Rite and Ritual

World Philosophy Day

Posted on November 23rd, 2008 in Important Matters, observations philosophy

…is everyday for some people. I drive my wife crazy, which is why she doesn’t give me an opportunity for me to open my mouth on these things – wise choice.

The BBC’s World Philosophy Day article gave a a few ponderables that really aren’t that ponderable. Maybe because I think about them constantly as it is.

Question 1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Answer:
No we should not; The causes that bring about an event (5 people needing 5 different organs, or Question 2 and 4) are more complex, far reaching and more extensive in scope than any human mind can ever understand. Trust should be placed into the greater order that tends to balance itself out.

Question 2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

Answer: No – for one, I didn’t really read it as much as skim over it, and tomorrow I can talk about crazy philosopher hairstyles and dumb BBC questions with Jenn, while the Ben of two minutes ago couldn’t. I’m also 2 minutes older, and feel hungry.

Question 3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

Answer: As far as we define ‘reality’ and ‘computer screen’ and ‘front’ and ‘me’ as we usually do – yes. However, I would argue that with enough stimulus and lack of, it could cease to exist for me while not ceasing to exist altogether. Just as I think we are created by Gods that we in turn have created, reality is defined by cause and effect, and can be not only judged both subjectively and objectively, but can be judged so simultaneously. For example I could swear there was a cat running in the street, but when I got closer to it it was just a plastic bag moving with the wind. Did the cat not exist then? Certainly it did, if only subjectively and if only for a time. You could say the more permanence and objectivity an event has, the more ‘reality’ it possesses, but it certainly isn’t a boolean answer. To support my argument I’d draw on various documented (so-called) mass hallucinations; the number of cases of shamanic healing cases which are experienced both by the shaman and his patient and bring about a result; and the placebo effect, which is documented to be the most common reason (at least a high percentage, if my memory deceives me) for prescriptions.

Question 4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Answer: Yes and no. It is difficult to assume how much control each of us has in our lives. Choice in the question presupposes control, and control assumes knowledge. For example you cannot be considered to be in control of a car without knowing how to drive, and the knowledge of how to ‘drive one’s life’ is limited even in the best of us. As it happened I was slightly curious but not enough to read the whole thing. If I was more relaxed and less hungry, thirsty and sleepy (which would be an effect of the last few hours, days, weeks and months at various levels) I might have read the whole thing.

Choice is defined by your options and what you know about them. How you feel about something is defined by what you know think about it, and this can be out of your control. If NY Times or The Sidney Times (ok, I made that one up) had a smash PR Team, or if Heid was from Australia instead of Dan, then I might be reading something completely different – and thus would you.

This is fundamentally the basis of the neocon movement, and the propaganda movement started by Edwarrd Bernays that aims to “manage democracy” through “public relations”. The “documentaries” that TV was full of just before the Iraq war is a fine example of this. So is the success of a brand like Coka Cola or the second election of President Bush – perhaps any election, not in the least this last one.