother me, I absolutely cannot stand any idea that there exists anywhere in this Universe a true objective knowledge.
Clearly I reject it because I'm so all about subjectivism.
After studying Philosophy through to Honours level, i still haven't found one thesis of Philosophy that can truly be called objective.
Not even those theses that have left the folds of Philosophy to graduate into 'hard science' don't have that honour, as all science needs to be proven wrong is some more information (or not).
Still, you know all of this already, and that is why I'm gonna dream about you all night.
I have the same problem K, which is why I've amalgamated several pieces of various philosophical treaties into an evolving personal philosophical whole.
I don't like the cosmic creator outlook either, unless I'm God that is, but at the same time, I really think that he was onto somthing with his ability to clearly see social stratifications through the power differential the exists between un-equal components.
Sweet baby jesus, did I just type that outloud?
I'm such a friggin' nerd head.
Madre de Dios!
I should go watch mind-dumbing TV.
Whoops, I don't have one.
I'll just curse instead: shitmotherfuckinggoodgoddamncunt!
Sleep well paramour of mine. By the way, can one have a long distance paramour? Since were talking about philosophical abstractions that is.
We're big kids, we can do what we want.
Besides, you're God, remember?
Good point, I almost forgot. So much for omnipotence.
Post a Comment