Hapless Poetry 7

a curtain
Set
(Upon)



black behind the landing





so



so



slowly



Behind.

:the atmo sp h ere
plainly  riveTed,



    saturated
                     n
                         g
                              u
                                 L
                                    f
                                   e(by thoughtful hands)
                                d
                             
               


a myriad
 
   
 
  resting.  


its thoughtful
   

(Eyes.)

Hapless Poetry 6

An angled scaffold
Rises from a lake,
Its pitch arced and
Straddled

Like a lotus in bloom
Before the dawn's grey light,
It reaches for its outstretched,
Sprawling arms

But nothing is there
Except the dawn's grey light:
A shadow on the face of an iris
In a moment of clarity--

A positioned aria
Between the eye and austerity.

Hapless Poetry 5

A mire, a thatch,
A leaf, a stake,

A satchel, an enclave,
A flag, an out-turned hem,

A stain, a raindrop,
A splash, a mimicry,

A radiance, a fetter,
A scaffold, a shirk,

A moon, a droplet,
An autumn, its grip,

An outward palm, its ode
and abeyance,

A thistle, its cling,

Gray on brownish-gray,

A droplet, a terrace,
A solitary outcropping,

A grain, a flurry,
An aridness, a dose,

A sling, a cornice,

An unchanging sky
Ending as one color meets another.

Two recycled essays

I thought it would be interesting to give a second life to essays that would usually be submitted to my professors and never seen again. The current quality is acceptable but not outstanding; I'll revise and extend upon these as I find the time. The one on Kierkegaard was condensed for the sake of length (the version I handed in was 10 complete pages with the bottom margin reduced and sans a cover sheet and bibliography, in addition to several footnotes with reduced font size). To my knowledge, both are at least pretty accurate, the latter probably more so than the first. The latter is also probably a fairly good introduction to Kierkegaard for those who are unfamiliar with his authorship viewed in totality.

Enjoy:
1. On incontinence in Nicomachean Ethics
2. The role of Kierkegaard's pseudonymity


I might add..

1. Both documents are in PDF format. If you don't have Adobe Acrobat, get it here.


2. Academic dishonesty is bad. I authored these essays, please do not publish or use these under your own name (not that they're that remarkable anyway).

5/25 Addendum:

I'll revise these essays before long, but first a brief addendum which was written in response to some comments from my professor on the essay on incontinence. I'll try to include this example in some form or another in the essay, but I feel as though the discussion of twinkies isn't cut out for formal discussion.

So.. the act of smoking (or eating junk food) isn't deontologically/universally immoral, it's bad for one's health. If one consciously goes against a supposition that "I should not eat twinkies [because they are bad for me]" is he or she not giving precedence to the short-term sensational/psychological benefits over the potential long-term physiological benefits of not eating the twinkie? ( i.e. if one eats twinkies the short-term satisfaction is pleasing, and the sensation of sweetness is opiate... the rejection of the supposition that "one should not eat twinkies [because they are bad for one's health]" is done because the alternative, i.e. eating the twinkie, in given conditions is consciously determined to be more important to the individual than the health hazards... which to the individual is not irrational/incontinent.) I'm not sure if the existence of "incontinence" can be taken as a given [...].

One of the most racist things I've ever heard

Sadly, I would not be aware of this comment by FOX News' John Gibson if it were not for The Colbert Report, but nonetheless, it is without qualification, the most racist thing I have heard for a long while.

I quote:

"...half the kids under 5 years old in this country are minorities. By far, the greatest number are Hispanic. Know what that means? Twenty-five years and the majority population is Hispanic. To put it bluntly: We need more babies."

1. Similar Online Version: Procreation Not Recreation
2. All you need to know" about John Gibson

!!!!

What I love about this statement is that it implies that to have a majority of the population comprised of "minorities" is a threat (namely those "darned" Hispanics, many of whom don't speak American), and we, the Caucasian populous, need to do what we can to offset this--through both immigration control and procreation on the part of white people (perhaps even native or not).

While the legality and enforcement debates are more policy-oriented (in a sense that usually isn't racist), Gibson's argument seems indicative of the neo-conservative and radical right's conflicting views on unity and division. Although to imply that those two bodies are racist would be unwarranted for me to suggest.

This reminds me somewhat of Representative Steve King's "God and Country" Bill in the House. I've had a draft of a post on this for some time now, I'll publish it when I have the time research it more thoroughly (within a week or so).

The future of philosophy

What lies ahead for philosophy to pursue? I'll admit, my knowledge of contemporary philosophy isn't particularly thorough, and so these conjectures may in fact be the present. Despite this there are three primary categories that I foresee as being at the forefront of philosophy to come (or that which are already present).

(In a self-defeating effort to be scholarly, these categories are presented in Latin... utterly unnecessary.)

• Philosophia ad confinium
  
  Philosophy towards boundaries. This entails the further and further narrowing our inquiries on an epistemological basis, ultimately restricting development in most branches of philosophy. Metaphysics will continue to be subject to de-emphasis.



