A few things:

1. The intended audience of this blog is only myself. I do not mean to say that it is private: I do not care who stops by to see what I am writing, and welcome any comments. However, the purpose of this blog is to allow me a place to develop and mature my views. I know that most of the philosophy that I post here is in a immature state, without the advantage of ‘standing on the shoulders’ of much of what has come before. But I want to tackle those problems that I do not yet have solutions for, not necessarily those ones that mainstream philosophy does not yet have solutions for.

2. I am quite aware that much of what I say here is actually contrary to what many mainstream philosophers, and mainstream society, would accept as true. It is not my intent here to extend or adopt the views of others, but to develop a philosophy of my own.

3. However, I want my philosophy, to have considered those who came before. I ultimately want to see things uniquely and perhaps push philosophy a little bit. This is an ambitious goal, but regardless of whether or not I ever achieve it, I need to at least make the attempt. To be a philosopher is not merely to philosophize, but also (among other things) to be a non-derivative thinker. I am largely a derivative thinker now, but I want to understand precisely where I stand now so that I can with confidence push myself further.

4. At this point in my life, I have been studying philosophy (with varying degrees of diligence) since 2001 (in the academic setting– I started reading in 1997 and had been interested in basic philosophical questions, and the philosophical worldview, for as long as I remember).  As I have studied, I have reacted and posed new theories. These theories were very exciting to myself and some other people, but as I learn more and break into more advanced philosophical communities, I see these theories become obsolete. Furthermore, when I was beginning my study of philosophy, I could mentally review, without great contemplation, all that I have learned about philosophy, and I could clearly see the problems that I needed to figure out. Now, however, I have absorbed so much that I have lost comprhension of all that I have encountered. My body of knowledge is great but fuzzy, and it is difficult to move further on fuzzy memories of technical and complex philosophies. I am entering a new phase of being a philosopher– one where I need to catalog and work out my thoughts, in writing, of all that I know. I need an encyclopedia of my own mind, essentially.   

I have started this project in a few different forms, although both are in their infancy.  First, I have begun to assemble a compendium of lectures that I give regularly. I need to be more diligent in this, as most of my lecture notes exist on hand-written sheets for a few days before they meander into the trash. These are some reflections, and some statements about what is the most common and obvious way of interpreting various philosophers and philosophical problems.

The other project that I have started is a sort of summary of Spinoza’s Ethics. It is not merely  a summary, but an argumentative summary. That is, in the study of Spinoza, I understand the controversies a lot better than in other areas of philosophy. And when I wish to lecture on Spinoza, I want to lecture on what I believe to be a true interpretation–or the best interpretation that my intellect and judgment bring me too–not a misguided one.

This very post might seem like an expression of what I have said here before many times, for example. But my notions about how to use this blog are itself a philosophy, as are my notions about how to continue my growth as a philosopher. And so I need to revisit the same problems again and again, hopefully advancing them as I go on.

This post here is non-technical, and I understand that one project that I wish to undertake at some point is to make it technical.

As far as I can see, a particular consciousness can only appreciate the true genius in a particular art after that consciousness has tested its own in that same art.

Only once I have attempted poetry do I appreciate Shakespeare’s sonnets, or any other type of poem. Only when I have recognized my limits in philosophy do I receive a strong impression of how superior Nietzsche or Schopenhauer is to me.

Solitude is a skill nowadays. It requires patience, and patience grows or dies with practice. When there are no distractions, embracing solitude is simple. But living in 2009, in a major city with constant internet access, requires a certain discipline. This discipline requires both the ability to avoid distractions when the desire to embrace them arise, but also the complete lack of that desire, because resisting the desire is exhausting after some time.

I see the world as in conflict between many competing forces, however slowly this conflict rolls out: but the conflict is most fierce within the person. Each person is a vortex of conflict, although different people experience this to greater degrees than others.

The process of the conflict works according to laws, and they cannot be controlled by a free will. What occurs first determines what occurs next.

Understanding both the conditions and laws of the conflict is a necessary part of achieving self-determination.

The ‘self’ is nothing but one’s body of knowledge of both these conditions and laws.

Heraclitus basically voiced this philosophy first, but then it was modified and adapted by Aristotle, Spinoza, and Nietzsche, among others. Dewey seems like a candidate, and possibly Whitehead as well. I have only read about Whitehead, but he was the proponent of something called ‘process philosophy,’ and from some of the details I’ve read, it looks compatible in its most general form.

I had a dream last night that Dogfish Head of Delaware opened up a Brewpub in Chicago. It was extraordinary: steaks, mashed potatoes, clams, mushrooms–and of course, a massive selection of beers from one of my favorite breweries.  

