I have recently been engrossing myself in a deliberate process of identifying precisely what it is that I seek and desire in terms of my interactions with others. What spurned it on is the realization that I have found myself so occupied with working, living, and addressing a never-ending parade of immediately pressing needs that I had not engaged in that critical process in quite some time. When I finally did, I was shocked and appalled to discover that I had somehow allowed myself to neglect the very things that were critical to my self-identity. In other words, I suddenly found that I was losing my edge even though "I've never been wrong, I used to work in the record store, I had everything before anyone." "I was there" until I woke up one fine morning and realized that I wasn't there any longer...
With each passing year, the list of issues that are off-limits, that are not to be discussed, and with respect to which one is only permitted to hold one view, grows. It currently feels as if the trend of groupthink as well as political and societal hyperpolarization will intensify ceaselessly, and whilst one may be forgiven for believing that this trend has already reached its fevered crescendo, it hasn’t. Rather, the din of the mob that is attempting to drown out and silence individual voices in a juvenile attempt to control the way that others think and perceive the world grows increasingly louder.
Both our beginnings and our ends are shrouded in mystery, the middle parts being the only fragments that are at all comprehensible. We are not capable of understanding from whence our opportunities come and we are equally unable to determine whether an open window is an omen of doom or whether it is a blessed opportunity that had just come into being. It is only once we step through the gate of perception that we can hope to interpret the true nature of the essence with which we had come into contact. Windows, both physically manifested and as metaphysical concepts, are pathways to The Other, while the nature of said Other may be malignant or benevolent. Prior to the transformation from potential to the real, both forces are held in balance and are equally likely and equally impossible to ascertain prior to the event of manifestation. It is through openings: windows and mirrors, that we experience both the outside world and ourselves.
This essay explores the topics of linguistic determinism and linguistic relativism. These topics are the subject of some scientific debate and the two theories can be viewed as being in competition. Linguistic relativism is an idea related to how language is structured and is used by people; the theory can be viewed as a weak form of linguistic determinism. The central idea of linguistic relativism is that the language spoken by a given person impacts the way that that person views the world. On the other hand, linguistic determinism is a stronger form of the same position that agrees that language affects the way that a person thinks and perceives their surroundings but goes beyond that and states that language is determinant in forming how a person thinks. Therefore, both theories attempt to demonstrate that the way that individuals think is influenced by the language that the given individual uses.
The argument from the existence of evil as evidence that God does not exist is one that frequently appears in theology. The basic premise of this argument is that the fact that there is so much evil in the world ought to count as evidence against the existence of God. Law puts forth a rather unconventional form of this argument that presents the evil-god hypothesis along with the problem of good as a challenge to the traditional theistic good-god argument that aims to resolve the problem of evil. This is an analogous argument that contrasts with the classical argument that merely presents the problem of evil which is exemplified with Rowe’s discussion of the problem of evil. Law’s argument is a good one because it uses a new perspective from which to attack the good-god hypothesis, since it is one that accounts for possible responses well, and due to the fact that it is an argument that has a complex structure and therefore requires numerous counterarguments and examples in order to be effectively challenged.
I am afraid that I have some seriously bad news. Free speech is a choice and an admirable one but not one without consequences. Why? Simply put, one has to choose between being inoffensive and thus producing a safe space for all including even the most easily offended, or to truly stand for the preservation of the value of free speech.
Sexual perversion is to be defined as sexual behavior that is not practiced by the clear majority of humans in a given culture that is differentiated from sexual exploration by the reoccurrence of the behavior, the extremity of the deviation, and the harm resultant from the performance of the perversion. It is recognized when a certain individual expresses certain sexual desires or urges that are uncommon, unrelated to typical sexual interactions, and/or are somehow outside the two categories entirely. Perversions are many and varied, diverse in their characteristics – varying from sexual attitudes towards non-sexual objects, to frotteurism, transvestitism, and voyeurism.
There are many differing definition of justice – but at its most fundamental – justice is the concept of fairness, that all individuals receive what they are rightfully owed. However, there is a major debate between the political right and left on what is owed to each person. Stemming from this debate is the question of whether capitalism is just. Far from being an empty, meaningless debate, the question does indeed have an answer and that answer is a resounding yes.
The view “that anything that we can successfully interact with by treating as if it were rational, and as if it had beliefs, desires, etc., has the very same claim to be regarded as having beliefs and desires” as humans do is one that is put forth by Daniel Dennett. This view is implausible for a multitude of reasons. It is important to note the contrast between faux beliefs and desires, and genuine beliefs and desires of rational beings. There is also the issue of conflation between metaphor and reality, the unique nature of being human, and finally the fundamental difference between non-rational things and rational beings that are able to control their impulsive and immediate pseudo-desires and pseudo-beliefs in favor of real desires and beliefs such as a human’s life purpose in the existential sense.
Jean-Paul Sartre’s declaration that “existence precedes essence” is a multifaceted statement that is invoked in order to defend existentialism against its critics. In order to understand and analyze the phrase, all three of its constituent components must be analyzed and then assembled together to comprehend its full meaning. The declaration reverses the status quo perspective, but simultaneously allows mankind freedom. The statement is accurate, and is universally applicable to man, the author himself included.
In The Birth of Tragedy Nietzsche, following Schopenhauer, characterizes our experience of individuality (principium individuationis) as an illusion. He makes use of the Greek gods Apollo and Dionysus to personify both sides of our humanity. Nietzsche’s ideal in this work was a human being in which the Apollonian and Dionysian elements were brought into some kind of harmony with each other. Is our individuality an illusion? What could it mean to reconcile the Apollonian and Dionysian sides of our existence?