Thursday, February 4, 2010

Artist Fail

My dad told my over winter break that he always thought of me as an artist. I never considered that ever being a word that would ever be said regarding me. Unless it was a joke, of course. Anyway, that it got me thinking a little bit about artists. Which got me thinking about people.

It's interesting how people decide to live and interpret their lives in their own ways. Sometimes it's sad, sometimes it's infuriating, most times it's confusion. But it's never wrong, yet I'll still argue that it is. I have my morals, they're no one else's but my own.

As far as everyone else goes, it doesn't really matter cause everyone else is going to anchor themselves to whatever they want, unless they have swayed from one set morality or another. Dumb people. But don't make fun of that person cause that person was me.

It's hard trying to figure out who to handle everyone being "right", including yourself. It's a mindblowing paradox to emotionally handle. I usually ended up swinging to self-righteousness, I know that, but I don't know a single person who hasn't done it either. People are very forgetful.

People make conscious decisions every day to be the way they want to be at that moment, people disagree with people because of individualism and that's okay. My mind has liberty and freedom. But I also read the news and know what's going on every day in this world filled with war, genocide, oppression and other traumas of humanity. And every day I feel oppressed by my own granted freedom to live the way I want at my own risk, as well as the risks of others. I've to split in two to console myself with the decisions I make every moment. That's what everyone does, but we all have our different values we anchor to.

People, or life just happens and is continually morphing along some sort of linear worm into every moment that will ever be ahead of us. We only know life in exact moments and that's all we'll ever know. There's nowhere to anchor.

It's nice to know that there's nothing you could know. What are people then? Don't ask me, ask an artist.


Malsi said...

Interesting blog, very Descartesian of you! A critic of and criticized for his brand of "individualism." Some things aren't quite tracking for me from beginning to end, but I picked up what you laid down about individualism. We discussed this once in a class I took a while back, how do you deal with something that is against one of your morals, but another of your morals is not be against others' actions? People countered that everyone needed to be tolerant, but it was quickly stated that would be a universal, thus absolute and according to true individualism there are no absolutes. It's interesting, would you then consider yourself a brand of limited individualism or limited universality, I believe the two terms make a difference, but just picking your brain. In any case, it was a lively debate, followed by whether or not we control what we create. We can't control children. So, no. :)
Love you!

Malsi said...

P.S. I am no philosopher, and I don't pretend to be! I remember a few things here and there from that one class, very limited knowledge! If you notice any mistakes, feel free to let me know!

Washed Up said...

I've no absolute answer? lol.

I'm just whoever and whatever I have come up with at that moment. I'm constantly trying to change stuff about myself though to try and refine who I wanna be. And since I don't know if good and bad even exist then I don't really feel too bad about what I do. It's just me and I'm just trying whatever I feel is what I need to do based on what I think is moral. There's no reason for me to feel guilty about that.

Bottom line is that I don't know if anything is universally absolute so I'm not gonna act like anything is. I can only go by my own definition of morality and I think that's the only thing anyone else can do also.

I think it's possible that universality and individualism can coexist to their full unlimited extent. But I don't know anything. Was that even an answer? lol

Malsi said...

Ha, it's an answer! Also, universalism and individualism could exist together, but not in their purest definitions. So, they would exist in the limited form I was getting at in my first post. By definition they exclude each other. Basically, if you wanted to go with the philosophy terms, you're an individualist, but not in the strictest sense :)

Washed Up said...

They only existed limited from our own point of view. I also believe in universality because it's the only pure thing I know because it's impossible to know anything about it. I live as an individualist because it's the only thing I have.

I'm kind of a nihilist too... kind of not. I don't know what I am and I don't care, I just am. That doesn't mean I don't like to THINK about how I am though. Nothing matters, I just am cause that's all I have. This is getting lengthy and I can't explain myself in a comment lol.

Malsi said...

I used "limited," but more accurately: "compromised." There can't be complete versions of both simultaneously. They are antithetical. What do you mean by you believe in universality? Universality of what? I know you don't mean of everything, so that's why I ask, what specifically?

Washed Up said...

That's why I said I couldn't explain myself here lol. Maybe some other day cause I don't like talking about myself this continuously. If this were an opinion on an article then it'd be different. So yeahhhh... I'm done talking about myself lol

Malsi said...

Hokay! Well, thanks for the discussion! It was a good study break!

Russell said...

i like this blog! hahaha "i have no absolute answer." that's funny, and very postmodern of you massiel! but i don't think you want to be postmodern. postmodernism is just lazy philosophy. "everything is subjective so who can say what's right or wrong?" it sounds nice and tolerant, but the fact is some things are ALWAYS (universally) wrong. maybe you should make a giant list of things that you think are right and wrong and then try to find some common denominators?

like, you say that you're not so sure right and wrong exist, but i think you know they do. hitler was wrong. so why? or maybe, if you think universalists are wrong, why are they wrong? if you have an answer to why intolerance is wrong, then congratulations, you're intolerant :) anyway, just some food for thought!

Washed Up said...

I don't think it's that bad to be part of the postmodern philosophy actually, so we just don't agree. At least right now lol.