I think the dream was induced by the Palo Santo Marron beer I had on Saturday at The Hopleaf. Truly, this is one of the most amazing beers I have ever had. I do not know how to describe the scent or flavor, but it is strong, and unique. All beer lovers must try this immediately. 

It is expensive: at the Hopleaf, it cost $10 for one 12 oz. bottle. You’ll need to head to a liquor store with a massive beer selection, like Binny’s or Armenetti’s, if you are in Chicago.  Whole Foods may occasionally carry it too.  Smaller stores won’t carry them. I imagine you can buy a four pack for $10 or $12.

The reason for trying to put into words my philosophy is not an attempt to say the ‘final word’ on the subject. Rather, I want to understand clearly where I stand now, so I can better evaluate where I need to go. Growth, in a worthy direction, requires insight not only of what one’s aims are, but of where one is now. You cannot navigate by only knowing the destination: you must also know the current location, the terrain in between, and the ever-changing details about the mode of transportation’s mechanics.   That is self-knowledge, not just of what one is now in the present, but of what the direction of one’s entire life is. That is philosophy.

1. The world, properly understood, is one in absolute flux– there are no discrete ‘things’ because they are constantly changing, affecting and being affected by the world around it. (For any given object, there is no discrete line between where the object ends and the rest of the world begins)
2. The flow is determined by laws that are not subject to the will of the mind, but can be understood to some degree.

3. The essential part of all things is the striving for their own preservation and increased power. Note: However, as expanded on below, the thing can only be aware of its existence if it has a mind, it must understand the links between cause and effect in order to have power, and the principal effect, which determines whether or not any knowledge is trivial or worthy by whether or not a cause directly links to it,  is the preservation and increased power of the thing itself.
4. There is no ‘I’ in the soul/cogito sense– the mind should be understood as a stream of ideas, brought about by previous causes and bringing forth new conditions.
5. Obviously, the ‘I’ has no freedom– from 2 and 3.
6. Knowledge of the laws of process, and the streams that largely flow through the self, allow one to better steer one’s self in accordance
7. The mind is our fundamental place of existence– we do not ‘live’ in the material world– we live in the phenomenal world.
8. In order to have freedom, the mind must grow in its understanding of the world.
9. Our ideas of the world are formed by looking at clashes, conflicts and resolutions.
10. Education depends on exposing the mind to contrary ideas that we believe are relevant to the expansion, preservation, and empowerment of the self.
11. Incorrect ideas, especially in regards to Good and Evil and the nature of truth, destroy our freedom.
12. One’s character is moldable over time, by first understanding how to mold it and then having the strength of will to bring into affect the necessary conditions to motivate the change.

13. The pursuit to preserve one’s self and to increase the breath of the self (which, recall, is not the body, but the body of knowledge of one’s self) is the greatest human virtue: happiness.

I need to write a book, or long essay– or some type of constitution of my philosophy, in a technical and succinct way so that I can think through this chaos of core beliefs and feelings soon. And the constitution: not a strict determination, but a navigational plan for where I see myself growing– an Apollonian backbone for the Dionysian chaos of life so that it can all be understood to some degree.

I began one last week, but did not have the time to finish it. I did one, of a sort, a long time ago, while I was still in the Marine Corps. But it has been a decade, and everything has changed–although not the heart.

Heraclitus, Nietzsche, Aristotle, and, of course, Spinoza.

These do not come in any particular order for me. They rotate– I believe, ultimately, they are very much participating in the same essential perspective, but representative of different aspects, times and cultures.

I do not know Heidegger well at all, but he may very well be a candidate for this pantheon.

Of a second order, Marquis de Sade, Michel de Montaigne, Erasmus.

For any measure of value, the conception of an aim for which the thing fulfills is necessary. I take that particular aim to be the fulfillment of the goals expressed in my previous post.

There are still vast swaths of philosophers, novelists, and poets to uncover. And yes, as I continue to broaden my understanding of things, I will eventually be able to appreciate and absorb musicians, psychologists, dancers,  scientists, and painters and sculpters as well.

I loved this week. I am falling in love with philosophy all over again. It has changed me in ways that I could never have predicted. Who I am now would be unrecognizable, and even appear evil, to who I was at age 18.  But philosophy, and all the philosophical aspects of the arts, are a vast ocean of the possibilities of human spirit– new frontiers for who I may possibly become in the future. It is thrilling and intoxicating. I have been on the point of tears numerous times this week, not due to an object of the external world, but because of witnessing the vast oceans of potential humanity within myself, the mystery, the chaos, the challenges to come. The being to come. I feel full, but expanding. Truly, it is an amazing thing to be a human being with a healthy mind.