Epigrams and philosophicationalizations ( Archived) (6)

I. Who dares deify a conviction? Anyone and everyone. Only those who are comfortable with a lack of absolutes can avoid it. The worship of convictions is like a line in the sand: "Here is as far as I will tolerate a difference in what is perceived and what is real." When this idol is broken, by the full weight of what is, as likely it will break the mind of its adherent, and resultant madness ensue. Thus, the birth of a fanatic.

II. Hobbes and Machiavelli deify the role of government in human affairs, whereas Nietzsche spoke for the individual. Hobbes personified the state, "Leviathan", as an "artificial" individual. Should the individual then be encouraged to fully express its self-soveriegnity in Machiavellian terms? As a government, this would be called effective leadership, but as an individual expression, it would be labelled sociopathic or antisocial. Wherein lies the difference? Only in the magnitude of the injury to the sovereignity of the state by the empowerment of the individual.

III. Greed is a natural consequence of ego and self-interest. Only by convincing ourself that we deserve more from the world than our neighbor can we justify a state of greed. The fact that you are you and he is not is all one needs to base this rationalization on.

IV. Action and consequence have always driven the basic moralities of humanity. Morality is a way to control motivations behind these actions, and their consequences for the body politic. Society always seeks to limit the expression of individual and their ideas if it runs contrary to orthodox morality. An examination of the motivations behind the behaviors that morality attempts to taboo will give a more complete understanding of what it is that society truly fears.

V. What motivates the philosopher's fascination with death? Does any speculation into metaphysics NOT devolve into tautological argument? This is what motivates the philosopher, to break free of tautological restraints, but once free, he's left with the paradox of explaining individual experience. No language can do anything but APPROXIMATE individual experience. The only experience we all share, both "universally" and "individually" is death. Thus, their fascination with it.

VI. Short of being dead, the closest we can come to a true understanding of death is to examine it's opposite. Everything that is not dead, i.e. alive, is somehow in motion, through a sense of will to satisfaction, to completion. So, further examination as to what it is we hope to complete is in order before we attempt to examine it's primary obstacle.

VI. The brilliance of an era, as genius goes, is always accompanied by a shift in morality. Genius is, and always will be, defined by the overall ignorance of the present times. Only by being measured against the herd can we say this man, or that one, is a genius. As genius is an expression of individuality, it will always be considered a the threat to, and by, the herd. Only from hindsight do we truly recognize and celebrate genius. In their own time, they are invariably ostracized.