So I’m not sure what this whole blog thing is about. In fact I think I am about a decade late as far as having my own blog (Judging by the people I know/ have known). It seems video blogging is the new fad, but I think the fact that I have a face for radio precludes me from partaking in that. Do I want to ramble on in internal monologue mode about things I think? Do I want to write professional and (hopefully) intelligent articles? I decided to start writing a blog to delay the inevitable decay of my mental conditioning, and I’m not sure what sort of blog might serve better in that respect. That reminds me, I wanted to introduce myself.
I am a married twenty something, unemployed and over-educated in a useless field. I am extremely handy, and am frequently asked by (many) people do things I don’t necessarily know how to do, but I’m fairly capable, and things normally work out. I am a homeowner and pet owner, interesting stories behind both of those things, but I digress. I’m beginning to sense a theme.
So, were going with rambling internal monologue with this one, maybe in the future I’ll try to be more professional, but this is my first, and I would rather write what I know. On that note, I would like to ramble a bit about my extreme over education in philosophy. Philosophy was not my primary course of study in college; It was my minor. I majored in biology, a questionably useful field (I’m told its useful, but I’ve yet to get a job with said degree), and had a philosophy minor. The biggest mistake I have made in my life is, without a doubt, getting a masters in philosophy. Now I went to the University of Glasgow, which means I got to live in Scotland for a year while completing my studies, but it was the most wasteful year of my life. I spent fifty thousand dollars on a degree that I am actually embarrassed to have.
For starters it was one of the easiest things I have ever done. Coming from a science background, I was used to the concept of a right answer and a wrong answer; In chemistry, physics, biology, and all other sciences I needed for my degree you needed to study to know the right answer and the wrong answer was everything else. This is not so in philosophy. Interesting answers are what are desired, and a decently intelligent human being can fabricate interesting philosophical answers on the spot, with little to no knowledge of the subject matter. This is because all of philosophy is contradictory and convoluted.
It begins with the pre-Socratic philosophers – a number of interesting men, with interesting, albeit incorrect, ideas about the world around them. They hold an important place in history as being the first on record to question the nature of everything around them, but aren’t really important for anything else. Then you have Socrates, the most influential man in philosophy who never wrote a book himself, and his disciples Plato and Aristotle, although one was the disciple of the other. Convoluted, eh? Now I’ve taken a lot of classes on all of these philosophers, and could write papers on their ideas, in fact I have now that I think about it, but the real world usefulness of any of them is nill. These fellows gave birth to modern philosophy, which is all aggravatingly useless.
Metaphysics: the study of existence. It is impossible, using logically sound metaphysics, to prove that you exist, awesome. If I can’t pull that off, what use is this?
Epistemology: the study of knowledge. You can actually use this to prove it is impossible to know anything. Wow. Also, the most useful thing I’ve seen this used for is to prove that a lottery can be won (If you don’t believe me, or don’t understand and care to, I can give a lecture on this topic, it was my friend’s master’s thesis, and we discussed it constantly)
Ethics: the study of action. Arguably the most useful branch of philosophy, occasionally used to justify evil things. Some of the more interesting things I’ve read have been written on the topic (see Nietzsche, honestly he is brilliant)
Politics: the study of force. Yea, I’ve always thought everything in this was trash. I would rather not get into it.
Esthetics: Study of art. Interesting up until a point. The fact that it can be used to justify modern art as being art in the same way the classical artists are is bothersome.
Now that I’ve read what has been written, I confess it is a bit whiny and doesn’t really back up any claims made with facts, but honestly I don’t know that I can be bothered to back these things up. People who agree with these sentiments probably don’t need proof, and people who disagree are unlikely to be swayed. I don’t know that I really mind any of that; it really just feels good to write something. Till next time.