switchfootprincess’ Neighborhood

hoarse grin

I greet you from the other side
Of sorrow and despair
With a love so vast and shattered
It will reach you everywhere
And I sing this for the captain
Whose ship has not been built
For the mother in confusion
Her cradle still unfilled

For the heart with no companion
For the soul without a king
For the prima ballerina
Who cannot dance to anything

Through the days of shame that are coming
Through the nights of wild distress
Tho' your promise count for nothing
You must keep it nonetheless

You must keep it for the captain
Whose ship has not been built
For the mother in confusion
Her cradle still unfilled

For the heart with no companion
For the soul without a king
For the prima ballerina
Who cannot dance to anything

Leonard Cohen - Heart with no companion

~~~ 

sometimes, I only need to hear a line of a song to love it. this most frequently happens with leonard Cohen songs.

x

I found this today. Pretty interesting quote, imo. Looks like I've found another book to read. :)

"My intention was not to deal with the problem of truth, but with the problem of truth-teller or truth-telling as an activity … Who is able to tell the truth? What are the moral, the ethical, and the spiritual conditions which entitle someone to present himself as, and to be considered as, a truth-teller? About what topics is it important to tell the truth? … What are the consequences of telling the truth? … And finally: what is the relation between the activity of truth-telling and the exercise of power, or should these activities be completely independent and kept separate? Are they separable, or do they require one another?"

-Michel Foucault, Discourse and Truth: the Problematization of Parrhesia (1983)

Thought this was shiny and exciting -

http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?idf=SEMEVLXRA0G&type=V

Wow, I can post here again.  The long drought has been because my company's proxy server wasn't letting me type in these text boxes for some reason.  Apparently it's fixed.

In the meantime, I've been posting over at wordpress.

I think I'll continue to post there, and perhaps crosspost here.

Bored at work, I'm doing some reading on my buddy, Nietzsche. It's been a while since I've actually been able to read something thought provoking. Today I actually found something interesting.

First, I found this great quote:

There is in general good reason to suppose that in several respects the gods could all benefit from instruction by us human beings. We humans are -- more humane. Beyond Good and Evil, aph. 295 (1886)

Second, I'm pretty familiar with Nietzsche's philosophy, but every now and then I'll read something and my reaction is, "Wow, now I actually get it." This happened with the following two paragraphs.

With the PARABLE OF THE MADMAN, Nietzsche has established that Christian morality is dead and we ourselves are responsible. There are no higher worlds, no morality derived from God or Nature because "God is dead." There are no natural rights and the idea of progress is a sham. All the old values and truths have lost their vitality and validity. Such an opinion is called nihilism. There are no moral values. Nietzsche said man could rise above nihilism. How could this be done? Well, first, one had to recognize the nihilism produced by everyday life. One had to become a nihilist. One could then rise above and go beyond nihilism by creating new values: man could then become his own master and be true to himself rather than to another. "Du sollst werden, der du bist." Man can overcome uniformity and mediocrity, he can overcome socialism, democracy, trade unionism, progress, enlightenment and all the other ills so consistent with western civilization.

According to Nietzsche, man could be saved by a new type of man, the "Übermensch," the Superman. These are the men who will not be held back by the hogwash of modern-mediocre-industrial-scientific-bourgeois-Christian civilization. The superman creates his own morality based on human instincts, drive and will. He affirms his existence not by saying, with the Christian, "thou shalt not." No. Against the Mosaic law, the new man shouts, "I will." The new man dares to be himself and as himself, traditional, Christian ideals of good and evil have no meaning and he recognizes them as such. His "will to power" means, for Nietzsche, that he has gone "beyond good and evil." The enhancement of the will to power brings supreme enjoyment. The Superman casts off all established values and because he is now free of all restraints, rules and codes of behavior imposed by civilization, he creates his own values. He lives his own life as one who takes, wants, strives, creates, struggles, seeks and dominates. He knows life as it is given to him is without meaning -- but he lives it laughingly, instinctively, fully, dangerously.

 

Some day I'll add something of substance to the presentation of these links... maybe.

So, I've been thinking about truth a lot lately. Namely, I've been wondering how important truth really is in our lives. Does truth really matter that much? Most of us make a big deal out of it, but is it really that big of a deal? Does it define us? Does it determine our lives?

In other words, does truth determine our character, our virtue, who we are? I've been thinking about this because I wonder how many of us judge people based on what they think is true and a particular situation I'm in.

I've been hanging out with this girl for a couple of months. We finally had the "relationship" talk, and she essentially told me that my nonbeliever status may be problematic for her (She's a devout Christian). So, we are still hanging out but there's no relationship there. I hope I'm not setting myself up to get crushed....It's kinda feels like it because she hasn't told me that my nonbeliever status won't be a problem...

Anyway, I told her that I understand her concern but disagree with it. After she left, I was pretty bummed about it. She can't potential have a relationship with me because I'm a nonbeliever....Why does what I believe to be untrue or true matter at all? Shouldn't my character, virtue, my life goals, who I am, etc, matter more than what I find to be true? I think so.

It makes me wonder if truth is separate from what really matters about us. At the end of the day, I don't think it determines who we are and how we act. For some reason, I think other things do that. For example, you can't really discuss the truth of character, virtue, or your existence. These things just are; they aren't a function of truth. I haven't decided what they are a function of, though.

When I look at a person, I see a person. I don't see a Christian, Muslim, or atheist. These labels deal with truth propositions, not the person's character or virtue. I am not defined by my truth. I am defined by who I am. At least that's what I currently think. 

The phrase "God is love" is quite a popular phrase among Christians. It's an interesting phrase that doesn't make too much sense at first. But after thinking about it for a bit, one simply understands that God is considered to be the ultimate example of love, which, theologically speaking, makes sense. The thing is, love is supposed to be limitless, without boundaries. It is universal in that all can concretely experience it and see it in action. There is no presupposed truth that is necessary to make love valid. Love is simply love.

But there must be some presupposed truth in order to make God valid. And, well, God essentially lives in a box made out of limits and boundaries. (The box is called theology.) Plus, isn't our understanding of God finite, thus we will never be able to comprehend him fully? That's a huge limitation. So exactly how can something--that is, God--with limits and boundaries, and not really universal (there is a zillion concepts of God, all differing in some sort of fashion), be the ultimate example of love?

When it comes down to it, we shouldn't extend the most important human characteristic to a supernatural concept. In my humble opinion, humans should be the ultimate example of love. But I know what you are thinking, "We aren't perfect." Well, first, is love supposed to be perfect? Probably not. Second, if love is supposed to be perfect, and God is supposed to be the epitome of perfection and love, can we honestly say that God is perfect? After all, we can't exactly know that he is perfect if we can't fully comprehend him. Moreover, what good is perfect love if we can only experience and represent love that is far from perfect? This doesn't belittle our human love. If anything, I think it shows that we may not be as "imperfect" as we think.

Perhaps what I want to say the most is this: the only thing that can represent love is love. Love is love. Not God is love. Not cake is love. Not orange is love. Love is love. Why? Because only love itself is limitless, separate from our beliefs, non-beliefs and narrow-minded perceptions. 

I normally give C.S. Lewis a hard time. But, surprisingly, I found this interesting quote: