Creative Flow

The battle between my id and my super ego continues, for I’m still contemplating the beauty of passivity while flicking off the tailgating Civic behind me. The Id is still a rash and emotional narcissist ready to lose control at any moment. The super ego still yearns for self-improvement, wanting to make friends with people who have nothing in common with me. Rush puts my mind in the correct direction to actively and passionately contemplate, and grow increasingly fond of, peace, respect, existential acceptance of a humanly flawed but ‘aesthetically’ valued human condition. The ego wants to admire contently the human condition while calmly meditating and regulating a calm and peaceful self. The id however does not want to sit on the sidelines and accept from afar the flawed human condition. It wants to embrace and accept the flaws as itself, and live at a seemingly truer but less perfect level. I am faced with quite the dilemma for my intellectual and most conscious selves, the parts that I most often associate with my super ego, are becoming in favor of the id’s ways for highly philosophical, but hopefully temporary reasons. Am I to just accept being an occasional ass for ideological and complicated reasons, when the effects of this ideology threaten the very simple, non-ideological, existential life that I’m trying to live in? Do I care? What part of me cares? Why does it care? There are too many questions to answer in any consistent way across the board. What it comes down to is an insanely constant dialectic between the id and the super ego. This dialectic has been immensely difficult to overcome in any philosophical way for me. Mediation between the two becomes chaotic, fallacious, and illogical quickly. This tells me that if I am to solve this problem I must look at it from a different level, or mindset. It is manageable to enter different mindsets when you know which ones you need to embody to solve the problem, but trying to embody random or currently unknown types of mindsets is quite tedious.
            An artistic idea that this reminds me of is the acid addict’s dilemma. The acid addict dilemma is when an individual has truly and wholly fallen in love with, philosophically or emotionally, the alternate reality he experiences while tripping on acid. As his love for his ‘alternate reality’ becomes greater, this reality becomes more valued, and subsequently more real. As this increases, the connection to the former reality, or the reality that I am writing to you in (probably), becomes weaker and less groomed. The familiar dialectic between nihilism and non-nihilism emerges. Concepts like value, existentialism, freewill, consciousness, determinism, and metaphysics become part of the premises that need to be examined to an absurd degree prior to any serious contemplation of the central issue. I curse and remind myself that of course this happens, for the philosopher should be able to take any argument, concept, or thing and bring it via the minds evolution to any other argument, concept, or thing. I would like to think that some order or set of rules make up the tools the mind uses to connect everything in such a beautiful way but then my nihilistic self reminds me to doubt patterns when the pattern is dependent of perspective (objectivity vs. subjectivity).
            Final thought of the day; I have managed to think myself in the direction and chose to stop on existentialism because it is so… practical. Given all the insane and complicated dialectics that diverge to infinity I am present in a place and a time and might as well take advantage of my existence. Traveling the universe, my consciousness has stopped here, in this time, this place, with these people, perceiving these dimensions so why not experience something new, the environment, instead of living in your head. This is the next step from nihilism. To continue is to allow yourself to exist(true beautiful nihilism), but to claim nothing has meaning, value, or purpose and thus secede from the environment you are choosing to stop living(fake and self-contradictory Hollywood nihilism). Existentialism is not the answer or solution to nihilism, or philosophy, it is merely a nice place to stop for a while. The goal is to escape the circular logic and create a concept that is truly magnificent and game changing. It has to be created, and it can be created, so we think, we live, and we wait. 

Skepticism and The Meaning of Philosophy

Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, in their essay “What Is Philosophy?” attempt to use the notions of friendship, concepts, and artistic creation as a foundation for the essence of true philosophy. The result is a definition of philosophy that places the burden on the philosopher to not merely examine ideas and concepts, but to instead be the creator of them. The focus of this paper will be to re-illustrate the notions put forth by Deleuze and Guattari, and to further examine the relationship between the public and the philosopher. This relationship presents an unfortunate dialectic that undermines everything philosophy has to offer the world.
            The idea of the concept is first brought up in the paper to examine what may be thought of as the product, and/or medium, of the philosophical process. The philosopher is the artist of thought, the creator of original concept, and may also be the evaluator of those concepts that have been created. The relationship with the other is important in the philosophical process because without a friend, concepts do not evolve or improve. It is through persistent rivalry that the philosophical process can move forth, molding and creating ideas that change and improve over time. While friendship and rivalry allow for the advancement of concepts, the burden still lies on the shoulders of the philosopher to create the concepts that are to be analyzed. This creation of concepts is the underlying task of the philosopher, according to Deleuze and Guattari.
            While creating concepts may allow an individual to will an idea into existence, the molding of that idea is both the responsibility of the philosopher, who must present it in the most convincing manner, and of the friends and rivals who must distrust the validity of the created concept in order to avoid complacency in the face of the idea’s imperfection. This betterment of the created concept is not a philosophical task however, for it requires contemplation, reflection, and communication, all of which are tasks to be done by anyone interested in a specific concept or subject. When one evaluates a particular concept, instead of creating one, they run the risk of overlooking the very assumptions that they should question, and end up becoming wholly engulfed by the particular subject at hand. Those who study specific fields or sciences run the risk of not being able to look at the particular field from an outside view, in order to adequately question the assumptions they regularly make.
            The role that language and communication play in the philosophical process is examined next, and it is established that it serves the purpose of universalizing the singular concept that is created by the philosopher. While the philosopher is concerned with creating concepts, he need not be concerned with establishing a consensus regarding that concept, for a consensus is merely a representation of opinions, not the evaluation of philosophical importance. Instead of representation through consensus, the population at large should serve as challengers to claims and concepts made by various philosophers. Deleuze and Guattari mention the ancient Greek conception of tragedy and comedy as the source of regulation amongst civilians, where discourse and argument emerge as the mediating factors for what ideas are considered to be important.
            All of the previously mentioned premises come together at the end of the essay when our current zeitgeist is brought into speculation, that being the movement towards marketing and commercialization. Philosophers are faced with the task of challenging the shallow and universal understanding of our time and through this challenge we are reunited with our original task. It is the philosopher’s job to challenge the strongest of assumptions and universalities by creating concepts that oppose and undermine them. In a world consumed by the present zeitgeist, philosophers may stand alone with the ability to speculate and create, both being the only hope for change. Summing up, Deleuze and Guattari state, “So, the question of philosophy is the singular point where concept and creation are related to each other.” (pg. 11) Philosophy then seems to be the art of concepts, to such an extent that the general conception of art may be deepened.
            While art is merely mentioned in relation to philosophy in this paper, I think that the analogy should be examined further, for it seems to greatly clarify the underlying thesis of Deleuze’s paper. If we take philosophy to be the first art of humanity, I do not think it is much of a stretch. The mind is a medium possessed by everyone, but used to the fullest extent by few. Where a canvas allows the artist to manifest her ideas or concepts into a form presentable to the outside world, the same is done by the philosopher. Rarely does an artist ever feel the need to alter a created work. Instead she simply presents the work to the world for it to be evaluated and discussed. The artist is responsible for creation, while the other is responsible for response. The same can be said about the philosophical process. The philosopher presents to the world originality, and from this originality arises meaning, value, and effect. The task of any artist, either philosopher or painter, is to leave a footprint on the world around them via the representation of the self through the invention of an original work. The signature, placed on the work by the creator, allows the creator to live forever through the originality put forth. Anyone who merely evaluates other’s originalities may never accomplish such immortality.
            Philosophers face a challenge however, for they possess the ability to create ideas that are so powerful that they offer the general public a choice, although often a subconscious choice, to be engulfed by the very creation itself. While art may never, or rarely, manifest itself into a zeitgeist to be shared and assumed by entire generations, philosophy may do just that. Philosophy has given birth to science, religion, politics, universalities, and ethics. The general population rarely possesses the ability or strength to face a potentially life-changing idea with the necessary skepticism required to put that concept in its true place. If the concept satisfies direct, shallow, or even psychological desires or needs then the average person will readily engulf their lives within the particularities of that idea. It is generally seen that those who do not practice philosophy will be more than willing to suspend, and even forget the importance of skepticism and realism for the sake of direct perceived satisfaction. What I mean, is that the general public is never humble enough to face the imperfection of humanity, and translate that imperfection to ideological skepticism. Instead of understanding the concepts created by humanity as imperfect and necessarily replaceable, we suspend skepticism for the sake of a perceived complacency, a complacency that most would rather face than the unknown.
            Historically, for every concept created and presented to the world by philosophers, those who benefit from these creations loose desire for further discoveries. Philosophers are the shunned parents, exploited by their children for the sake of ignorance. Those who were born from the mind of philosophy almost necessarily oversee the wisdom of those who created them, assuming that they are born a more perfect manifestation of thought, when in fact they are merely an imperfect stepping stone on the philosophical path. While the theme of Deleuze’s and Guattari’s paper is written as a call for hope, I am not so optimistic. While those who study it may readily accept the notion of philosophy as being the necessary creation of original concepts, those outside of the field will only fall further victims to their inadequate skepticism as more concepts are brought into the public’s eye. The infinite amount of possibilities that may be birthed by philosophy render the non-philosopher lost, only able to grasp what is closest to them, and that which satisfies their most immediate desires. It is the philosopher who can create the concept that addresses this problem who will truly change the face of philosophy for the future.

