Aboriginal philosophy: lessons to be had

Aboriginal Philosophy:

In contemporary times, in the context of ongoing colonisation, we tend to measure other cultures against the lifestyles and values of the modern capitalist consumer societies. An alternative would be to measure the worth of societies and their philosophical bases by considering their longevity. A feature of many early civilisations is that they have sealed their own doom by an exploitation of the natural environment.{1} By contrast, Aboriginal civilisation has been notable for its survival over at least 80,000 years.

The key to this survival lies in Aboriginal philosophy, expressed in religious practice that has been paramount in peoples’ day-to-day lives, informing all their actions. For any human society: ” religion represents a symbolic view of people and their universe which regulates their actions, supports them in crisis, orders their lives, gives their actions meaning and validity – it represents their conception of the world” (Eckerman 1995)

Reading this article makes you think of how shallow and defective Western philosophy/mythology is in regards to meeting the demands and constraints of our society and environment. We do not have a philosophy of life that will see us last; we barely have a philosophy of life at all. It is a safe bet that our civilisation (modern capitalist consumer) won’t be around for as long as that of Australian Aborigines. Yet, us moderns still tend to look down on such civilisations with derision. Our values are very messed up.

Trolls and literary theory

The troll dismisses authorial intent in determining interpretation. They judge themself the sole authority on the meaning of their target’s words. These words will be selectively deconstructed and misconstrued in order to fit in with the troll’s preconceived notions. The last thing the troll intends is to engage people to better understand their viewpoint. The troll brings a dogmatic (and often kooky)  ideology to the discussion, and all parties must come around to supporting it. To question the veracity of the troll’s claims is a grave sin and offence, and puts the other party’s character into question.

The troll believes that the world not seeing itself their way is an injustice. To them, the other party is offensive and they are the victim. Any derogatory behaviour from them should therefore be justified and overlooked.  The troll doesn’t see how their pathetic ego and absurd expectations leads to their anti-social behaviour. The troll wants desparately to assert themself above others in order to cover over their negative self-image.

People don’t seek out trolls in order to listen them, so the troll has to approach others, for example on blogs such as this. The troll thinks they are successful if they are seen to vanguish the other party in ad hominem attacks. The troll never succeeds however, because they have ignored something important: authorial intent. No blog author intends for the troll to be the authority on interpreting what the author’s words mean. Troll posts may be humoured for a while, but if they persist, become repetitive, boring and tiresome, and distract from what the author wants to say, they will be deleted.

Pity the poor troll?

Subject, verb and object: all in the mind

Psyblog states:

It seems likely that this left to right bias has its roots in language (although not everyone agrees, cf. Chatterjee, 2001). Evidence for this comes from people who speak languages written from right to left like Arabic or Urdu who, sure enough, display the same bias, but in the opposite direction.

There is another left to right bias in the basic syntax of language: the vast majority of languages describe events in the order subject, verb, object (with the notable exception of the passive tense).

Together these two facts mean we not only look to the left first, but we also expect the subject to be on the left, and the object to its right. Subjects are by definition active ‘do-ers’ while objects are the passive receivers of the do-ers’ actions.

With the metaphysical notion of time, we have constructed the concepts of causation, subject, action/force, and object. Objectivity (’what’)  is supposedly represented by the sciences, whereas subjectivity (’how’) is the domain of personal interpretation and relation. While Hume took an axe to causation, Nietzsche blew up the roots of these distinctions with dynamite, declaring that objectivity itself is but a subjective misinterpretation that we cannot live without. Pragmatists such as John Dewey and William James deflated the whole bloated philosophical tradition of ontology and epistemology, and focused on what mattered most, namely human needs. I follow in their footsteps and maintain that we should use these categories wisely.

We see ourselves (subject) as acting on the world (object) in time. We therefore assume that we are agents with ‘free will’. From a utilitarian viewpoint this is best. However, it may shadow the way in which the world acts on us. We may not recognise how culture can dominate our decisions and actions, and in such moments we are not truly free. We may become slaves to our narrow-minded way of viewing the world.

Philosophy, such as that from Hume and Nietzsche, can set you free, but you have to be ready for the initally uncomfortable journey. Your cherished assumptions will be exposed as dogma, your values will be overhauled, and you will be left in the wilderness for a while. But then you can go back into the world and create your own meanings and values on a solid foundation. In doing so you will experience the joy of a free spirit.

The ends of philosophy

Knowledge, if Dr Dewey is right, cannot be any part of the ends of life; it is merely a means to other satisfactions. This view, to those who have been much engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, is distasteful.

Bertrand Russell implies that means are ‘mere’ in this case, obviously for rhetorical effect; as if the journey was always so unimportant and disappointing compared to the destination. He is mistaken in thinking that philosophy must have its ends in itself in order for the philosopher to have any joy along the way.

