Positive thinking

I just spent half an hour talking to Jehovah Witnesses at my door, discussing how you should just enjoy everyday. How there is no way of knowing if there is a god or not, so you should just embrace life. Because if this is all there is, why waste it hoping that what happens next is better?

I didn't change their opinion and they didn't change mine, but for 30 minutes I was me again. I was happy and positive.

This week has been pretty shit, but I'm ok. Nothing is ever as bad as you think it is and there are always people who have it worse, so why be upset about anything?

Last Friday (not yesterday) I graduated PMA. I now have a postgrad. Pow. The nine weeks leading up to that day where amazing, I learnt so much and grew up an awful lot. A concept that has always scared the shit out me, but I'm accepting it. I'm a better person for it. Everyday.

We created a trade magazine called Festival Business, which is incredible. Check out our website (which will hopefully be better soon): www.festivalbusiness.co.uk

Next step is finding a job on a magazine. I have been applying all week to different publications, trying to master the art of the cover letter. Journalism makes me so excitable and the thought of spending the rest of my life in the game is simply perfect. The PMA folk reckon we should all be employed in no time, so I'm not too worried. I'll just keep pushing forwards, 'cause determination is something I have heaps of.

A couple of days ago I decided I needed an adventure, so I will be going on a Mount Kilimanjaro trek in February to raise money for the Alzheimer's Society. I chose to help them as my dad has Alzheimer's and I can see what it does. It makes you feel helpless, as if there is nothing you can do to make a difference. So I'm going to try, even if I'm just helping people in the future.

I have yet to register for this adventure as I need £400, of which I have zero pounds. But I'll get it. Then I will raise at least £4k and get fit enough not to die. It's exciting. I've never been on a trek before, so I should probably have picked somewhere easier for my first attempt, but heck, I've never been one to do things by halves.

With days filled with nothing but free time at the moment, I am keeping busy, but this should mean my blog should start getting more attention again. I've missed you!

SP

On Death, Descartes and Exam Times

My Modern exam is on Friday so I have been sat here attempting revision.

I took this picture before my Religion exam the other day. Sat getting those last-minute moments of greatness when I figured if I didn't know it by now, a last stab wasn't going to change anything. Luckily, it was Religion and I love the subject so it all went pretty well I guess. The best so far. 

I've gone for colour co-ordinating stuff this year, in the hopes of my brain being able to store things better. I think it's working. 

In yesterdays Phenomenology exam I was writing about Heidegger and Being-towards-death which hit a nerve a bit. On the way home my bus stopped for an unusual length of time at a bus stop with one of those 'don't let your friendship die on the road' posters, which made me think about Carrie and Chelsea (the friends hit by a car on Jan 1st) and remind me how much I hate the world sometimes. It's unfair and cruel and I have no idea how people are meant to deal with it. Heidegger said something along the lines of death being the one thing we're always moving towards but can never understand. It's the only thing we cannot understand through somebody else's experience; someone else dying doesn't help me understand what death is. It's this abstract idea that we're constantly surrounded by but will never get our heads around. 

Theists posit ideas of an Afterlife. I imagine theories on what happens next were created to make the whole process seem less scary. It means the end doesn't have to be an end. It means when you lose someone they don't have to be gone. It offers peace of mind to some degree. 

Let's take the resurrection approach to an Afterlife: On the last day we are all brought back. Our bodies are resurrected and continue in an afterlife with a god or something. For materialists all we are, are our bodies. There is no soul. So for a resurrection to be possible our bodies would have to remain in tact. Van Wagenen said only those whose bodies were not destroyed would make it; this implies our ancestors wont. Humans decompose, everything does; that's how it works. Chances are on this version, we wont make it either... 

Then he offered some crazy theory of God in his omnipotence storing the dead bodies in a magical freezer until it was time but replacing the bodies with look a likes so nobody got suspicious. Obviously for a materialist the Afterlife, though not impossible, seems unlikely. 

Then there is more of a common idea on the matter that we all have souls and when we die these immaterial entities rise up from our bodies and head to paradise. This makes an Afterlife more plausible; if you believe in the soul.

I remember when I believed in all this. I remember thinking that maybe Heaven was different for everyone and that it didn't matter what you believed, 'cause it would be moulded around that. Different religions weren't in conflict and everyone would get a happy ending. Looking back I can't help but think I was a little naive. 

