Putting the ill in philosophy

It’s Final Time!

Almodovar’s movie Talk to Her is a movie that has the viewer questioning their morals and own righteous beliefs. This can be a terrifying feeling and confusing. Talk to Her is considered to be a movie about love and romance. However, in the eye of some, it is a horror tale of rape and immoralism. According to ethicism, this implies that the film is done in poor taste and if one follows this theory of thought, he or she cannot appreciate the conflict of interest found within this film. Through this essay I hope to express my disagreement with the concept of ethicism, along with my agreement with the objections to ethicism as expressed by A.W. Eaton in her essay “Almodovar’s Immoralism”.

Ethicism is the belief held by some that an artistic piece’s ethical flaws will potentially cause diminishing artistic value in a work. This would imply that because Talk to Her presents rape in a romantic manner, that it has artistic defects. Unlike some films in which any objectively bad actions, such as murder or betrayal, is considered terrible and only acceptable if done by the villain, this film, while not directly facing the issue of the rape, implies that the trauma is done in such a loving manner that a viewer may not even recognize what occurred and therefore, view the movie as a story of love. One may think of Benigno as a romantic fool as found in your typical, everyday romance film. Due to the sensual scene that is the rape, one may even find themselves considering this portion to be erotic. Due to the implied rape, rather than a violent, horrifying one, the viewer finds themselves in a moral dilemma. I may look at it as rape and therefore, it is a horrific act, no matter the circumstances. Many others, though, despite feeling the same as I do about rape, may unexplainably and even fearfully admit their attraction to the scene due to the aesthetics of it.

Even so, there are even perfectly healthy, respectable movie critics that do not acknowledge this act and simply consider Benigno and Alicia as a couple and feel sympathy for the rapist when he loses his “lover”. This is because it is clear that Benigno loves Alicia and does not intentionally wish to hurt her, even if he is aware of the negative implications of his actions. Nonetheless, this can be viewed as loving because he otherwise treats her well and possesses a true, passionate love for her.

This case reminds me of abuse in one’s home. This may be physical or mental and particularly relevant when done by a loving family member. A husband may beat his wife senselessly and this may seem to be clearly a horrible act and deserve years of prison but when in a court, this husband may present himself as a fantastic, loving spouse. This may be true… other than the abuse! The jury and judge may hear that he buys her presents and only hurts her because he loves her so much. That he feels awful for what he did. That he was abused himself and doesn’t know any better. For all these reasons, a court of law may be lenient and even sympathetic towards this man, ignoring the fact that he gave his wife a black eye and broken ribs or gave his child a concussion. These are times when we feel we know ourselves and what morals we hold near and dear but because no human is black and white, we are forced to reevaluate ourselves and what we see as good and bad, wrong and right.

What I question in the situation, though, is whether Benigno is mentally stable or not. While this may not appear to be a relevant question, I feel as if ethics are harder to apply to a situation when the character is not right in the mind. That is, he may not be able to determine what is appropriate from what is a horrific act. This also calls to question the thinking of the “healthy” person who feels compassion for this character and what he does. One always is going to feel some pity for a character who must deal with the effects of a mental disorder but does that allow so much empathy that one can rightfully or accept an act of rape? Being that I cannot see the romance in this act, despite the atmosphere, I lack said sympathy. However, as I mentioned, there are perfectly healthy people who can feel this way. While this does make me question them lightly, I fear I still do not find them poorer morally and I certainly do not feel the film is necessarily a bad one due to the presented immoralism. As a matter of fact, I believe any film that has the viewer pausing to think about their beliefs and feelings, to be a movie of interest and peaks my curiosity, in which case I agree with Eaton, the author of the article on the film.

Eaton makes the point that in the film, the immoralism and ethical dilemma is its most redeeming artistic qualities. She believes that without this dilemma, this piece would leave the viewer unmoved and uninterested. While this is not necessarily true, as the film could be otherwise enjoyable, I can see why the conflict of morals makes the viewer more excitable and obviously, causes more of a reaction and discussion. I cannot say for certain that there would be any mention of this movie if it lacked the scene we are now discussing.

Upon reading the review of Talk to Her written by Roger Ebert, I am caught off guard by the naivety of Ebert when discussing the film and Beningo’s kindness. I was particularly stunned as I read, “both men seem happy to devote their lives to women who do not, and may never, know of their devotion. There is something selfless in their dedication” (Ebert, 2002). This interpretation of Beningo’s actions seems very off-course and disturbing to me. While I do not believe this was intentional, the obvious oversight of what occurred between Benigno and Alicia stirs my moral obligations and makes me question the way in which was use media and the ideals it leaves us with. Ebert also says, “…he hints, too, that there is something a little creepy about their devotion.. Conventional morality requires us to disapprove of actions that in fact may have been inspired by love and hope.” While this statement is more sound in reason, it is still a little disconcerting that he considers the whole relationship only “a little creepy” and the wording at the end of the quote comes off as oversimplifying the case and more dismissive than one would hope. I can almost imagine him rolling his eyes and scoffing. I was also turned off by the claim that, “one theme is that men can possess attributes usually described as feminine”. Call me P.C. but I don’t recall raping comatose women being a feminine act and quite frankly, I would say it is a bit offensive to claim so. Yes, another thing women are to be blamed for. Darn those ladies, why do they never appreciate what men do for them? While I realize this action is not precisely what Ebert is referring to as being feminine, his ability to throw this sentence in his review at all and be so blasé about the entirety of the issue was what really made me question the morality of the film and how it reflects society’s views.

