Friday, May 29, 2009

Who we are instead

Humanity, I think, has more or less figured out who we are not. We are not perfect. We are not eternal in nature, at least not physically. The question posed by existential philosophy, then, is less "Whe are we?" than it is "Who are we instead?" and in this the doctrines of existentialism swiftly begin to break down. Existentialism, or the idea that people determine our own purpose and meaning, is based upon two primary postulates. I'll address each in turn.

First of these is that human purpose is open to determination. I always found this rather amusing. After all, purpose is definitionally the function an object is intended to perform. A hammer is designed to hit things and that is why it exists. If it has any "purpose" it only has one and that one is pre-determined. Sure, a hammer can be used for other things (propping open doors, holding down errant pieces of paper, etc.) but to do so is a waste of its potential. Once we acknowledge that humans can have a purpose, we are obligated to ackowledge that this purpose already exists. Thus, based on a reasonable concept of "purpose," we see that it is in no way subjective. Tying back to my introduction, people have decided, in general, that we are not purposeless. We have a purpose, one that is set by design and pre-existent intent.

In light of this the second assumption, that people are qualified to choose our purpose, looks similarly shaky. Imagine, for a moment, that people are all characters in a novel. We might do anything, but who we are is another matter entirely. Each character has a given perspective and can interact with other characters and the fictitious environment, but is powerless to alter his or her own identity beyond the natural growth and evolution all people experience as life progresses. The point here is that, within the story, we are not narrators. In a plot-driven story (as the story of human existence definitely is from a Christian standpoint) the players are defined by the plot, not vice versa. Characters lack the omniscient third-person perspective necessary to assign meaning. We are not qualified to assign ourselves identities.

In short, unless we accept a God capable of granting us purpose all we can ever know is what we are not. Our failings as a species are painfully obvious, even without a clear definition of the word "failings." Any rational individual can tell you that something is wrong with us. A sharp one might go so far as to say that we have failed to attain some standard. But without an entity to provide this standard, and perhaps even the means to attain it, we are powerless to determine who we are instead.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

YEEHAW!!

I just completed my philosophy final exam. That was the last test of my high school career. Estoy finis.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Between the idea/And the reality

Grand and sweeping visions are all well and good, but occasionally it is a good idea to determine what can actually be done before committing to do it. Case it point: GITMO. The commitment is made: we will close GITMO by next January. At this point, though, the only way to do it would involve shooting everyone inside and tossing them into the Caribbean. Not very nice, even relatively speaking. The cold, implacable facts are that these detainees need to be tried in some court, they need to be housed somewhere until said trial, and nobody wants to house them. Familiar with the nuclear waste problem? Everyone wants to dispose of it, no one wants to bury it in their state. Something similar applies here. Let's break down the real problems.

First off, we have the question of where and how to try these people. As unaligned military combatants, the detainees in Guantanamo Bay have no real rights whatsoever. But who determined their status? The military? A coin toss? Obviously, some sort of trial, in civilian or military court, is necessary here. And trials take time and money. So far, I sure haven't heard of any successful funding bills. I haven't even heard about charges being filed against most of the detainees. Until these steps are taken, moving these people is just changing the location of their incarceration without moving toward resolution.

Secondly, we face the issue of temporary incarceration. No one wants these guys in their state's prisons. I am not convinced they would last all that long in that environment anyway; nobody likes a terrorist. Federal prisons are already packed and the "not my state" issue still attaches. Committing to moving everyone out of GITMO reminds me of an incident that occurred when I was seven. I took a recklessly large bite of steaming pizza. By my estimation, that pizza was hotter than the surface of the sun. But what was I going to do? I had no place to put it. I couldn't swallow it. So I just sat there and suffered. Eventually, the pizza cooled, I swallowed it, and my sense of taste returned in a few weeks.