• Philosophia cum praesumptum
  
  Philosophy with presumption. (Contentious/old-school-dialectical deduction.) As the former category begins to plateau, this will acquire more and more attention. This method is fairly popular as it is, especially with regard to ethics and ontology, e.g. presupposing that God has the quality F, then what of X?



• Philosophia nam usum
  
  Philosophy for application. Ethics, political philosophy, and axiology will never be subjugated; their nature requires that they are continually and actively acted upon. Of course, more progressive societies will emphasize this more than others, but the consideration is always there.

Any thoughts?


7/21 update:

My current views:
Epistemology: Done, not narrowing. Nothing more to see here.
Contentious: Interesting but not practical.
Applied: Practical, but not all that philosophical anymore.

Presidential authority and "World War 3"

1. Bush challenges hundreds of laws

Unfortunately, the Boston Globe's site requires you to register online to view the article (it's free though). The article is pretty interesting. It's probably worth the time it takes to register.


5/10 update:

President Bush recently added another interesting bit to his term's stiff rhetoric (the most notable being the "Axis of Evil"): The "war against terror" is "World War III".

Whilst on the topic of 3s, George W. has said that he "would like to see Jeb run [for president] at some point in time". In other news, my roommate has vowed that if ever another Bush is elected president, he is vacating the country.
1. Bush says fight against terror is World War III
2. Bush: Jeb should run for president

The grays of existence-spheres?

To the tune of a summary: for Kierkegaard, existence-spheres are modes of living. (I'll admit my knowledge of his writings are by no means comprehensive, if you notice any error please correct me.) There a three spheres:

• The aesthetic
• The ethical
• The religious

The self in the aesthetic sphere is interested in the interesting. Life is a situation without intrinsic value and befitted best by possibility and the benefaction of the self.

The ethical sphere is the next step up: instead of the individual being interested in the benefaction of the self, the individual is interested in the benefaction of the universal. In Either/Or (Enten-Eller), Kierkegaard explains the difference between the aesthetic and ethical existence-spheres as roughly whether one accepts good and evil or excludes them. The act of exclusion is the aesthetic, the other is the ethical.

The third is the religious. As an agnostic, I find myself omitting or aggregating this in my personal, informal considerations. It seems intuitive that this would be present in the ethical sphere, but Kierkegaard argues against this, primarily with the story of Abraham and Isaac (Abraham murdering Isaac would be unethical, but proper in the religious realm according to SK*). As one could infer, this leads to the individual not being interested in the self or the universal, but infinitely interested in the absolute (viz. God).

*I disagree with this somewhat. (This premise is from Fear and Trembling, I haven't read Stages on Life's Way yet.) If the ethical is determined subjectively and in living for the universal one considers divine decree to be veiled in the highest good, then this example's action would be ethical. The case where this would not be is when the ethical is construed as an aggregate rather than a subjective. I'd contend that subjectivity is the domain of ethics, so even if I consider myself to be moral in a world absolutely composed of others that wouldn't consider me to be moral, I am moral to me.


What I am presently pondering are the gray areas between these. Although these may occur by means of "qualitative leaps", I would consider it almost improbable for one to live solely in the domain of one of these existence-spheres, especially in idle moments. (I realize I am examining this naive issue on naive terms. The act of writing this on my part despite it not serving any scholarly or beneficial end is to deal with idleness, at this moment I am not acting in the ethico-religious mode.) One who devotes their every waking breath and thought to the benefaction of others is nearly inconceivable to me. Does one who has devoted their existence to God never take the time to engage in aesthetic self-interest? Does one devoted to the universal, ever rest when he or she could be doing more to help everyone else?

This discussion is a dead end. I thought that the premise sounded somewhat intriguing, but as I understand it, the act of being in any given sphere is that when it conflicts with another, the given existence-sphere is given precedence. In an ascending fashion (i.e. aesthetic-ethical-religious), this is because one thinks the others are nonsensical. For an esthete, precedence for the ethical or religious would be irrelevant and may think to his or her self, "Good and evil? There are no universals in good and evil-- they are formulated by the individual thinker. God? How can I know anything about God?" In a descending fashion, a religious person would find their inherent obligation to have higher priority. He or she would think, "Why do ___ when the universal doesn't will that I should. Why do ___ when God itself doesn't will it."

Turning out of this cul-de-sac and going elsewhere, is consideration of good and evil necessarily neglected in the aesthetic existence-sphere? Surely, an esthete would make the interesting out to be the good, and develop value criteria from there. I can't think of any objection to this, and for that reason I think the aesthetic sphere should be characterized by strict interest in subjectivity, possibility, and the self, not "good and evil". All three spheres rely on the distinction between good and evil, but the appropriation and position of the subject varies.

To deny good and evil altogether? (Even in the existing subject.) Is that aesthetic? A pure skeptic I don't think would snuggly be positioned in any of these aforementioned Kierkegaardian modes of living. Maybe it's ethical? Maybe it's interest in the universal when the universal (in a non-aggregate sense) has no substance. Maybe it's the religious if the absolute has no substance? Maybe it's possible.