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 I authored these essays, please do not publish or use these under your own name (not that they're that remarkable anyway).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