About this blog
October 15th 2006 17:54
Purpose of this blog
Like the Big Brother house, you can never really forget that people are watching, but most of the time I'm trying to forget.
Mainly this blog is for me.
I'm using this blog, firstly, to give me some incentive to write every day -- to gain whatever benefit there is out of a daily habit of writing. (And, incidentally, the idea that daily writing is good for the self goes back at least to the Stoics -- see Foucault's essay on "Technologies of the Self".)
Frankly, I think it works. I think I've grown by writing, whatever that means.
Secondly, I try to record a lot of what's meaningful to me. Some entries are more personal than others, but I do pour a lot of living into the blog as a whole.
Can't remember who said it, but the quote goes something like "All literature is born from the desire to preserve".
Thirdly, I use this blog to rid myself of obsessions. I've got this anal retentive thing where thoughts go around my head, and, out of compulsion, and sometimes out of pleasure, and with hugely varying degrees of success, I try to find patterns and explanations and answers.
Rough ideas roughly worked out...
And if what obsesses me bores the shit out of you, well them apples the breaks, and, hey, there's a good chance it bores the shit out of me as well. But at least I've got it out of my system, you see.
And finally, I half think about grabbing the best of these posts and (self-)publishing them into a book of aphorisms that no one will read. Ask me about this in two years time, and we'll see.
History of this blog
I've been writing these sorts of entries, on and off (mostly off), since 2001.
Can't quite remember why I started, but I heard about the idea of online diaries on a radio talkshow.
Before then, I was spamming people's inboxes and voicemails with philosophy-type theories and discussions. I was producing short stories and prose poems (had just spent two years on various creative writing courses). I was writing a lot of short analyses about English usage and distinctions in meaning. I was responding to "gobbet" questions in classics exams, where the idea is basically to vomit out whatever points of interest there are about a passage. And I was reading Nietzsche. So maybe it all clicked together.
I've since found I'm not alone. There's been plenty of people who've spent their lives accumulating rubbish-books full of aphorisms and thoughts. But, strangely, there's not many blogs that do it (not quite in the same way, anyway), and not many philosophers who do it.
What are your qualifications?
I don't have postgraduate qualifications in philosophy, and I'm not currently studying for them.
I have three undergrad-level degrees: in Latin and Greek, in editing and publishing, and in philosophy. And there’s other things I’ve studied without completing (mainly: law, creative writing, acting).
I suppose my first introduction to philosophy was a children's book on the subject -- brief profiles of the big names. But I didn't read what the big names wrote till I started Greek, and I didn’t really attend a philosophical lecture till university, when I learnt about “Postmodernism” from a day course by Ray Younis.
Why aren't you responding to my comments, dammit?
Well, I'll have read your comment, have thought about answering -- and, for whatever reason, will have decided that a proper answer was too time-consuming. Sorry about that! I'll be grateful that you've taken the trouble to read my insane ramblings, but the fact is that I don't even have room in my life to post to this blog regularly, or respond to personal e-mail. You may get an answer in a couple of months', or a couple of years' time -- I keep a list of everything I've yet to respond to -- but unless it's an urgent query, then {insert emoticon for shrugging}.
Original response to this question here.
This shit ain't philosophy
Oh damn. I'd better stop writing then...
This is a large question, and one that I don't really find that interesting. There's all sorts of ways to define philosophy, and to me there's something inherently suspicious in the act of definition (what's at stake? who stands to lose or gain?).
The only sensible way to proceed, in my opinion, is to write and think about whatever you want to write and think about, without regard to whether it's analytic, continental, eastern, whether it's philosophy or pseudophilosophy or religion or theory or some sort of attempt at literature, and even whether it's sense or nonsense.
In general, I prefer to avoid "philosophy"; I regard it as too vague a word. Now, I did call this blog "Philosophy Blog", so there's some sort of assertion there -- but if you disagree, I'm perfectly happy for you to consider it a misnomer.
Could you write about x
Leave the suggestion somewhere, and I'll think about it.
Or if you don't want to ask me, ask a real philosopher.
What's the deal with the "consciousness" category
It's badly named, but it's basically entries where I try to capture what it's like to be in certain situations, feel certain feelings, experience certain experiences. It's not really about questions of mind; it's more about Umberto Eco and his jeans.
Could I reproduce something you've written
Sure, go ahead. I tend to be of similar mind as Matt Stone and Trey Parker on the matter. But don't alter the text without permission (and do credit me as the author, with a link).
Images on this blog are thought to be public domain, creative commons, fair use, etc. But no guarantees are made -- reproduce them at your own risk.
Like the Big Brother house, you can never really forget that people are watching, but most of the time I'm trying to forget.
Mainly this blog is for me.
I'm using this blog, firstly, to give me some incentive to write every day -- to gain whatever benefit there is out of a daily habit of writing. (And, incidentally, the idea that daily writing is good for the self goes back at least to the Stoics -- see Foucault's essay on "Technologies of the Self".)
Frankly, I think it works. I think I've grown by writing, whatever that means.
Secondly, I try to record a lot of what's meaningful to me. Some entries are more personal than others, but I do pour a lot of living into the blog as a whole.
Can't remember who said it, but the quote goes something like "All literature is born from the desire to preserve".
Thirdly, I use this blog to rid myself of obsessions. I've got this anal retentive thing where thoughts go around my head, and, out of compulsion, and sometimes out of pleasure, and with hugely varying degrees of success, I try to find patterns and explanations and answers.
Rough ideas roughly worked out...
And if what obsesses me bores the shit out of you, well them apples the breaks, and, hey, there's a good chance it bores the shit out of me as well. But at least I've got it out of my system, you see.