The third issue is that of long-term housing. What happens when we convict many or all of these detainees? Shoot'em? Let them leave? I doubt either one will happen in most cases. We will have to incarcerate them permanently someplace. See previous paragraph.

Finally, what do with do with new detainees? If our troops continue to work in Afghanistan or Iraq, we will (hopefully) keep catching people. I doubt we will find a single facility in the U.S. system that can serve even as a temporary nexus for new arrivals.

The moral of the story? GITMO needs to be cleaned up, but just closing it is downright sloppy. The prison might need new management, but it need be no different than any other military jail. Shutting down GITMO as a symbol is like forbidding the Army from using M4s because of a friendly-fire incident. There is nothing unique or evil about the site. Improvement is possible. Grandiose statements about ideology are best reserved for speeches. Policy is policy. No more, no less.

It's very simple: just press "x" "triangle" and push the right thumbstick all the way to the left then depress it and hit "square" twice and...

Ah, video games. The source of joy for all mankind ages 8-29 in industrialized nations. But a few curious paradoxes present themselves in many of the most popular titles. Let;s break down some genre representatives.

Halo 3

This game is fun. It is also one of the few first-person shooters that is less violent than a good game of football. In fact the player's characters ("Spartans') look suspiciously like football players. More on that later. In the meantime, this game is easy to learn, easy to play, and fun. Unless, that is, you happen to be playing against people without social lives. In that case you will repeatedly be mowed down without fully understanding what just happened, especially with your competitors laughingly talking about "stickies" and "three-shots" and other esoteric phenomena. Just how I lose so badly is still beyond my comprehension. I'm supposed to find the other football players and shoot them if they are one color and not shoot them if they are another. There are obvious exceptions, though, because my own teammates often take me out, usually muttering something about "getting in the way." I am sure this is a specialized gaming term indicating that I am getting too good and must be kept in check. I explained this to them and told them to stop, but for some reason all they did was laugh and attach a plasma grenade to my Spartan's left knee. I have never seen a football player fly so far or fast...

Madden 2009

The football players in this game look just like the Halo people. I think some code was stolen at some point. I just wish there was more crossover so someone would take a rocket launcher to Brett Favre's avatar. Anyway, in the Madden games players get to watch football. Except that they have to call plays and stuff, which really cuts down on one's ability to focus on the munchies. Kinda defeats the purpose of football in my humble opinion.

The Sims

In this game, players get to control virtual people. I think they should just become an judge or a dictator or a mom and control some real people. It's less frustrating than figuring out the game menus.

Microsoft Flight Simulator X

This game could be more accurately termed "Horrible Death Simulator X" because of how many times new players usually crash. Incineration, head trauma, and "the hamburger pancake" are only a few of the options. By the time one figures out how to fly, all the fun has gone out of it. The game just feels too much like work. Specifically, it feels like the work of a professional airline pilot. More recent simulators feature month-long strikes until imaginary wages reach certain levels. The number of logos planes can display decreases as mergers decimate the competitive market.

Pac-Man

Still the best computer game ever devised, although River Raid comes close.

Saturday, May 2, 2009

I hope this gets past the censors...

Something is happening. This should come as no surprise; something is always happening, but the precise happening of which I speak is particularly interesting--and worrisome. You see, once an idea is put forth and accepted, it is harder to discredit than the testimony of the Pope. And ideas grow. The phrase "right-wing" has decidedly negative connotations already. It's going to get worse. Consider the recent DHS report regarding "extreme right-wing extremists." I find it highly intriguing that such a report would be published immediately after our government takes a firm step to the left. It used to be that the most dangerous groups in America (according to the FBI) were ELF and ALF. That's correct, extreme leftist groups, or at least groups with interests that tend to parallel those of Democrats. The Earth Liberation Front actually does blow things up. The Animal Liberation Front attacks people wearing fur coats. These groups are doing things that clearly qualify as criminal. Sure, right-wingers have done nasty stuff in the past (Timothy McVeigh, for instance) but such incidents are rarely, if ever, the work of coordinated networks of the type that qualify as terrorist groups. Yet rightists are allegedly more worrying than groups that set houses on fire for not meeting environmentally-friendly building codes.