On Socratic Love

            Socrates’ stance on love is portrayed in Plato’s Symposium and is what the focus of this paper will be. He focuses on the aspect of love that emerges as our desire for it, and more specifically desire in general. According to Socrates, we desire what we do not have, for it would be foolish to desire something that we already possess. When we see beauty, and when we do not have beauty, we desire it. As love is the desire for those who are beautiful, given beauty’s subjectivity, then love is the desire for the beauty that we do not see in ourselves.
            While this definition of love helps to explain the obvious examples of true love, it can also be used to explain the situations where someone might fail at love. The first premise that I will analyze is that of the concept of beauty. The saying “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder” claims that the concept of beauty is relative to the individual, and is a concept that I cannot find ground to refute. In order for such beauty to be understood by the individual, he must actually know what it is that he finds to be beautiful, a process that takes self-analysis and experience. Once we become aware of what it is that we find to be beautiful, we look for it in other people, and value those who possess it. From here arises a discrepancy between my own conception and Socrates’. He claims that we cannot desire what we already have, so it is evident that we must desire in those that we love, what we do not have for ourselves. This seems to presuppose ownership as a necessary condition of desire. The mere desire for experience does not involve ownership of any kind however. We might desire to listen to music, watch a movie, ride a roller coaster, or to be educated but we do not desire to own these experiences. I think love is similar to these desires because it is something that we desire, but only for the experience, not ownership. Therefore it is possible for an individual to find beauty in himself, and then to also desire the love of another individual who possesses that beauty as well. Such a desire is not for the ownership of the lover’s beauty, but rather a desire to experience life alongside an individual who has beauty, and then to procreate with that individual in an attempt to create more beauty.
            Socrates was right because he understood that love is our desire for beauty manifested into a relationship between two individuals. He was wrong however when he says love is the desire for beauty that we necessarily do not possess ourselves. It may be, but it is not necessary. Biologically, we can contemplate the idea that love is our possibly subconscious desire to immortalize that which we see to be beautiful. The sexual aspect of love can then be the physical act of not only creating life, but creating and continuing the existence of beauty. This seems sound to me, for it gives the lover so much power over that which he or she perceives to be beautiful. We individualistically conceptualize beauty, have the power to seek it in others, and then have the power to create further beauty through reproduction. It is not that we desire the beauty in others that we do not have, but simply that we seek beauty in others. The self’s beauty is irrelevant to the self, but is of the utmost importance to the lover of the self. This is why we see many relationships where individuals love each other, but have very different conceptions of beauty, and why we see relationships where the individuals have identical conceptions of beauty. It is common to find couples whose conceptions of beauty are dialectical, allowing for both individuals to love the beauty present in the other that the individual does not have in their own self.

Exegesis of "The Vienna Lecture"

