previous - archive - next - current

Here's my thoughts on Stef's journal...

She mentioned how "the simplest observations can be more accurate than any of those experts out there". What I have to say to this is - NO SHIT! HELLO?! I mean, OBVIOUSLY, ANYONE can more accurately state something simple such as "this pen contains ink" or her example of "the sun is going to rise tomorrow" (which I reluctantly use, as the sun doesn't RISE, according to experts' proof, which we take as accurate). Now, just like a FOOL can state something simple, that doesn't take away from the fact that - so can an expert. The difference is, a so called fool cannot state much more than the simple... while a so called expert can state the simple along w/ whatever other findings that expert has. True, the findings have more of a chance to be inaccurate than the simple observations, but personally, I'd say it's better to have simple observations along with likely accurate more complex observations that may be very useful, and that we could not have observed if we are not highly educated on the topic at hand. What I'm saying to her journal is... while we may not know what truly IS valid... we have to trust the "experts" in some things, because that'd be our best bet. I highly doubt someone can become an expert in so many fields that they would not need to consult any other experts in any field for anything.

True, it may get tricky when you hear CONFLICTING information from supposed experts in the same field... which is why I say - it isn't our job to come to the conclusions ourselves in areas that are not our expertise, but to do RESEARCH and then figure out which source may be most reputable... often you may not know... And if it's something like healthy food and whatnot... you could experiment... try what one expert recommends. See how it goes - try what another recommends. Then compare. Personally, I often would like to find out as much as I can about MANY areas... however, this usually means not being an "expert" in any one thing... I can't quite decide which is better - being fairly knowledgable about many different things, or being VERY knowledgable about one or two things... The former is likely to be more helpful in a wider range of situations... however, you are never extremely good at any one thing, which I know is a pain in the ass. I'd like to be able to do something REALLY well, and truly there IS nothing. I just don't put in a lot of time/effort into any one thing. I don't practice my drums/guitar/whatever every day. I don't program often. I don't do math in my free time. Writing - I do and don't... I don't do it as often as I would if it was something I was to be an EXPERT in (this IS probably the most... possible one... it would just require me to get BETTER..which I guess would come w/ experience and more reading). However, thinking is the only thing I do quite frequently - hence philosophy. Logic, thinking, all that, for me leads to philosophy. I guess in a sense, philosophy IS sort of being an expert at applying yourself to a number of different situations, because it's the art of thinking. Using logic to come to various conclusions... which can be valuable in any situation. So, then, if you are so inclined, you may choose to take these skills from philosophy and apply them to something - a specific topic... and become an "expert" on it. And with philosophy, the possibilities are more or less limitless... you can apply it to nearly any topic you wish. Some may require more work/research/acquiring of information and whatnot than others, but that's besides the point. Philosophy teaches you how to THINK when it comes to ANY topic. It's just up to you to pick that topic and apply your wonderful philosophy skills to it.

Yeah, really, taking philosophy is like taking a course in how to think. Which, I believe, is more valuable than any other course you could take... other courses usually teach you how to do specific things - especially things like maths, sciences, computers, engineering... Arts. That's where more freedom lies. There, you learn to think. Not in all area of the Arts, mind you. But some. And I believe that philosophy is at the top of it. While some areas of the arts teach you to think as well, they are all more limiting than philosophy, because the ENTIRE point of philsophy is to THINK. To love and pursue wisdom. Yeah... for some reason, I really do tend to, in my mind, elevate philosophers above the rest of humanity, because I believe that philosophers are more adept at thinking than any other human beings on the planet. My goal - become a philosopher. It'll be a long road... but I'll get there. When will I have "gotten there"? How will I know? I don't think I will... all I do know, is that I'm not there yet. Definitely not. But I'm very eager to dig into the University aspect of it...