But then people die. And people start talking about them watching over you and waiting for you and being happy and all this stuff that I can't relate to. I hold my tongue out of respect, because why the fuck should I try to take the little bit of comfort they get from such ideas because I'm sceptical. I don't think we could possibly know anything about any sort of supernatural or any immaterial existence or being based on our material, natural existences. 

Maybe there is something, but theists all fall in their theories in my opinion. Mostly because they think they have the answer before they begin. The answer is always God. They then commence to prove why they are right. They're not looking for what the answer could be because if it's anything other than what they want it to be they don't want to know. 

I'm agnostic about it all. 

There are so many different theories and gods and rules that all came about to suit the time they are found in. Religion offers people what they need. Take the ancient religions for example, they offered answers that science hadn't found yet. They were replaced by an all powerful being, because it sounded scarier and followers of the old religions converted just incase this new angry, jealous god took vengeance on them for believing in the lesser gods. 

None of this matters right now though, 'cause I'm looking at Descartes. He feigned scepticism to break down everything we know just so he could build it all back up again and prove that there must be a god. The God. But it's like he gave up. In fact, it's like he never even tried. All he wanted was to show there had to be God and there had to be a physical world, so when he got to the part about explaining how we know anything he rested it all on the fact that God wouldn't lie to us. 

But I realise, instead of getting angry at him I should just make notes and move onto Spinoza and Hume, 'cause regardless of any of this, I have an exam on Friday. I have three exams left before I finish. I have been working towards this for such a long time that I shouldn't just give up in the last leg. The world around me is a reminder than none of this matters much in the grand scheme of things, but it used to matter so much. £20K in debt or however much it is, shouldn't be in vein. I guess. And I'd be so disappointed in myself if I didn't do what I should be capable of doing. So I'm going to push for the last couple of weeks until it's over and I have to start working out what to do next. 

Socrates constantly echoes in my ears reminding me the only thing I know is that I don't know anything.


Oh and to the guys who's blogs I've not checked out in a while, I apologise! I have a lot to catch up on when all this revision and such is over with!

Names, Reference and God

After getting up to vote this morning (I could discuss the UK elections but my brain isn't currently up to such a task), which I hope any Brits reading this would have done too, I headed to the library for a revision day. I've lost lots of revisions days thanks to one reason or another so am swiftly running out of time before my first exam Monday. But all will be ok... She says, in a non-commital tone...

I had a revision day yesterday with a few philosophers, which left me feeling as though I'm lacking. I adopted a new revision technique (kinda) and a gauge of where I should be and how far I have to go; however nauseating, did give me some direction. So today I rocked up to the library, armed with some felt tips and coloured paper to tackle reference.

What is it about a name that allows us to talk about something? If I'm talking to you about 'Plato' how is it we both know who I'm talking about? 

This was more or less my day (up until 4pm): following an argument through and realising the complexities of language. I now know that just 'cause something means the same thing it can't just be interchangeable.

Pennie Varvarides = SuperPennie

Pennie Varvarides = Pennie Varvarides

Well, we can't just substitute one out for the other or we'd lose meaning. We don't gain anything from the second statement so it has to be something deeper.

I have thought about attempting to go into what I covered today properly, partly as it'll help towards my revision and partly 'cause it's kinda interesting. Only, I doubt that all that many of you want to be reading a philosophy essay (though I know there are in fact a few). So instead, if any philosophers have anything to say about name and reference or about Mill, Russell, Frege or Kripke please, leave a comment.

On taking a break from Logic and Metaphysics (which is Mondays exam) I met with a friend to discuss religion. We got side tracked a lot and I discovered one of our class mates actually found God so to speak, when most of us in studying the subject went the other way. This made me think, maybe there's something I missed. Maybe one day I'll work out what that was...

We tried to work through the design argument and pretty much concluded that theists make up a few dodgy arguments and assume it implies some omniscient being when really all it does is show humans like to make inferences.

Paley uses the example of a watch and the watchmaker to claim that the universe is the same. That because we wouldn't look at the intricate mechanics of a watch and not assume it had a creator so why look at the world and think it sprung up all on it's own. Only mechanics and nature are as different as can be, so why should they fall to the same rules?

Anyway, I just thought I'd share my day and leave you all something to think about. Feel free to share your thoughts on names or God or whatever in the comment section below; I'd love to know what you think.

I'm currently sat outside the library enjoying the cold air and waiting for rush hour to end so I don't need to squish into a metal tube with too many other people. I like my space.

Ooh talking about the underground, I've handed out a few more business cards today and gave my friends some to pass on! The group is growing faster with each day =] Be sure to get involved!