This, of course, was Almodovar’s intention, I am sure. He sparked the mental controversy that could put his film on the map. For this point of the film to be marked as an artistic defect is what I disagree with so strongly regarding ethicism. Just as Eaton points out, even if this trait is seen as an artistic defect, this does not make the film any less worthy of merit. Just as a film with ethical merits can be a bad film overall. I am also reminded of Woody Allen’s film ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ in which the conflicted protagonist kills his lover. Just as we had hoped and almost expected from the mind of Allen, Judah, the murderer, gets away with his crime. Other than the guilt he is ridden with, there are no consequences to this heinous crime he has committed. The odd thing is, be you the type to mingle with the world of infidelity or are as faithful as can be, you feel some sort of odd pang of sympathy for Judah’s situation.

Another point of interest in this film is Allen’s commentary on the matter. He once stated, “Crimes and Misdemeanors is about people who don’t see. They don’t see themselves as others see them. They don’t see the right and wrong of situations.” This being the thought in mind, is this still a film of immoralism or instead a film indirectly fighting an issue? Seems to be reverse psychology via cinema. In the end, this seems to be a director’s way of forcing society and individuals to look at how they view themselves and possibly consider their own misdeeds rather than allowing blindness, as is personified in Allen’s film and portrayed in Talk to Her. How easy it appears to be for humans to convince ourselves that we are the good guys and those who commit greater crimes than us are to blame and must be seen as nothing like ourselves.

It is fair to say someone who rapes or murders another innocent person is more evil than someone who simply ignores a homeless person’s request for change or talks behind someone else’s back but it would seem as if ethicists are trying so desperately to define the evils and say those are defects in a film  make me think thou doth protest too much. To me it seems fair and simple to say any film, despite the ethical implications can be a well done film. If it brings with it doubt, emotional response, and a healthy dose of uncertainty. Would one rather live in blissful unawareness, much like the blind rabbi in Allen’s film or would it be preferred to live as Thurman’s character that Eaton references from ‘Kill Bill’. Wherein she awaits the horrors she is to face and then destroys the enemy?

While these points aren’t directly related to the belief or disbelief of ethicism, these are points that must be taken into consideration when considering this doctrine and its validity in the contemplation of aesthetics. Clearly, I do not believe morals within a movie either merit or cause defect to a work of art. Eaton points out,  “Examples of works that are bad (artistically speaking) precisely because they are good (ethically speaking) abound, although ethicists do not attend to them.” Admittedly, it is more difficult to pick out works that are enhanced due to their ethical flaws than it is to remember the hundreds of thousands of millions of artworks that were honoured and respected for their dedication to integrity and strict regulations of morals, ethics, and the American way. It seems so unfortunately typical that the movie being discussed, that is controversial and questionable happens to be a foreign one. I wonder what the predominant nationality of ethicists is. This is another somewhat sidetracked query but it  certainly arises in my mind when I consider the types of films I was raised with in contrast to those I have seen more recently from other countries. Are we a sheltered, fearful country? Interestingly, though, ethicists are not necessarily in favour of censorship. I am curious, then, if ethicists are simply stating that immoral art is defective but permissible, acceptable but only by the hooligans of the world, or outright unacceptable? I am sure there are different levels of belief and each of these types of ethicists exist. Of course, this would be mainly found in the religious folks; those who find immoral acts to be too disgraceful for their innocent eyes and ears, even in a fictitious and potentially informative setting. This point gets back to ‘Crimes and Misdemeanors’ when the Aunt in the imaginary scene says something along the lines that, those who commit crimes and do not get punished by God or others, are home free. Can we not simply say that if not even an omnipresent, omnipotent Being like God cannot punish a wrongdoer, there must be something to it? Everything happens for a reason, they say. God works in mysterious ways, they say. If we are to accept this, we can view immoral acts as acceptable because God willed it to be so. Religion is not something to be reckoned with, we cannot always apply morals to it even though it is a world of morals. These are not usually considered the same morals as those we subjectively stand by. If I am to base my judgement of aesthetics on what I value and consider beautiful or successful art, I still do not agree with ethicism. I do, however, agree with the objections to it as expressed by A.W. Eaton in her essay “Almodovar’s Immoralism”.

Kant stop making Kant jokes

Last week of Kant material, don’t worry! Then onto Heidigger!

Beginning:

According to Kant, fine art is art which has been created as a representation of the natural world. This is the sort of art that takes what nature has provided us all with and according to the rules understood by the geniuses, this now appears as paint on canvas or molded from clay. A genius is the artist who will take the rules that are a priori and expressed in their minds and create an original piece inspired by it. For example, some people like to sew with a needle in thread. I prefer to staple things together. If Kant believes I am a genius, I am in no position to say otherwise. This is also represented by a bouncy house. The genius will see a house and a trampoline and decide to make something life-changing. While these are not two natural creations, they are creations from the concepts of objects that were made from nature. This is the second cousin of natural beauty. To get further down to the root of it, the house itself was possibly inspired by a bird’s nest or a snail’s shell. A genius noted these ideas, used his or her rules, and created something original and to its likeness. There would also have to be, I assume, levels of genius or to which extent one can be labeled such. I say this because there are certain ideas which were original at first and inspired others so repeatedly that even when the idea is still original, it is not unique. If I create a chair but make the bottom half shaped like a kazoo, this is original in some aspects but still the purpose and general shape may be the same. This also applies to music when using someone else’s chord progression or whatever the case may be. In the case of music, though, every progression leads to the goal of establishing or contradicting a tonality. Therefore, there is an aesthetic idea.

