Objects in space
I tried, between shouting about some upcoming party, theories about costumes for said party, the endless discussions about christmas and som movie analysis, to explain something of the theory of Perspectivism today. I had only very mild sucess I belive, so I'll give it a try here instead:
The whole thing starts with Schopenhauer, the man with the crazy hair, as can be seen here. His theory of 'the world as will' starts with stating that Kants idealism in many ways is a good theory, and gives him (Kant) credit for establishing beyond doubt that the world around us (humans) truly exists. Schopenhauer then points out a few things about this theory:
Anyway, Schopenhauer then proceeds to try to explain why we are never satisfied. He claims that since we misstake the impressions as being actual objects we start wanting them (our will is directed towards them), we belive that once we get them we will be happy. But once we do get them, there appears other objects or impressions that we will towards, and so on. The only escape from this is to accept that the objects are only impressions and that they stem from us rather than from the world, and thus they are not something we can resonably will towards. The way to minimize unhappiness then, is to live with as little of these objects around us, to be askets. This is, however, a futile way that can only minimize, it may be a way away from total unhappiness, but it does not lead to happiness.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche, the man with the moustache, studied Schopenhauer and was immensley facinated by Wagner. He stated, as a modification to Schopenhauer, that we are not controlled by a 'will to live' as much as by a 'will to power'. Nietzsche says that life is secondary to power in that the reason for us to want to live is so that we can keep and expand our power. The reason we have to assume that this is indeed our ultimate goal, he says, is that it explains our actions better than other such goals (such as will to happiness or will to be good or other such goals).
Now, in nature, says Nietzsche, those stronger (in a broad sence of the word) will erradicate the weaker ones. Note that he does not say what sort of strength will prevail, it could, depending on the situation be intelligence, physical strength, strength of will and so on. This, he says, is the natural order of things, it is the way things were before religion interfered with the way of things. Religion imposes upon humankind, according to Nietzsche, a moral for slaves and is a pestilence since it counters humankinds striving force for power.
Nietzsche belived that we have an unique opportunity to rid ourselves of this slave moral due to the progress of industry and science. In effect, he claimed, science has killed god. We strive for power, and in that create our own destinies. This is a thought that in some ways is very similar to the fundamental thought of the existentialists, that existence for humans comes before essence. If we rid ourselves from the slave moral we will develop, by our freedom of will and our strife for power into a new state of evolution, the infamous 'Ubermench'. This part of his theory was later on missinterpreted by the nazis and we all know how that went.
Perspectivism
This, then, finally leads us into the whole point of this little text, Perspectivism. This is in some ways a middle ground between the rationalist idea of objectivity and the sceptics idea of subjectivism. Nietzsche meant something like this:
Humans can't not have impressions, they form our world view very fundamentally, and as such they are objective, that is, we can't imagine them not being true, and since they only exist because of us they are therefore true. In another sence, we, as individuals may very well not have the same impressions at all, or not even similar.
For all you who think that this is a silly idea, it does not have to mean that if we all look on the same ball we see different things, it may instead be as simple as two persons living under completely different circumstances. Imagine, if you will, that you meet a pygme who has lead his whole life in the rain forest living in tune with nature, deciding things collectivley with his tribe - how many things would you agree on concerning what is important, what the world is and so on? Not so many, I would imagine.
So in that sence our impressions are very much a private thing, they are subjective. But who can say who has the better view of the world, the pygme or you? Noone, says Nietzsche, they are both equally valid. They can coexist without problem, they both are objective, in a subjective sort of way.
This is Perspectivism then, the idea that even though we have some objective sence of the world, it is not the only objective sence of the world. I think it is a rather beautiful idea.
The whole thing starts with Schopenhauer, the man with the crazy hair, as can be seen here. His theory of 'the world as will' starts with stating that Kants idealism in many ways is a good theory, and gives him (Kant) credit for establishing beyond doubt that the world around us (humans) truly exists. Schopenhauer then points out a few things about this theory:
- It also states beyond doubt that the objects of the world are totally unknown, and indeed unknowable to us
- In spite of this Kant attributes at least one thing to these objects of the world: they give us impressions
- Kants theory also makes it obvious that the only way we ever can gain knowledge is by impressions (i.e. the empirical way)
- To say about the objects that the send us impressions is to say something which we can not say since we can never know anything about the objects themselves. All we know about are impressions of objects.
- All we know, then, is: We have impressions and those impressions are the only source of our knowledge. Therefore what we call objects are indeed impressions, i.e. the objects could not exist without us perciving them.