So, why would DHS switch priorities? The "why" should be obvious. The "how" may not be.

The rest of this entry is a breakdown of how I would silence a dissenting group were I in charge of (or in a position of influence within) a government with substantial resources.

First off, I'd win as much popular support as possible. This has two desirable effects. It ensures that whatever dissent group I target (rightists, dairy farmers, circus performers, left-handed people, whatever) is in the minority. In a democracy, this prevents national-level voter opposition to any future actions. The second effect is that popular opinion itself puts adverse pressure upon the target group. Carrying a concealed gun in the United States is legal (with a permit) in most states, but only a tiny percent of the population is walking around with concealed handguns despite the fact that this would almost certainly lower crime rates. Why? Partially because of the attached social stigma should anyone find out.

Secondly, I would win the support of as much of the mainstream media as possible. This is a challenge, because the media tends to climb onto a pedestal and can only be dislodged through rather...extreme means. If my ideological goals match those of the media, though, this step is remarkably easy. I just hand out lots of interviews and face time, maybe make some comments about how great cable news is in a democracy, etc. This ensures that information flow is tilted, even slightly, in my favor and away from those nasty, gun-toting, flag-waving neo-Patrick Henrys.

Speaking of which, the third step is to assign an unpleasant and vaguely ominous label to the target group. Let's say I want to marginalize left-handed people. I'd release a report from the DHS about the dangers of the "Unconventionally-dexterous non-conforming subculture." The report would outline a conspiracy to make all computer mice left-hand-compatible only and reverse place settings in restaurants. The label might be technically accurate, but remember that people assign connotative meaning at will. And, thanks to the media and my popular support, people will be edging away from the unconventionally-dexterous non-conformist subculture elements as though they have swine flu.

The final step must be taken gradually. It consists of slowly introducing laws designed to limit the freedoms and power of the target group. For example, I'd start with a law that requires typists to use their right thumb on the spacebar. No outcry over that, right? Especially when Katie Couric explains how it helps the Poor. Next is a law requiring all computer mice be right-hand only. A bit more, but since when is little more of anything a problem? Next, all government forms must be signed using one's right hand. Give me two more paragraphs and I'll be up to amputations of people's left hands and feet if they refuse to buy the correct kind of baseball glove.

These simple steps are not difficult, nor are they implausible. We are already at step three regarding the "right-wing domestic terrorists." I'll be blunt. I am very far to the right. I plan on acquiring a shotgun when I have a house in which to keep it for the purposes of recreational shooting and home defense. I'll pay as little income tax as is legal. I will never say anything postitive about Rosie O'Donnell. I will probably vote Republican for the rest of my life. None of these actions make me a terrorist, but I still see my name on some future watchlist because of refusal to toe the current party line. Once the idea that right-wingers are dangerous is planted, the tree only requires time, a favorable clime, and a few shrewd leaders to develop into something antithetical to classical American ideals.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Not on a Grecian urn, thankfully

I have found a form of poetry I can appreciate! Enter the haiku, a Japanese structure consisting of a five syllable line, a seven syllable line, and another five syllable line. The following are my adaptions of needlessly long classical poems and a few of my own creations for our times.

Who is this Shakespeare?
Man with time but without wife
And so he remains

Shall I compare thee
Unto a midsummer's day?
Because thou art hot

We are hollow men
And therefore should eat dinner
Deep meanings aside

I find poetry
Resembles waterboarding
Except it is dry

I buy an iPod
Apple tax notwithstanding
It is soon stolen

Existentialism
I ask, "Who am I but me?"
Pointless exercise

Postmodernism claims
That this line has seven syllables
Think not? Go away

Blogging can be fun
But is often obnoxious
I conclude my post