           Edmund Husserl, in “The Vienna Lecture,” analyzes the difference between objectivity and subjectivity in the pursuit for knowledge. He hopes to reach those who are consumed by the task of defining a falsely objective reality, and pleads for them to reevaluate the real underlying subjectivity of their fields. Husserl is concerned with the historical path away from the spirit, ego, or self, and towards less important knowledge of the external physical world, one that people mistake to be an objective world. He claims that it is only through transcendental phenomenology that one can achieve a truly enlightened perspective of existence.
            Husserl first establishes the premise regarding philosophy’s nature as being a path to the infinite. The ideal achievements of philosophy, or that which should be sought by the philosopher, are not universal truths but are instead a path to the infinite regress of perceived truths. Husserl states, “There is the constant threat of succumbing to one-sidedness and to premature satisfaction, which take their revenge in subsequent contradictions.” This is what happens when an idea is not thoroughly fleshed out for its possible flaws, or when the initial attractiveness of an idea prevents the philosopher from adequately transcending from the initial idea to deeper concepts. The ideal philosopher must not be bogged down by the initial attractiveness of possible objective truths, but must instead seek to falsify or find doubt in the potential truths as a means of attaining a more enlightened and truly relative form of knowledge.
            The first step that a philosopher takes in his work is establishing the idea itself, the idea being a proposal based on our tools of cognition that offers a plausible explanation of something we do not know. Husserl mentions that, at first, the philosopher approaches contemplation from a one-sided and narrow minded perception. This narrow path will undoubtedly lead to seemingly wondrous ideas, but is only a partial philosophical examination and one that needs further analysis. This is explained when Husserl states, “If inadequacy announces itself through obscurities and contradictions, this motivates the beginning of a universal reflection.” This comes from his claim that no idea is wholly true or isolated from the infinite perspectives of the universe. It is essential that the philosopher address the potential fallacies of the idea in question, in an attempt at achieving what Husserl refers to as “constant reflexivity.” The constant reflexivity would then put the philosopher back on the path towards infinite and absolute knowing, or universal reflection. This path to infinite knowing is the path to realization, and realization is that which philosophy should strive to achieve.
            Husserl then contemplates the beginning of philosophy, and the perspective that the world is initially seen from, by the earliest of thinkers. At first, we are observers, simply taking in the sensual perceptions around us as we separate the physical world from ourselves, and then seek out knowledge about the nature of that physical world. The physical world at first seems objective, since we are so able to immerse ourselves within the community and within the importance of our practical lives. We are merely the observers, but we tend to forget this and take our own perceptions to be universal and objective. “The historical course of development…” as Husserl states, leads to a point in time where “…[the] first and great step of discovery is taken, namely, the overcoming of the finitude of nature already conceived as an objective in-itself, a finitude in spite of its open endlessness.” This is the transcendence from perceiving the world as finite and objective to the understanding of the “infinite ideals and infinite tasks” that make up a subjective universe.
            Expanding on this claim of subjectivity, Husserl then fleshes out the world view of the objectivist. He claims that an objective claim is an obvious one, and because of its blatant obviousness, it is also one-sided and naïve.  It is obvious because it is direct, based on observations and direct perceptions of the world around us. We see the physical world, and we feel the spiritual world, and we then proceed to evaluate the ideas of both and make causal inferences between them, inferences that we may not be wholly justified in making. Husserl concludes this paragraph by saying that the assumption that the spiritual being exists in the same space and time within nature as the physical being is the absurdity that fuels wrongful claims of objectivity.
            The power of objectivity is fueled by the power of mathematics, in that math seems to bring further order and objectivity to concepts that are not at first deemed so. The mathematician or scientist forgets that it is he doing the calculations and deductions, and thus mistakes the determinateness of mathematical probabilities and precisions to be universally objective.
This assumption, that the rationality of the individual is the unabridged and whole rationality of the universe, is what allows for seemingly objective conclusions about the spirit and the physical world to be made. By forgetting himself, the subject of the rationality, the scientist ignores the subjectivity of the rationale itself, and also the subjectivity of all subsequent claims made based on this initial relative rationale. After all, we cannot come to objective conclusions based on subjective premises. The subjectivity of the initial premises permeates itself throughout the entire argument so that any claims made can never truly transform to an objective state, even though we make think they do.
            Psychologists are amongst the worst offenders of this objective absurdity, in that they are attempting to explain the subjective soul via objective means. Scientists at least establish subjective claims and assumptions, that of which they claim to be objective, as a foundation for which to find further falsely objective truths. Scientists can ignore the subjectivity of rationality for the sake of establishing a thorough branch of knowledge that is based on their one particular rationale. The psychologist cannot do so, as the reality they are trying to study is already the subjective self, not the idea of an objective reality that the self is immersed within.  The goal of the scientist is accomplished, as they can learn extensively within the particular branch of rationale as long as he does not consider the potential subjectivity of the entire tree, starting at the roots. However, the goal of the psychologist is never truly accomplished, for they are not trying to extend knowledge from the roots of a subjective assumption, but instead trying to objectify and universalize the very subjective assumption itself, that being the identity of the soul. Beautifully, Husserl states the following, “But it is not a true psychology, any more than statistics about morals, with their no less valuable knowledge, constitute a moral science.” This analogy greatly clarifies the absurdity of trying to come to objective truths about a subjective field.
            The feigned objectivity of the sciences allows for humanity to learn a lot about the physical world around us, but we do not learn anything about our true spiritual selves. Husserl claims “Only when the spirit returns from its naïve external orientation to itself, and remains with itself and purely with itself, can it be sufficient unto itself.” This can be achieved through transcendental phenomenology, or the acceptance that the self is merely a spectator, and only one observer of a subjective reality. Husserl concludes his essay with a plea for transcendental phenomenology, claiming that Europe’s naturalism will be its demise unless a reform occurs. It is pertinent that we do not fear the idea of an infinite task, Husserl pleads, for it is the only true path to actual enlightenment. We must avoid the delusions of the physical world, and return to our spirit, where the most important and universal knowledge lies.