Anyway, Schopenhauer then proceeds to try to explain why we are never satisfied. He claims that since we misstake the impressions as being actual objects we start wanting them (our will is directed towards them), we belive that once we get them we will be happy. But once we do get them, there appears other objects or impressions that we will towards, and so on. The only escape from this is to accept that the objects are only impressions and that they stem from us rather than from the world, and thus they are not something we can resonably will towards. The way to minimize unhappiness then, is to live with as little of these objects around us, to be askets. This is, however, a futile way that can only minimize, it may be a way away from total unhappiness, but it does not lead to happiness.
Nietzsche
Nietzsche, the man with the moustache, studied Schopenhauer and was immensley facinated by Wagner. He stated, as a modification to Schopenhauer, that we are not controlled by a 'will to live' as much as by a 'will to power'. Nietzsche says that life is secondary to power in that the reason for us to want to live is so that we can keep and expand our power. The reason we have to assume that this is indeed our ultimate goal, he says, is that it explains our actions better than other such goals (such as will to happiness or will to be good or other such goals).
Now, in nature, says Nietzsche, those stronger (in a broad sence of the word) will erradicate the weaker ones. Note that he does not say what sort of strength will prevail, it could, depending on the situation be intelligence, physical strength, strength of will and so on. This, he says, is the natural order of things, it is the way things were before religion interfered with the way of things. Religion imposes upon humankind, according to Nietzsche, a moral for slaves and is a pestilence since it counters humankinds striving force for power.
Nietzsche belived that we have an unique opportunity to rid ourselves of this slave moral due to the progress of industry and science. In effect, he claimed, science has killed god. We strive for power, and in that create our own destinies. This is a thought that in some ways is very similar to the fundamental thought of the existentialists, that existence for humans comes before essence. If we rid ourselves from the slave moral we will develop, by our freedom of will and our strife for power into a new state of evolution, the infamous 'Ubermench'. This part of his theory was later on missinterpreted by the nazis and we all know how that went.
Perspectivism
This, then, finally leads us into the whole point of this little text, Perspectivism. This is in some ways a middle ground between the rationalist idea of objectivity and the sceptics idea of subjectivism. Nietzsche meant something like this:
Humans can't not have impressions, they form our world view very fundamentally, and as such they are objective, that is, we can't imagine them not being true, and since they only exist because of us they are therefore true. In another sence, we, as individuals may very well not have the same impressions at all, or not even similar.
For all you who think that this is a silly idea, it does not have to mean that if we all look on the same ball we see different things, it may instead be as simple as two persons living under completely different circumstances. Imagine, if you will, that you meet a pygme who has lead his whole life in the rain forest living in tune with nature, deciding things collectivley with his tribe - how many things would you agree on concerning what is important, what the world is and so on? Not so many, I would imagine.
So in that sence our impressions are very much a private thing, they are subjective. But who can say who has the better view of the world, the pygme or you? Noone, says Nietzsche, they are both equally valid. They can coexist without problem, they both are objective, in a subjective sort of way.
This is Perspectivism then, the idea that even though we have some objective sence of the world, it is not the only objective sence of the world. I think it is a rather beautiful idea.
CO2
They finally managed to get a deal in Bali. I'm very surprised. This challenges my whole outlook on the world, perhaps everyone isn't a bastard? But no, that can't be it. It would have been it if they'd done this 20 years ago, but now? Now it's just egocetered survival instinct.
No matter. They did make a deal, though it sure is a watered out one. Of all nations the United States seem to be the one with least survival instincts, which is hardly surprising since it is also the nation with most fanatics in the world. So they stopped the deal from containing actual percentages that we in the old industrialised world should cut our outlet of CO2 with. They obviously don't care about the future.
But there are other candidates to the title of least survival oriented nation. China and India for instance. These countries fall in the general category of "Under-developed" countries, alongside Bangladesh, Somalia and countries that really belong to the third world due to the explotation of them from the colonists and world wide inustries like Coca Cola Company. Yet their part in the CO2 problem is very large indeed, and will soon be bigger than that of the US and european countries. They talk of historical debt, that is a suspicious concept indeed.
Do europe have a historical debt? It is true that we have a history of not caring what our industries do. It is true that from a historical standpoint we and the US have let a very very large portion of the now present CO2 out into the atmosphere. But a debt? Ok, if it implies that we did it, so we have to make it go away, then I'm there, but if it implies, as it does when you listen to the negotiators from China, that they (China and India) should be allowed to increase their CO2 outlet however much they want, then I do not agree at all.