I think Hitler was wrong to do all his bad things because of my own personal beliefs of right and wrong. Thankfully, the majority of people agree over Hitler being a terrible experience. But he never asked for anything that ever happened to him or even asked for himself to happen. He could also be a victim of his own bad soul because there's nothing to say all souls are for good. Of course, if souls even exist, but that's something else. He's just as human as anyone else is. He's one of us and I think there's a chance that maybe he got dealt a disturbing set of cards. I could be someone like him someday and be killing millions of people, and like Hitler would you want me to do eternal time in hell? Really think about that answer and what that says about you.

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34)

Malsi said...

Russell, you got some 'splaining to do!

BTW - If we take the idea that we have souls (which I do, but this isn't about that), there aren't "bad" ones. Created in God's image and all of that, because of sin though, we are fallen and separation from God hurts our souls/hearts and causes "bad" things to others/ourselves. This is an intensely oversimplified summary of things scholars still debate, but there ya go!

I don't want Hitler, mass-murder version of you, regular you, mass-murder version of me, regular me, or any version of Russell to go to hell. I KNOW (yesh, emPHAsis on that that sylLAble) that Jesus/God/Holy Spirit doesn't want (that should be italicized, but i don't know html) that for us either (your quote begins to get at that very well)... eh, this section needs more, but oh the time, AND the internet, sheesh.

Lastly, sexism (and hardcore feminists can be guilty of this) is a product of society, so is racism, so are lots of things. So, is it okay for me to be a any of the above because I've been conditioned that way? No, we should not be slaves (ah, play on words, sort of, but it's not as funny as normal, eh) to our circumstances. We can be freed (completely, not just choose to ignore, we deal with them) from the stuff that entangles our minds. Oh school beckons, but I enjoy discussions with you Tiel much more...even though we frustrate each other ;)

Russ, you can't copy me... just saying... original answer, that's what I always say to mes etudiants

Malsi said...

Okay, it was bothering me. My first section is REALLY oversimplified. I just want to stress that again. Alrighty then...

PS - Sometimes, I really enjoy the words google makes you type in to make sure you're not a spammer. This time it's "jaccia;" it's not one of their funnier ones.

Washed Up said...

First of all, I can't keep up with all your clauses so I don't really can't understand your argument very well. However that may be for other reasons which might follow here in this comment lol.

Second, yes the first part of your comment was not only very vague, but it sounds really imposing and personal and I don't think that works for this argument anyway lol.

Third, you know I don't think you even made a clear point in the "hitler" section of your argument... but I think you know that lol.

Fourth, who's to say that the person has the ability to disentangle themselves from their "sinful" nature? That could be completely impossible for someone and you saying that it isn't is ignorant of what it means to be human. There are no limitations to humanity and this works for both "good" and "bad".

Fifth, I love to argue.

Sixth, I hate listing.

Malsi said...

I spent time writing a response, and now I've just Ctrl+C'd then Ctrl+V'd it into a word document. Slightly aggravating, because I feel like I've wasted time, but never mind. I, for one, don't like arguing, so I decided against the long post. So, I thought a bit and this whole thing boils down into "Can you be good without God?"

It requires a definition of "good" and "God" and "without."

Here are my (very short, again time) definitions:

good - free from sin (hurt, pain, anger, jealousy, etc.)
God - sacrificial and thereby supernatural love
without - complete separation (no Venn Diagram overlap, disjoint sets. :) Sorry about the nerd moment, this is one of the things I work with with my students, it instantly came to mind as I was typing my definition)

If you define them differently, then you get different answers for the question. Do the different answers matter and different variations of the definitions matter?

Okay, I've enjoyed the discussion. I'll just leave that up there. I know how you're going to answer that last question, so you know, do what what you want with it.


Russell said...

Haha, aaahhh so much to respond to! But I'll just stick to my stuff. As for the whole hell thing, Malsi put it well; I don't particularly like hell and I don't want anyone to go there--including Hitler, and even Glenn Beck sometimes--and that verse corresponds to many many others in the Bible that show God doesn't want anyone to go to hell either. For the record, the Biblical definition of hell is simply anywhere God is not. Hell only sucks in the sense that God isn't there, so that may or may not have sounded like a bad thing to Hitler, depending on what he thought about God. I just figure he got what he wanted, whatever he got.

And I'm probably too hard on postmodernism. I'm a pretty lazy philosopher myself since I really just like to listen and talk. i will say that one of pm's redeeming qualities is it makes people question how they define things and why.

I like to argue as well, but I tend to over extend myself with wordiness when I do. It's a problem. So i'll keep this one short! Fun blog Massiel!

hipper - haha! that's a good one.

Washed Up said...

I don't wanna drag this on any further, so I'm gonna start to taper this down but I'm sure it's not gonna work.

I do want to make one final statement/question which is this: You still believe in heaven and hell even though you've just said you don't believe anyone should go to hell... this is pretty contradictory. If hell exists but no one is there, then your argument resolves around something absurd like "if a tree falls down in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?". Do you know what I'm saying? Do you know what you're saying?

Also, if hell is where God isn't and that is the "negative" side of the spectrum then you're creating an elitist group of people who think the grass is greener on their side. Meaning, if people are truly dichotomied (I made that word up just now) when they die then that implies there IS a standard that defines "good lives" and "bad lives" (forget souls because that's isn't good evidence for a solid argument... which is to say that there is no solid argument) and "bad lives" become lower class humans/afterlife-floating-orbs.

Once again, this fuels the previous contradiction I pointed out and leads me to think that what you're talking about is the belief of God the Judge, not God the Forgiver.

I told you this was going to be a failed attempt to taper. Okay, I'm cutting the comment now.