Introduction

In order to understand the relationship between destruction and progression, we must first analyze the mind's method of interpreting the sensations and experiences that are the most powerful. Normally, the mind analyzes and interprets events around us using our senses and our past experiences. For instance, if we see a picture moving in a frame, we can either interpret this as reality via our sensual perception, or we can use our prior knowledge to call this moving picture a television. Knowledge builds through this relationship, but so do emotions, wisdom, and strength. The word sublime, I will define as any experience that is exceptionally stronger than any past experiences. By "exceptionally stronger," I am referring to the emotional reaction to sublime actions. Merely learning does not qualify as sublime, since the strength of the acquisition of knowledge may often be mundane and unemotional, but learning through a sublime action evokes a strong emotional response to what is being learned. The majority of sublime responses come through emotional actions, like tragedy or aesthetic beauty. I refer to the experience as "learning" because as we experience something sublime, our minds are being force fed new and very strong ideas, or experiences, that expand our perception of the world.

One scenario that would evoke a sublime response is from witnesses of a great tragedy, like the bombing of the world trade centers. The emotions that are felt when watching such horrors are sublime because we know of similar tragedies happening, but the actual sensual perception of such an action is much stronger than just the knowledge of the event. The mind's ability to take in such a horrific event, and get over the event, leads to a stronger, more experienced self. The mind not only becomes more emotionally numbed to such tragedies, but also intellectually interprets the entire process as a whole as a means of growing. Although sublime does not necessarily refer to tragedy, understanding the sublime reaction is important because it is the start of the mind's path from destruction to progression.

When we experience loss, anger, confrontation, or any strong negative emotion, we are naturally inclined to the avoidance of similar responses. The mind does not like feeling afraid, insulted, or angry so we naturally avoid any action that poses a risk of these. If we are lucky however, the mind can take another step after merely attempting to avoid tragedy, and instead grow past the initial emotional wound or experience, just as a callus forms over worn skin. As we experience more and more tragedy's, arguments, insults, and pain, our brain's emotional callus grows and results in a stronger individual. Although this new individual may not be happy at first, they must remember that tragedy and pain are natural to life itself. We do have to kill other living things just to survive after all. The fearful avoidance of any situation is an adherence to the claim, "ignorance is bliss." Fear only keeps us from experiencing what inevitably occurs naturally and outside of our sensual perception, so we might as well use the existence of tragedy as a tool for our growth. Experiencing tragedies allows us to expand our knowledge of the world, improve our maturity as an individual, and strengthen our resolve when we are faced with similar tragic situations.

With this all being said, I must digress and urge the reader to take such a claim with a grain of salt. There is a crucial difference between fearlessness and stupidity that must be underlined. I think that living without fear is the key to living a beautifully fulfilled life. Living a beautifully fulfilled life however, involves actually living long enough to achieve such a status. Embarking on ruthless and careless adventures in an attempt to experience life is not encouraged as it will too often result in the loss of life. A crucial balance must be met in order to adequately grow through tragedy. Arguments, affronts, claims, beliefs, open-mindedness, and courage in the face of tragedy are all ways of becoming open to the many experiences life has to offer. I will conclude with a quote that too many people devalue, that being Friedrich Nietzsche's claim, "What does not kill me, makes me stronger."