An important factor for fine art is that it is not overwrought. This means it does not point out it’s natural state but in itself appears to be natural. Which it is, essentially since it was created by an untainted mind that came about naturally and did not attempt to use inauthentic materials or ideas. Fine art differs from natural beauty because it has the ability to create thoughts in one’s mind. While some may question the ability of an art piece to think, this is not done in the typical way. Fine art is the product of a natural, genius mind and therefore, is part of its creator’s mind. When an observer stops to think, “I think this is the existential crisis of a man on the edge of life’s metaphorical blade”, this is the mind of the art piece being personified. As the artist sits and creates this art piece and thinks, “I guess I can draw rice cakes.” This is also a representation of the mind of the art. However, a flower will bloom without any “thought” to its blooming and nothing about it or its existence can question that. I may question why the flower is blooming in the middle of February but this question is in my mind and my mind alone, nature wants nothing to do with me.

A term Kant now provides that I feel gives a clearer definition for other terms is ‘soulless’. This is what the beautiful is due to having no aesthetic idea. This term being applied to much art, the question stands, what makes art possible? Kant says art is unlike science because science can not be radically original. This is something I put to question. Despite Kant’s clear opposition to the empirical in his writing, it is hard to ignore the accomplishments of scientists and their ability to doubt what they are taught to believe and then create new and original concepts.

Fin.

Kant you feel the love tonight?

Descartes-ed me at the bar

Beginning:

Kant’s use of the term ‘sublime’ in this week’s readings was very poetic and almost lyrical. Sublime is used to describe what is too much for our own comprehension. Kant’s explanation of this gives him a more cozy feeling, dare I say. I feel as if his feet have touched the Earth and he is soaking in the world. As he further describes this sensation, I am reminded of my favourite book as a child. It’s the metaphorical journey of a young boy telling his unborn brother about birth, physics, and life. I believe a new child would have the greatest understanding of the sublime, even he or she were not able to comprehend it. We all, however, can see when something is larger than we mere humans can come close to comparing with.

He begins to explain sublime by comparing it to the beautiful. I must admit, this differentiation was a tad difficult for me to grasp. He says the sublime, like the beautiful, is what we like for its own sake and therefore, we make a judgment of reflection whence admiring it. He says this is unlike the beautiful because the sublime goes beyond what the beautiful is bound by. The sublime may be formless and indeterminate; possibly a notion?

Mathematical sublime, as I can best explain it, is the ability of humans to claim that something is large, often without any sort of measuring tool. There is an accepted understanding of what is considered big. One doesn’t look at a giraffe and say, “No, that’s not big! I mean, look at the Eiffel Tower! He’s not anywhere near as tall as that!” Universally, we accept that that size is big without getting out a measuring stick and determining a height and defining that as big and nothing smaller may have that title. Of course, in the case of humans this is easy, we say a person is big because he/she is bigger than the average size for a human. However, for the most part, other animals can be just as big as other animals and yet, we consider that entire species as big. We have nothing of the same type to compare it to but its own kind and those are going about the same size, yet we can say it’s big! For example, a Mastiff is a large dog breed. Next to a minivan, it’s not all that impressive, even next to an Irish Wolfhound, it’s not that huge, yet we consider it to be a huge dog!

– Needless to say, this is blowing my mind –

Dynamical sublime is an equally magnificent term, I think. The dynamical sublime is that in nature which we fear. This is something we are too petty to defeat one on one but have utilities that allow us to run away and hide. These sorts of disasters include volcanos, thunderstorms, and Nathan’s not selling french fries anymore (maybe not…)  These sorts of events terrify us while also fascinating and even empowering us. To some extent, humans love that which may potentially harm us. This explains storm chasers, the Crocodile Hunter, and fans of NASCAR. The understanding that something can be so sublime and we can still overpower it causes pleasure.

This pleasure primarily occurs when we are certain we are safe. We humour ourselves and say we were so strong and brave while it was just a matter of having a safety net.

I felt a sense of giddiness as well as disappointment on page one-twenty-one when Kant states, “I admit that this principle seems farfetched and the result of some subtle reasoning, and hence high-flown…” I finally start rooting for the guy and he is doubting himself!

Fin.

I. Kant Stop Loving You

You  never did sartre to!

Beginning:

Kant’s view of purpose it is the object’s effect that the object’s cause creates. Its purposiveness is then the concept that is put into effect; its final cause. The way in which the object reaches its final cause is referred to as the efficient cause. The cause that occurs from this object’s purpose is what defines the purpose, as well as the cognitive recognition of it. Due to this trait of Kant’s work, to analyze the definition of a word and then create new terms that define it further, I find it very difficult to become involved in his ideas. Unlike most philosophy I have studied, Kant has not caught my attention with any new, intriguing theories. Not yet, at least. However, he certainly does make me think about aesthetics in ways I never would have otherwise.

Much like the concept of the agreeable, Kant says existence is beyond “existence”, its general presence, but also when it has a purpose. If an object has a purpose but it is not a distinct one but instead left unacknowledged, it is then much like disinterest in that it is nothing but an empty concept that does not go beyond the optical world. I will also mention that the dictionary defines the word ‘purpose’ as, “The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists”. If Kant had just opened a dictionary, he would have had such an easier time!

Kant also claims that judgement of taste is necessary. He says this is because one ought to have the same judgement as another when looking at the same object in the same circumstance. Being that this object will create a same sense of agreeability or pleasure, this ought to be an agreed upon sentiment. Kant says on page sixty-two, “When we make a judgement of taste, the pleasure we feel is something we require from everyone else as necessary, just as if, when we call something beautiful, we had to regard beauty as a characteristic of the object, determined in it according to concepts, even though in fact, apart from a reference to the subject’s feeling, beauty is nothing by itself.”

To me, this is his way of saying that a person must be willing to assume a universal pleasure that is gained from an object before they are to make the judgment themselves. In last week’s assignment, I made the mistake of stating, “This means the beauty is contained within the object and not a cognition.” This was incorrect. Kant believes quite the opposite. His view is that beauty is from the observer’s perception, not directly from the object.