Analogy: I kill someone, does that give everybody else the right to kill as many as I did? No, but it leads to my getting a punishment. I let out 1 ton of CO2, does that give everybody else the right to let out 1 ton of CO2? No, but it is my responisbility to stop what I'm doing and try to plant as many trees as I can to help reduce the damage I caused.
Again though, they did make a deal out of necessity, and maby the will actually stick to it and save the world. But probably not...
No matter. They did make a deal, though it sure is a watered out one. Of all nations the United States seem to be the one with least survival instincts, which is hardly surprising since it is also the nation with most fanatics in the world. So they stopped the deal from containing actual percentages that we in the old industrialised world should cut our outlet of CO2 with. They obviously don't care about the future.
But there are other candidates to the title of least survival oriented nation. China and India for instance. These countries fall in the general category of "Under-developed" countries, alongside Bangladesh, Somalia and countries that really belong to the third world due to the explotation of them from the colonists and world wide inustries like Coca Cola Company. Yet their part in the CO2 problem is very large indeed, and will soon be bigger than that of the US and european countries. They talk of historical debt, that is a suspicious concept indeed.
Do europe have a historical debt? It is true that we have a history of not caring what our industries do. It is true that from a historical standpoint we and the US have let a very very large portion of the now present CO2 out into the atmosphere. But a debt? Ok, if it implies that we did it, so we have to make it go away, then I'm there, but if it implies, as it does when you listen to the negotiators from China, that they (China and India) should be allowed to increase their CO2 outlet however much they want, then I do not agree at all.
Analogy: I kill someone, does that give everybody else the right to kill as many as I did? No, but it leads to my getting a punishment. I let out 1 ton of CO2, does that give everybody else the right to let out 1 ton of CO2? No, but it is my responisbility to stop what I'm doing and try to plant as many trees as I can to help reduce the damage I caused.
Again though, they did make a deal out of necessity, and maby the will actually stick to it and save the world. But probably not...
Pretentious?
Someone told me this blog seemed pretentious, or was it serious? Well in any case, this is one of the few people that I actually showed it to, so I should probably stop this right away, right? Who on earth wants to be percived as pretentious and serious?
That said, I won't stop (yes, impossible projects is my hallmark). This will never be the place to go if you want a daily update of some sort, if you do want that, watch the three minute news or read the bulletins the evening papers put out. This is in fact a serious page! No really, I'm serious. Things here might take a little more time, they may also be a bit harder to read than one row paragraphs, they will seem pretentious. It's the whole point. If I wanted to read light hearted stuff, the net is crammed with that already, there would be no need for this site.
I don't expect a lot of readers - they way the Internet works is largley based on daily updates that are read in under two minutes - but that doesen't really matter. I do this for myself, in fact I like to read my own stuff. Yes, that is correct. I am self righteous in addition to serious and pretentious!
So, whats the point of theese ramblings? The net is, to an alarming degree, not serious. I want more good content on the net. I try to put good stuff here instead of "often stuff". There is very little stuff for the sake of stuff here. The person that told me this seemed serious and pretentious actually have one of the most serious and pretentious sites I know of, and I like it a lot. Society, in some majority kind of meaning of the word, is very afraid of seriousness.
Yes, all of the above, but mostly the last point. Also, I hope the negotiations in Bali goes well.
That said, I won't stop (yes, impossible projects is my hallmark). This will never be the place to go if you want a daily update of some sort, if you do want that, watch the three minute news or read the bulletins the evening papers put out. This is in fact a serious page! No really, I'm serious. Things here might take a little more time, they may also be a bit harder to read than one row paragraphs, they will seem pretentious. It's the whole point. If I wanted to read light hearted stuff, the net is crammed with that already, there would be no need for this site.
I don't expect a lot of readers - they way the Internet works is largley based on daily updates that are read in under two minutes - but that doesen't really matter. I do this for myself, in fact I like to read my own stuff. Yes, that is correct. I am self righteous in addition to serious and pretentious!
So, whats the point of theese ramblings? The net is, to an alarming degree, not serious. I want more good content on the net. I try to put good stuff here instead of "often stuff". There is very little stuff for the sake of stuff here. The person that told me this seemed serious and pretentious actually have one of the most serious and pretentious sites I know of, and I like it a lot. Society, in some majority kind of meaning of the word, is very afraid of seriousness.
Yes, all of the above, but mostly the last point. Also, I hope the negotiations in Bali goes well.