Bertie finds Dewey’s view of knowledge as serving pragmatic ends distasteful, and admits that he could be illogical in thinking so. He never bluntly says why he finds such a view distasteful, but, as one could easily imagine, it would wreak havoc on the self-image of a earnest, self-important philosopher who engaged in academic, artificial puzzles that rarely bore any pragmatic fruit.

Bertie should have been more philosophical in considering the ends of philosophy, rather than letting his ego get in the way. We might have had something of significance from him, instead we get only a preacher to those converted to his speculative, pointless way of life.

Nietzsche: the truest disciple of Socrates

Jonathan Ree discussed Kierkegaard @ In Our Time.

Ree states that Kierkegaard believed that Socrates was about taking down pretensions to knowledge, not the building up of philosophical systems, such as that of Hegel. I can think of no one who more attacked pretensions to knowledge than Nietzsche (Hume comes second). Perhaps Nietzsche was Socrates truest disciple – now that’s irony.

Existentialism in Film

I’m coming up with a list of popular films with existential motifs. I plan to discuss these in later posts. Care to list anymore?

• American Beauty
• Apocalypse Now
• Blade Runner
• Breathless
• Children of Men
• Clockwork Orange
• Dark Knight
• Donnie Darko
• Dr Strangelove
• Easy Rider
• Fight Club
• Hamlet
• High Noon
• Hiroshima Mon Amour
• I (Heart) Huckabees
• Ikuru
• Macbeth
• No Country for Old Men
• One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
• Paths of Glory
• The Big Lebowski
• The Bucket List
• The Rules of Attraction
• The Seventh Seal
• The Third Man
• Silence of the Lambs
• Taxi Driver
• Waking Life
• Watchmen

When does an interest in philosophy become vulgar conceptual consumption?

Aristotle considered contemplation/philosophy an end in itself, but was he just an addict to conceptual consumption?

Perhaps the dopamine rush due to the expectation of finding a magical conceptual key to an undefined treasure kept him hooked? (Hence his praise of ‘wonder’, which is the curiosity-interest-expectancy dopamine system in disguise). It is clear that many philosophers engage with superficial and artificial problems merely to mentally masturbate, because it feels good.

Philosophy must serve an end and that end is life. Don’t get hooked on the drug of wonder and forsake it for everything else.

Suppression is futile

Why Thought Suppression is Counter-Productive

It is better to confront your thoughts and emotions and work through them. Trying to distract yourself, with speculative philosophy for example, is counter-productive.

Suppressed emotion tends to show itself anyhow in a deformed manner. Certain ancient philosophers (e.g. Socrates, Plato) tried to suppress their emotion in favour of ‘reason’. In not confronting and dealing with their emotions, they came to hate and reject this world in favour of another. In trying to idealise mankind in themselves through reason they only deformed it. That’s the real practical joke.

What does it mean to be happy?

How to find happiness? Good question. A few responses:

Smackdown! Homer (Simpson) vs. Aristotle: What Does it Mean to Be Happy?

Aristotle’s conception of the good life in a nutshell is: (pleasure + honour [in political/social spheres]  + contemplation) x excellence [virtue]

Thomas Hurka on Pleasure – some pleasures are more equal than others

The Happiness Machine – much like the above

A quick guide to the reading of philosophical texts

This guide is to assist you in deciding what to concern yourself reading. Follow these heuristics:

• The length of a text on a particular topic, beyond a certain extent, is inversely proportional to what significant things it has to say. Long-winded, rambling texts don’t communicate important points in ways that are memorable. If one cannot easily remember the key points of a text it will be difficult, nay impossible, to implement them in daily life. Words are only significant if they can be applied to the means and ends of life.
• If some point could have been made with less words than those used, the philosopher has overrated their attention-worthiness and mistaken their audience for people who don’t have clear aims in reading them.
• The degree of formal references to others, particularly to academics, is inversely proportional to the creativity and value of the text in terms of unique insights. (Group norms kill creativity.)
• The use of much philosophical jargon and overly formal style points to a lack of communication skills on part of the philosopher and heightened irrelevance to the life of the everyday citizen of anything they may say
• Avoid at all costs texts which talk about issues and concepts only of interest to philosophers; there is no wisdom in store
• Philosophy is often used by nerds as a means by which to impress others with their supposed intellectual superiority and to gain status amongst peers. Consider what self-concept the writer may be trying to project with their text. You may get more ego than content.
• If the reputation of the philosopher precedes the text, rest assured that the text is not as good as the cult surrounding its authority believe
• If from the opening paragraph of  a text you do not infer practical wisdom for your life on offer, put the text down and find something worth reading