After a week of exploring these ideas and trying to find a concrete example, I gave in and turned to ‘Google’. This then sent me to ‘Youtube’ and on this website I found what seems to me to be possibly the most accurate representation of the idea of purposiveness without purpose. That is, a two minute video of a white towel being thrown about in a drying machine. Of course, most of us know the purpose of a dryer, as well as the purpose of a towel but what purpose is there to a video of these two combined? Of course, other than a clueless college student seeking answers… I don’t believe, though, that most people would be able to find a purpose to this sort of video and I don’t see why they would. There may be people who are willing to accept that there is one. Therein lies the purposiveness.

Kant believes if one defines an object by its purpose, this then puts the cause in a reversed position. To say that an object exists because of its effect, then the way in which the object is presented is by definition of what the existence implied and this is a rather confusing reality to face. If I am building something and someone asks, “What are you making?” and I respond, “This is a Zombocide because it kills zombies” rather than, “This kills zombies because it is a Zombocide”. Though both statement may present the object in a transitive manner, from Kant’s perspective, the former is the proper description because the object should not be defined by its effect.

I Kant but…

Herman Can’t Either

Beginning:

Kant, Critique of Judgement

Kant’s view of the essential aspect of judgment of taste is that it is not a matter of circumstance or cognition but the interest of the viewer or the lack thereof. When one disregards the existence and is indifferent to it, this is a judgement of taste. Kant makes the point on page forty-six, “…what matters is what I do with this presentation within myself, and not the [respect] in which I depend on the object’s existence”.  To me, this means the object’s worth is not dependent on its necessity to be present but instead how it makes one feel. This may be a conscious feeling of pleasure or displeasure. This is much like a slinky. Everybody loves a Slinky but it does not feed, shelter, or clothe us! It barely entertains us! Yet, I have not met a single person whose eyes did not light up upon seeing one. This is not a response that one would necessarily expect or understand due to its useless nature.

A more distinguished example would be the work of Thomas Kinkade. His work is undoubtedly lovely but what he paints are buildings. Just dead trees with windows and oftentimes a Cross, we gain this knowledge through understanding. Being that I know nothing about art, I will look at his work and say, “Look at the snow, it’s all snowy!” That would be the extent of my analysis. A more trained eye can cognitively process the art and reason out why it is “correctly” done. A psychologist may understand to some extent why this viewer has a connection or disconnection from the art. However, neither of these two nor anyone else can explain the more essential selves’ reaction to it. Without the history, experience, and knowledge, there is a still an opinion formed on the art piece if this person were to be completely unbiased.

My only qualm with this point is still my disbelief in these ‘unbiased’ human beings. While we rely on judges, juries, and others to be so, I do not think it is possible. In my belief, not even a man or woman behind a stand or above a bible lacks an ulterior motive or outside influence. Being that we must work within our abilities, we rely on these people to do be as unbiased as possible but in the field of aesthetics and philosophy, there is no need to play naive. While it is very possible that there is a subjective view on art, I do not believe we are able to find proof of such. If it is not science or school influencing us, it may be society or experience.

Kant says that judgement of taste is universal because it is aesthetic judgement. This means it is based on feeling, not concepts. Therefore, presumably, all beings will gain from it in regards to feelings and pleasure. This is why the objects we enjoy purely for its beauty are what he considered disinterestedness. The object is considered beautiful without a purpose, desire, or aim, it cannot help or hurt the population. Disinterestedness is a subjective view. It will not affect the mass population because it is only aesthetic. Therefore, opinions on it will be subjective.

Kant also claims that, “[I]f someone likes something and is conscious that he himself does so without any interest, then he cannot help judging that it must contain a basis for being liked [that holds] for everyone. He must believe that he is justified in requiring a similar liking from everyone because he cannot discover, underlying this liking, any private conditions, on which only he might be dependent, so that he must regard it as based on what he can presuppose in everyone else as well.”

I think this is statement is poorly defended. To say that because one likes an object without further interest means that it can then be assumed that everyone else in your position must feel the same is nonsensical. While I do agree there is some level of universality to art, I believe there can only be a certain amount of that influence; that which gains the mind’s intrigue. After this initial attention, I can only imagine it is subjective whether the viewer will gain pleasure or displeasure. I do not believe in a strong a priori emotion that can arise from art. Unless of course, Kant is just pointing out that there are people universally who enjoy particular art pieces in common. In which case, this is not a fact I will argue with. This, however, is not necessarily due to a similar circumstance, I do not believe this is but a happenstance of intersecting interest.

Fin.

Parting is such sweet s’mores

Even the best laid plans of mice and men often go candy corn

Beginning:

I touched on the topic of companionship and loneliness before but this week has been a long one and it has opened my eyes to the power of these things. I have seen all types of the lonely; the desperate, the pathetic, the needy, the romantic, the good guy, the impatient, the disgusted, the resentful, the hurt, the uncertain, and the denial. I have also seen the social side; the big mouth, the wallflower, the bragger, the do-gooder, the silently hurting, the loudly hurting, the open, closed, sideways, over, under, and above.

I am sure we each have our tipping point, though. Where we surrender all hopes for a happy relationship with someone and just spend it with twelve rescue dogs and a Scandinavian midget named Minkus.  It happens. However, when do we know we’ve crossed the line or maybe that we haven’t tried hard enough? Last time I discussed my lack of need or interest- the public view of negativity towards loneliness. However, I am now willing to look at the other side of coin. The heads up side! Lincoln’s all, “Hey! Knew you’d remember me eventually.” Shut up, Abe. Shut up. So, the question is, why is socializing important? Why do you we continually face it and deal with its traumas and pains?