This is the most clear and confident sense of myself I've had... I mean, figuring out... what is it that I frequently do, that I enjoy doing, that I'd like to become extremely good at by getting a University-level education in it? And it's right there - philosophy. AKA, the art of thinking. Mmm. I almost feel like saying "I can't wait to learn to think". Because, really, I've only just started my path. I can't think yet. No, not the way a philosopher can. And I don't have a problem with it, because I know that if it were that easy to become a thinker like that, everyone could do it. But no, it takes work. And I'm about to make a commitment to it, and be on my way to being a true thinker. So far, I've had little bits and pieces of it thrown at me... But I'm going to try and use University as a way to really COMMIT to it, and conquer it. Hmm... how do you spell that word? It can't be conquer. That looks wrong. Almost looks like it says "conqueer" lol. Hmm, well, according to spellcheck I was right - conquer. Who'da thunk it?

Anyway... sorta going back to Stef's journal... it really is interesting how we do just trust experts when they say "smoking is bad for your health" or anything of that sort... yet we have so much trouble trusting those close to us. People we'd never heard of before, we can trust... but those we care about, our friends... we have issues trusting (unless we're one of the few who really DON'T trust anyone - not the reputable sources, not friends, no one). But I mean, really, what other choice do we have but to trust them? If we don't - then how would we know whether smoking is good or bad for us? Do we experiment? But how will you know? You'd have to become a medical expert yourself and gather evidence to see how smoking influences your internal organs and what that does to your overall physical health. We're told that it's a negative effect, and we trust it - why shouldn't we? What reason would they have to lie about it? That's really what we have to look at - and although we can never know for sure... it'd be fair to trust them if they seem to have no reason to lie about it... but you'd really have to stop and think. I mean, my conclusion that they have no reason to say that smoking is bad is one that I come to by quickly searching my brain for a reason experts may say smoking is bad when really it's not. Maybe I would find one, if I stopped and examined it more. I doubt it, but still... I don't know - I guess it's also the fact that... we see people around us getting influenced positively/negatively by certain things... and usually that is in line with what we hear from experts, so we see no reason not to trust them. Mind you, we could get super-paranoid and say that they have people working for them to be proof of their evidence, but let's not go there... really now. I don't think we're quite there YET. Maybe one day. I truly do wonder how paranoid we should be. Well, we shouldn't. It's not gonna do you any good. But, I just mean... how much of what we just automatically trust SHOULD we trust? How many lies are fed to us on a daily basis? How much is there hidden? Is it as bad as 1984? Well, I mean, in the sense that there is nearly that much control... but it's just being hidden? Or maybe things are nearly as clear as they appear... maybe there isn't much hiding going on. That I doubt, but you never know. Maybe we're all just a bit too paranoid... I don't know. You don't know. I don't know if anyone knows.

I can feel that I've gotten to the point where I'm pretty tired and tend to really drag on quite a bit, so I'll stop, before it gets to be too much.

Oh, and one more note: I think I've decided that it's much easier for me to write about things others write about. It seems like any topic could spark up a whole brain fart, such as the one here, but I need something to just kinda POKE me. Stef's journal, for instance, poked me. Rarely will I write about things that hadn't "poked" me through another source - such as others' journals, or a book I'm reading, or something someone said/wrote, whatever. So I think if I *do* read someone else's journal, I'm not gonna hesitate to write about it. I did stop myself on the pot topic because really, every journal I read had a post about it. I *could* write a little rant on it, but I'm not going to.

Ooooh, and I can't wait till this weekend and everything after it... this weekend shall be eventful, both days. Then, not long after, I will probably go to a local show... not long after that- attend not one, but TWO parties at Stef's, and a few days after that... the Fervid Whisper show. AAAAND then, a few days after that, ORIENTATION WEEK! And after it - CLASSES! So, really, starting this weekend, it's gonna start looking busy. FINALLY! I've gotta get in some time during the week, either this week or next to see Sid (and to meet Josh) and to see Liz - because I miss her; because I haven't in about a month.

So, almost 3am now... dear bed, here I come.

previous - archive - next - current