A philosophical honorary to revolutionary soldiers

“Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav’n” - Satan, Paradise Lost, Book I Line 263

Independence is an interesting thing. How much do you value it? Is it not reasonable to believe that it should be valued above all else? Is sovereignty subject to pleasure? Should independence be sought only when it will be of utility (see Utilitarianism)?

The essential question that I place before us is this: Which is of more value? Independence? Or happiness?

“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin.” – John, Brave New World

Dependence is essentially a weakness. Although we’re all dependent upon certain things; we have to be. But at what point is it too much? John realized that the world in which he was thrust was one of debasement in which no one could live for themselves. The choices they made were unimportant and were laid before them by others. What meaning can an action have when one has no choice in it?

Ironically, Satan felt the same way, and rebelled against God. John reveals a telling insight when he notes that his brave new world was not only godless, but also sinless.

How much do you value your independence? After John’s line above, the conversation between John and Mustapha Mond continues:

“In fact,” said Mustapha Mond, “you’re claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“All right then,” said the Savage defiantly, “I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”

“Not to mention the right to grow old and ugly and impotent; the right to have syphilis and cancer; the right to have too little to eat; the right to be lousy; the right to live in constant apprehension  of what may happen tomorrow; the right to catch typhoid; the right to be tortured by unspeakable pains of every kind.” There was a long silence.

“I claim them all,” said the Savage at last.

It is my conviction that independence is the schemata through which actions acquire valuable meaning, and through which happiness can be absolved.

Genesis 1: The Beginning

And it begins! And what a beginning it is. Genesis 1 is a very straightforward passage, narrating the path God takes in fashioning the world. However, Genesis 1 immediately brings to light one of the most important questions, namely the form in which God is manifest. Obviously, the Bible speaks of God as a figure who creates, who can speak, who can physically interject his will into the world that he has created. This is no philosopher’s God, this is no Logos.

But is that really the case? When one speaks of being chased by Death, one does not actually assert that a hooded dark figure baring a scythe is chasing one around. Rather, Death is used as a personification of an idea. Does the manifestation of God serve a similar purpose? Is God as a physical incarnation merely a heuristic for thinking about a being (being?) which we cannot conceive (or only not adequately?)?

The Bible makes no attempt to answer this question (as far as I have as yet seen). But it is worth keeping in mind that although in the text God is referred to explicitly as a being with which one can converse, perhaps he is merely an idea with which one metaphorically converses. If this is so, then the personification of God is not without merit, yet it is a distinction with which one should dwell on.

In a similar vein, Genesis describes the world as being fashioned in seven days, but it may be valuable to consider that the world was not literally created in six days, but rather that this is yet again a metaphor for the work that “God” did in fashioning our world. God as a personification may stand for (amongst other things) the idea that the world as we know it gradually came into being through a series of occurances which we do not fully understand. What may seem to be seven days to God may to us appear to be eons, which resonates perfectly with the fact that our lives but merely a blink in life of our universe.

Exegesis: Commencement

Exegesis: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible. (dictionary.com)

I’ve decided that it’s about time that I familiarize myself with the religion of my forefathers.  As such, I have commenced an intense reading of the bible, beginning right with Genesis, and hopefully finishing at the end on Revelations.

My reasons for this are numerous. Foremost, there is no denying the importance of Christianity in our culture and in the development of Western Civilization. Despite the romance of indigenous European religions, there is no doubt that Christianity has been the most important religion in European history. As such, my readings of the Eddas shall have to wait.

I call this an exegesis because my reading of the Bible will not be merely cursory, but rather an in depth analysis of the text. I plan to make numerous posts narrating my voyage through this biblia sacra, and hopefully the insights that I make will reveal important truths regarding not only theology but also the history of Western Civilization.

Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid

I just finished GEB last night, but I gotta say, I have mixed feelings about the book. On the one hand, it was at times a delightful read, particularly due to the wordplay and the structure of the book. However, at other times it became fairly dense, and to be honest, I’m not sure how much I got out of reading it.

I’d like to compare it to another book, namely Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. The Critique was dense the whole way through, and although it didn’t have the little delights that peppered GEB, one thing that I enjoyed most was the sense of closure that one obtains when one finishes it. GEB in contrast didn’t really give many answers, not that I don’t appreciate the authors candor.

GEB seems more about getting one in a frame of mind, teaching one to think about things in a new way. And for that, the book is pretty amazing, and it made it an interesting read. But there isn’t much to refute, I almost feel as though the entire work was merely a Zen koan, but perhaps that is all that it aimed to be.