Human contact is an integral part of existence! We fear it and it confuses and hurts us but what we gain from this, the invisible joy of knowledge is so much more than we can bare to surrender. Staaay with me, babyy! Recently, I have seen close friends go into deep depressive states because their lack of companionship. This is not because they haven’t experienced heartbreak but it is because having the heart was worth dealing with it breaking. This is what I have come to acknowledge. Even I have dealt with loss of friendship time and time again. This does put a damper on things and make me more weary of others but I have yet to give up on it.

I am starting to think this bloggy-poo is completely elementary. Yes, elementary. I am not impressed. Clearly, we as humans need humans. We need and cry and whine a heck of a lot but at the end of the day, we can’t wait to do it all over again. Wiser this time, hopefully.

Now, onto the more fun discussion. Artistic taste: subjective or objective?

You say, “Duh, like what? Subjective!” Not so fast, lovey. Then why does the majority of the WORLD find Michelangelo to be a genius artist, (insert ballet dancers name here) to be a genius dancer, and The Beatles to be genius musicians? hm.. While we’re at it, who’s to say even the Socrates was so great? Unless, of course, there is some universal standard of beauty and wisdom and aesthetics as a whole. Now, I am pretty averse to using the term ‘objective’ all willy nilly because of the potential implications much of the time. However, I think in this case, I can safely use the term without having to get into anything else, particularly not an almighty lord christmas cookie chant. Ya know what? I am currently writing a paper on Humes’ work on this topic. Let me just share that with you.

In this chapter, Humes makes the argument that there is an implied objective taste in art of all forms. This is because, as humans, we find ourselves convincing others to enjoy what we do or to enjoy it as much as we do. We make the argument that, “my taste is the correct taste”. In order for this viewpoint to be used and be so universal, this would indicate some ‘correct’ choice. Something that is objectively better or best.

Thinking deeper into this point made me consider the possibility of this; being that as a society we can generally agree on who is an artistic genius, the Twyla Tharps, Michelangelos, and Boy Georges of the world. We also can somewhat agree on what is awful. For example,  Yoko Ono, almost any Disney sequel, and the phlegm coloured crayon. The fact that that we are almost all in concordance regarding these art forms, this tells me there is very likely a standard of beauty or pleasure.  I believe this is the argument Humes is making. He may not have mentioned Boy George, however.

While this logic does make sense, I must contemplate the validity of this theory based on the lack of necessity for the kind of thinking that is suggested. Everything else that is part of human nature is a necessary desire or instinct. Therefore, this would explain the fascination with nature. Those who find no pleasure in nature end up destroying it. This would put our well-being at risk. Someone who enjoys viewing or creating paintings may live a happier life but they would not die without it. Much like the idea of objective morals, I believe objective views on aesthetics would have to be a force of a higher being. Which is an easy leap if you believe in one but for those who do not, a different approach would have to be found in order for the concept to be accepted.

Upon further thought, I have realized God is not necessarily the next step in this theory. “And on the eight day, the Lord sayeth, “Let us admire naked women in awkward seated positions.” Being that I simply had to question my own questioning, I have come to see that this is not implicated. Simply, that the world has shared many thoughts and ideals and through this exchange, a common ground of opinion is likely to have formed. This is a much more steady and stable theory for me to follow.

Humes also includes the line, “…as a work of art is original, it must frustrate any attempt to judge it by traditional, historical standards–and what other standards are there?”

This too is a curious point. Sure, in the past century or so we have had artists who will go down in textbooks and be immortalized in one way or another but when was the last time the world had a Van Gogh or Heironymous Bosch? Maybe there was a more psychological level to these key artists, the human mind needing fulfillment in a very rooted manner that will never be uncovered. Being that the classic artists are the standard, maybe this is just simply where we begin and therefore, we were floored by it and now society must judge all other art from that point forth. After all, aren’t we fascinated with cave art? We find those simple scribbles to be beautiful. This goes along with Humes’ view that we base our opinions on art off the expectations and mindset that we get from similar objects. A person may absolutely love chocolate ice cream until they try ‘Phish Food’ ice cream and then start to turn away normal chocolate. Poor chocolate ice cream… This is how the mind works, we may love or hate something until we find something better or worse than what we are familiar with. We can also equate this to how a child acts. They may love a game until they lose or they may hate a toy until someone else wants that toy.

I think Humes best states the point when he writes, “I can consent fully to the will of the artist only if he has first consented to my will as expressed in other works which I have enjoyed and praised.”

To me, this would mean that as unique and original an art piece may be, it must be “acceptable” in the eye of the viewer before the artist will create it or the viewer will enjoy it. This means it will bare at least some resemblance to something that has been created before. This may be conscious or unconscious but an agreement is made in one way or another. If the piece does not fit into the accepted or ‘norm’, it will likely not be viewed as beautiful. Unless you live in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. They love that stuff.

This also explains why many artists who did truly unique and beautiful work, like a personal favourite, Emily Dickinson, were ignored until years posthumous. I would imagine part of this is a gradual acceptance when art becomes to form slowly and ever so slightly at a time into what was being thrown into the art world by those like Dickinson all at once. This is what they mean when they say, “The world was not ready for it.” Familiarity is key. Humans do not do well with change.

All in all, I find Humes’ argument on the objectivity of aesthetics to be quite sound. With his ability to stay grounded and cynical, I believe we will have a lot of common beliefs. I think this Humes fellow is going places.

Some deep stuff, not gonna lie

The subject, the question, and doubt of authenticity; where does one begin to explore the intricacies? I suppose the best place to start is..

Beginning:

First we must understand what authenticity is and the importance of it.