And finally, I half think about grabbing the best of these posts and (self-)publishing them into a book of aphorisms that no one will read. Ask me about this in two years time, and we'll see.
History of this blog
I've been writing these sorts of entries, on and off (mostly off), since 2001.
Can't quite remember why I started, but I heard about the idea of online diaries on a radio talkshow.
Before then, I was spamming people's inboxes and voicemails with philosophy-type theories and discussions. I was producing short stories and prose poems (had just spent two years on various creative writing courses). I was writing a lot of short analyses about English usage and distinctions in meaning. I was responding to "gobbet" questions in classics exams, where the idea is basically to vomit out whatever points of interest there are about a passage. And I was reading Nietzsche. So maybe it all clicked together.
I've since found I'm not alone. There's been plenty of people who've spent their lives accumulating rubbish-books full of aphorisms and thoughts. But, strangely, there's not many blogs that do it (not quite in the same way, anyway), and not many philosophers who do it.
What are your qualifications?
I don't have postgraduate qualifications in philosophy, and I'm not currently studying for them.
I have three undergrad-level degrees: in Latin and Greek, in editing and publishing, and in philosophy. And there’s other things I’ve studied without completing (mainly: law, creative writing, acting).
I suppose my first introduction to philosophy was a children's book on the subject -- brief profiles of the big names. But I didn't read what the big names wrote till I started Greek, and I didn’t really attend a philosophical lecture till university, when I learnt about “Postmodernism” from a day course by Ray Younis.
Why aren't you responding to my comments, dammit?
Well, I'll have read your comment, have thought about answering -- and, for whatever reason, will have decided that a proper answer was too time-consuming. Sorry about that! I'll be grateful that you've taken the trouble to read my insane ramblings, but the fact is that I don't even have room in my life to post to this blog regularly, or respond to personal e-mail. You may get an answer in a couple of months', or a couple of years' time -- I keep a list of everything I've yet to respond to -- but unless it's an urgent query, then {insert emoticon for shrugging}.
Original response to this question here.
This shit ain't philosophy
Oh damn. I'd better stop writing then...
This is a large question, and one that I don't really find that interesting. There's all sorts of ways to define philosophy, and to me there's something inherently suspicious in the act of definition (what's at stake? who stands to lose or gain?).
The only sensible way to proceed, in my opinion, is to write and think about whatever you want to write and think about, without regard to whether it's analytic, continental, eastern, whether it's philosophy or pseudophilosophy or religion or theory or some sort of attempt at literature, and even whether it's sense or nonsense.
In general, I prefer to avoid "philosophy"; I regard it as too vague a word. Now, I did call this blog "Philosophy Blog", so there's some sort of assertion there -- but if you disagree, I'm perfectly happy for you to consider it a misnomer.
Could you write about x
Leave the suggestion somewhere, and I'll think about it.
Or if you don't want to ask me, ask a real philosopher.
What's the deal with the "consciousness" category
It's badly named, but it's basically entries where I try to capture what it's like to be in certain situations, feel certain feelings, experience certain experiences. It's not really about questions of mind; it's more about Umberto Eco and his jeans.
Could I reproduce something you've written
Sure, go ahead. I tend to be of similar mind as Matt Stone and Trey Parker on the matter. But don't alter the text without permission (and do credit me as the author, with a link).
Images on this blog are thought to be public domain, creative commons, fair use, etc. But no guarantees are made -- reproduce them at your own risk.
| 100 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Anonymous
But doesn't that give you an unfair advantage? (or maybe you just said you have those qualifications...). Anyway, why should you get credit for having done that work, which only makes it easier for you to discuss the subject of the blog, "philosophy", even if you do disown it somewhat by saying that we may regard it as a misnomer, if we want. Is this having your cake and eating it too?
For that matter, why should anybody get credit, kudos, prestige, maybe money and girls just because they had the brains to come up with some clever idea, that turns a buck, or intrigues and stimulates people to new and interesting things? eh?
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I have to admit, I don't quite follow it, and I can't tell if your comment is serious.
But I take it you're suggesting, firstly, that I shouldn't be blogging because I have some sort of unfair advantage.
Well, one thing to say in response is that my posts are pretty crappy. So qualifications schqualifications, you know?
You suggest, secondly, that nobody should get credit just because they have a good idea.
I think this is a pretty interesting suggestion, and a very difficult one to reply to. I don't know if I agree or not.
Another example is the talents that people are born with: some are tall enough to play professional basketball, others have natural language or maths ability, etc. And this genetic unfairness is central to problems like that of educational funding: should you spend your money on the smart kids, so that they achieve even more, or should you spend it on the disadvantaged kids, to create a level playing field.
Well, frankly, I have no answer. What are your own thoughts?
In a communist society, I think part of Marx's idea was that no one should receive special benefit, but that everyone should only have as much as they need (though he believed that needs can vary between individuals).
In capitalist societies like ours, there is the idea that unfairness should be encouraged because competition breeds excellence, and the benefits trickle down to everyone.
Most countries these-a-days seem to have an unstable mix of both types of ideas...
Comment by LaurenD
LaurenD
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World
I'm having a problem in finding another interesting blogs, can you help me out? You've been there more time than me, so..
cheers. Uula
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Among my favourite blogs are:
Eat French Bread -- she has a quirky and interesting aesthetic sensibility, and an eye for beauty in the everyday
Slurred Words -- stories of drunkenness and sex -- tres amusement
Coffin Conversations -- dark, perverse, bizarre alleged news articles
Stories of Wisdom -- I think there's lots of wisdom in these zen parables
Ramble On -- she's very intelligent and she talks about a handful of topics I find interesting
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World