Authenticity is a technical term in existentialist philosophy. In philosophy, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures. Different types of existentialist philosophers see this process in different ways.          -Wikipedia

Definition of AUTHENTIC

a : worthy of acceptance or belief as conforming to or based on fact <paints an authentic picture of our society>> b : conforming to an original so as to reproduce essential features <an authentic reproduction of a colonial farmhouse>> c : made or done the same way as an original

: not false or imitation : real, actual <an authentic cockney accent>                          -Dictionary

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

                  Interesting, I never thought about the other meaning of authentic. Such as in the sentence, “This authentic spanish leather is making my pits sweat.” This use of the word is defined using the term, ‘conforming’. Ironic, considering that authenticity in philosophy terms is quite the opposite of conforming. I also find the definition regarding psychology and art to be of interest..

” In philosophy of art, “authenticity” describes the perception of art as faithful to the artist’s self, rather than conforming to external values such as historical tradition, or commercial worth.^{[citation needed]} A common definition of “authenticity” in psychology refers to the attempt to live one’s life according to the needs of one’s inner being, rather than the demands of society or one’s early conditioning.”       

                   Of course, one may question how it is possible to overcome one’s “early conditioning” but if you read into Jean-Paul Sartre’s work (and if you’re new to existentialism, I recommend him above Kierkegaard or Heidegger, or even Neitzsche, actually) you will see this is possible in a roundabout manner.  Now, existentialism and even authenticity are pretty HUGE topics, I obviously cannot cover all angles and points of interest but I will do a fairly brief overview to give you a peg leg to stand on. After reading this bloggy-poo, you will be a pirate. Yes. Don’t say I never gave you anything. Aye?

Authenticity, in most simple terms, because I am aware you are simple-minded people, is the act, as well as thought of being your true self. Your given  identity being given by no one but yourself. This is best done without thought or intention but I won’t tell if you go about things that way. Now, Sartre, being the Stalinist, dominant being he is/was, he acts as if bad faith, also known as inauthenticity, the act of not being your true self, is an absolute atrocity. Basically, he was like a Jehovah’s Witness but at a French cafe instead of your door. It’s probably for the best that he hung out in shady, dark corners. He wasn’t a pretty man.

“I’MMA GETCHOO!”

          I wonder if it still counts as being Asperger’s if you can’t keep eye contact because you have no contact with your eyes. Kinda wanna smack him in the head and watch his eyes whirl around. It happens.

          Back on point, in authenticity, there is no room for an excuse, a blame, or a regret. Which I am fully aware is very difficult, these are pretty fundamental human reactions but if one is authentic, the chance of feeling said emotions is much lower. It is easier to avoid regret when you take full responsibility for what occurs. This is followed up by a common thread of existentialists being atheist. By Sartre’s word, there is no meaning or purpose to life. Depressing? Naw! Nihilistic? Definitely not. However, if you must have it your way, then it is the most optimistic and freeing nihilism.

We all take into account that we cannot control everything in life and we certainly can’t do everything. As much as I may want to fly to Morocco this Sunday, unfortunately, my flying abilities don’t work on Sundays. I also am not certain which way it is.

           So, then, we have already, so quickly, made it clear that we do no control every aspect of our life. There are excuses and we are not completely free, right? Well, no! We all have limits. Probably the same number of them, more or less, so that is our reality as of now. We are working within our reality. If you can do otherwise, good for you. Much like the man with no leg control who climbs up and down a mountain, we are only limited by which we limit ourselves. There are always ideas that are ill-advised or there may be obstacles but a man who says, “I can’t get the job because I don’t know the right people” is no man at all. It has been done before, therefore, it is possible. To say, “I did my best” is then a lie because your best would be accomplishing the task you set forth. If it is possible and you failed, then you have not tried your best. I know some of you may now be rolling your eyes or telling me in your head why I am wrong, wrong, wrong-o, so wrong but I will stand by this word and Sartre… you know, the big, famous, uber-respected philosopher, as well as many others, will agree with me. What we fear is change and often times, we believe we want success but we are terrified of it and therefore, we place in front of ourselves excuses as to why it is not our fault but it is the fault of the universe. Poor you. Think of it this way, children who were “destine” to never speak or walk have spoken, walked, and lived to tell the tale. People love their freedom until they receive it, at which point it becomes overwhelming. What we fail to realize is, there is a world of solutions. When something wonderful happens, it is not a miracle given unto us from the Lord, it is due to persistence, effort, and the act of welcoming wellness. I will not deny that the will of others is out of our hands and we can only hope and rely on their sense and mindset to assist in doing as you wish but this is much like the Genie in Aladdin. Anything can be done but to change the free will of others. If a cartoon genie with the voice of Robin Williams can’t do it, no one can.

New Tears Sneeze

I’d tissue but I don’t even know you!

Beginning:

So the big day has come. It’s New Year’s Eve! That’s exciting, right? Goals, resolutions, changing your life… and after all that self-inspiring, you go to a party, get drunk, do something not-so-classy, and wake up in a water fountain in Ghana. I am so proud of you. Personally, I like New Year’s. It’s an innocent holiday with no catch or confusion or controversy. There are some expectations but none required. It’s simple! Not that everyone leaves it at that, of course. We’re humans, we love causing chaos and drama. So, yes, we feel guilty if we didn’t accomplish a million things, we reflect on all the bad things about the year, or we feel lonely if we don’t have a party or a midnight kiss or enough champagne in our glass.

What are my resolutions this year? Live. Just like every other year. If I accomplish it, my family is happy and I win! If I don’t, I won’t be around to worry about it. At my funeral they’ll be like, “She was cool, sure, but come on, what a failure! Couldn’t even keep a freakin’ resolution for a few months!”

I don’t really do the whole ‘challenge yourself’ thing. That never ends well for me. If I tell myself I won’t be nervous and quiet when I meet someone new, I just ramble about irrelevant, incoherent things. No, I may not be quiet but I sound as if I got into the opium cabinet. Which exists, I swear.

What else could be so important that I need to make myself feel guilty about failing at next January? Of course, I could always resolve to do something I do anyway or something I have no control over. Like, “I promise to smell the roses everyday.. if a rose happens to pass my nose.” “I promise to lose 20 lbs…. if I contract some terrible disease; leaving me malnourished and emaciated.”

I am all about the positive thinking. Of course, I totally appreciate those people who resolve to do something good everyday or donate to a cause or volunteer or whatever but really? You have to “trick” yourself into doing that? I mean, I would love to have more time to volunteer at the food bank but if the timing doesn’t work with my class schedule, I can’t skip class for it or something. That’s fair, right? I will go when I can, though. I don’t have to promise myself and ‘the year’ that I will, I just will because I want to.

Not that I don’t understand it. Of course if you have officially announced to the world that you will do something, there’s more pressure to do it and you remember to focus on it or make time for it but if it really matters to you, wouldn’t that just happen on its own? Maybe you’re doing good deeds in bad faith, then. Which is still good because at least you’re doing it but it’s so insincere. I met those people at the food bank, those who aren’t interested in what they are doing and they just bring down the mood so I’m not sure that’s too desirable.

Holidays confuse me, as you can see. I am working my way through them. Of course, I overthink things.. I really do think it’s fantastic when someone wants to do something but is too scared or otherwise distracted to do it and has a strong influence like new year’s to make that big change. I don’t mean to be completely negative about it. It’s important to questions one’s motives, though. Are we losing that weight to impress Dorothy, the weightlifter upstairs or are we doing it to feel healthier? Are we finding a man to please our families and feel wanted or because your fear of commitment and ‘being hurt’ is holding you back and you want to break that wall down?

I think if you make a change in your life for someone else, you’re just putting yourself in a worse position. Unless, of course, your promise is to donate that kidney to Monty in Sweden. In which case, well, hey, that’s nice! < Not sarcasm. There is certainly a thin line between doing purely for others while negatively affecting yourself and doing for others and yourself in a manner that will make everyone happier.. or at least, everyone you can and want to make happier. Now this is getting complicated! You can be the judge. Just don’t be stupid.

All I’m saying is, as long as you don’t make the choice to go to Times Square tonight, I think you’re a clever monkey. I love you. If you do decide to go to Times Square because it sounds like a fun and ‘different’ experience, “Everyone has to do it once!”, then you’re just being a fool. You will get cut. Robbed, too. As well as potentially pregnant. How do you think the first pregnant man got pregnant? Anything is possible in Times Square on New Year’s Eve. Why do you think Dick Whatshisname stopped doing the show? He had too many babies!  So many Dick babies

As for me, this New Year’s I’ll be going to two concerts. Both by the same band.. The Damnwells? I don’t know them but being that I spent last new year’s drinking wine with my grandmother and the year before that I fell asleep before midnight with my parents, I can’t see this being much of a failure. Although, who knows! I do get to dress up, however. That’s always fun. Heels that will kill my feet, stockings that will rip, a dress I will have to constantly make sure is covering my dangerous bits, and makeup that I can have smeared across my face at some point.. That’s what it’s all about, right? Oh, wait, I did spend one New Year’s in Disney, though. That was pretty sweet. The fireworks over the castle thing. That’s where dreams come true, ya know? Of course, I don’t think I have ever dreamt of being squashed between a rock and a Mickey Mouse but I was with my family and it was warm there, so I can’t complain.

Point being, have an amazing New Year’s and I hope your magical wishes and dreams AAALLL come true <3

Fin.

Happy Today!

It’s Sunday, yay!

Beginning:

I am going to keep this post short because it is just going to be me whining about the holiday. Yes, I, who makes fun of others for hating on Valentine’s Day and all those other stupid holidays, *I* am going to complain about Christmas. Not the holiday itself, more so, those who celebrate it. You guys don’t know how to celebrate a holiday quietly. No, Chanukah is not as glitzy and HUGE as Christmas and yes, Jewy kids hate that but as you get older you realize how annoying Christmas is. No matter what you do, say, or where you go, Christmas is in your face. Telling you you’re different and not as much fun as them. It’s not our fault Chanukah isn’t that big of a holiday. Big Jewy holidays are calm and quiet and sweet and very meaningful to us. Christmas is meaningful, I suppose but you would never know it. Everyone says Christmas is all about gifts these days and while that is true, it’s also become about showing that Christianity is better than any other religion. As if you’re unique and rare if you celebrate it? Okay, okay, now I am starting to sound like a Christmas-hater. The thing is, I am just tired of being told ‘Merry Christmas!’ and then if it bothers me, everyone’s all up in arms about it just being a nice gesture and everything has to be PC and blahhh.. well, no, that’s not the case. I just don’t want everyone assuming I’m the same religion as them and if I say I don’t celebrate, getting an awkward 5 second stare. THAT is how we make people feel annoyed and like a weirdo. It’s not about being PC, it’s about being considerate. This Christmas, I didn’t go to everyone and say, “You know what today is…. HAPPY CHANUKAH!” No, I did not. I realize, these people don’t care about Chanukah, they don’t want to be told to have a happy holiday they don’t celebrate. It sounds silly written down, yet, any time I say this, people reply, “I don’t celebrate Chanukah..” *weird face*. SO WHAT BLAH BLAH PC BLAH COMMIES IN A BLANKET BLAHH.. yes. That’s how I feel around the holidays and it’s stupid. I can’t do anything without Santa giving me a roundhouse kick.

Okay, so that’s a few weeks of the year, no biggie, right? Then why do I have people in the streets, on the train, and in my pants telling me to find Jesus? Maybe not in my pants but all the rest applies. What does that mean, exactly? Little known fact, Jesus wore a red and white sweater, skinny jeans, and a knit cap. Yes, Jesus is a hipster. Was a hipster? I don’t get what Jesus’ deal is. He’s dead but he was alive after being killed? Wasn’t he resurrected? What killed him the second time? Or am I confusing Jesus with Elvis, again? Either way, Jesus was not Jewish. I refuse to believe this. He didn’t wear a kippah or tallis or have peyas and nowhere doth the bible quote Jesus hath exclaimed, “You forget ze Challah? Vat are ve going to do vitzought ze challah? Oy, I should vurry? Vill go vitzout ze challah.”              Ipso facto, Jesus was a gentile.

And here I will stop and save my butt from getting too religiousy because I could go all day and you will hate me more and more. What I’m trying to say here is, have a great holiday and don’t watch too many of those romantic comedies that come out around now. Fact is, 90% of the time, life doesn’t work out like that. If you get your hopes up and think for even a moment that that guy with a girlfriend that you are madly in love with will chase you down at the airport in slow motion with a Mariah Carey song and the plane will be held up and he will tell you over the announcer, “My cheri, I love you like the flowers love the sunshine. You are the tremble in my sigh and the hiccup in my heart. Not a day goes by in which your face and love don’t cross my mind and make me fall in love with you all over again. You are my oxygen, you are my earth, you are the love of my life. Please stay with me, I need you in my life and no one else can fill that void. Be mine, please”, well, that is NOT going to happen. If it does, your little buddy there is insane because firstly, it is stupid to hold up an entire airplane of people and secondly, he had plenty of time to just say, “Hey, let’s go on a date”. Jerk.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! <3

The importance of being a liar

Or telling the truth in a very dishonest manner

Beginning:

Social networking goes beyond Facebook. Facebook is a dish best served cold. Wait, no, that’s not right. However, with the Facebook, like most free social sites, we are the product. YOU are the product. Unless, of course, you aren’t signed up to any, in which case, you have no friends and you are missing out on all the fun. Look how much fun we are having:

Even Sting is joining in the festivities!

Brad Pitt is too. Most women like him, right?

Boogers aside, social networking is a great part of the modern age. Whether you want to post 400 photos of you getting drunk and partying with Kelly from Saved by the Bell or just want to share with your mom and her boyfriend a poem you wrote about how much you wish they loved you, there is a forum just for you! People you add and meet on all these sites become your best friends, your dog walkers, your stalkers, and ‘That fatty who ate your lunch from the company refrigerator” (which SHOULD be a relationship option).

Personally, however, I have found sites like twitter, plurk, blog sites, facebook, youtube, tumblr, and any other silly name that has become the next big social site, all influence people, very often in positive ways. Sure, there are those stupid thinspiration and pro-anorexia and pro-suicide sites and whatnot but I think often the good outweighs the bad. Then again, even the negative ones provide lessons from the wiser groups of people who can learn and teach from them. You know how they used to say (and some probably still do) that Harry Potter was horrible because it was about witchcraft and Satan and junk? Well, I wonder if those kids read about nazis and slavery in school. If so, did those kids become slave-owning nazis? If so, I think you have a lot more to worry about then some hocus pocus on yo’ heiny. Although, I guess any parent who forces their kid to be the weird religious child, that kid might want to put some horrible spells on its parents. His or her parents, that is. That’s “proper” English, right? I would call my child ‘It’, so I don’t see the issue. Whatever, English language, WHATEVER!

What else can I say about social sites? I don’t know. Honestly, I don’t know much about these her interwebz. I write, I watch movies and videos, I talk to people.. I check my email.. and I look at pictures of puppies. That is pretty much the extent of it. Even research I usually do through books. I am old fashioned like that. Craazyy!

Nonetheless, I think the world is better off with some form of internetal (that is now a word) connectivity. We exchange ideas. Rather than just meeting someone, disagreeing with them, and walking away, we have that “disguise” that sometimes can be used for evil but also opens up a pathway, a level of comfort so a discussion or debate can be had. No matter how angry or offended either side gets, there’s no physical attack available, just blocking or CAPS LOCK! THIS IS HOW YOU KNOW I AM SO ANGRY AT MY SOCKS FOR BEING IN THE WAY OF MY FEET!

Or I can add underlining, bold, and italics (I typed Italians first, oops) for further emphasis, such as, “Why, am I the only one in this room wearing UNDERWEAR!?”

Ooh, this is a new one to me; crossing-out? “I am in love with you orange juice.” or, “Sorry I slapped your grandmother the other night this morning in the face on the bum.”

Now, let’s combine all those:

“I am TIRED of your family visiting. Yes, I I am in love with you orange juice, but I AM SO ANGRY AT MY SOCKS FOR BEING IN THE WAY OF MY FEET. I just don’t get it, Why, am I the only one in this room wearingUNDERWEAR!? That’s why Sorry I slapped your grandmother the other night this morning in the face on the bum.”

Standing ovation? For me? Oh, thank you, thank you. I couldn’t have done it without you. Of course, I did do it without you. You didn’t contribute a thing but I will give you credit so you keep reading my junk. You’re soo lucky.

Oh, wait, I forgot my original point. I started talking about the fact that facebook and all those sites are eating your brains and turning you into a facebook-obsessed, walking advertisement that will give them millions of dollars but make you lose your job, your friends, your family, and your dignity. They will give companies, scammers, the government, and your boss all your secrets, information, and your soul. Aside from that, however, it is great.

I don’t have as much to say on this topic as I thought I did, so I may cut this bloggy-poo post short. Basically, don’t tell your social networking site all your embarrassing/private information, don’t post picture/updates about murdering your 5 children last year and getting away with it, and don’t complain about everything because it’s a free site, if you want it, you take what they give you, playa. That is all.

Fin.