Analysis of David Hume

First, allow me to open with an analysis of Desmond Hume, from Lost.  In the series, Desmond Hume often bids farewell to other characters by saying, "See you in another life, brother".  One could argue that this other life is the afterlife, though it could refer to the metaphysical world.

The metaphysical world was designated by David Hume, a Scottish philosopher in the 18th century.  He suggests a parallel universe to the physical world made up of all the wills and thoughts of the population of the physical world.  In other words, a universe of philosophy constantly clashing.

Desmond Hume often represents this belief in the show as he is, literally, caught between various universes, though you would really have to watch the show to understand.  Furthermore, he is often at odds with other characters and submits his will to a certain cause, such as pressing a button every 180 minutes, just only will and thought exist in the metaphysical world.

Metaphysical world is such a clunky name.  For this purpose, I think we should refer to the physical world as, "Is" and the metaphysical world as "Ought", echoing the two words David Hume often used in his own analysis.

This is what I think of in class.

Is it possible that we can hear sounds that we really can't.  I mean we can only hear things in a range of theories.  But that doesn't mean sounds outside of that range don't exist.  (By "sounds", I refer to any wave that passes through space by means of vibrations in the air.)

So, maybe those sounds do pass through our ears.  Perhaps it is simply our minds that decide not to process them.  But those sounds might subconsciously affect our thinking.

Neo-Nominalism III

Notice the screens in the background.

As I mentioned last year, reality has value through discreet universes. The mind does recognize each of these individual universes. After all, what is the purpose of memory? But even for each universe, a new mind is born into it. If it is imaginable, the human mind is linked to it. What I am saying, essentially, is that every moment real or unreal that runs through our minds ultimately influences our decisions and reality. The scene shown above was a perfect illustration of neo-nominalism.

Here is a demonstration of consciousness in Eternal Existence.

I propose the concept of predator consciousness, prey consciousness, and universal consciousness. Somehow, animals evolve to develop ways of not being eaten by not tasting good or being poisonous. Yet does the prey always know what the predator is thinking? No. This is accomplished because the prey is linked to the reality of escaping the predator and also the universe of the possibility of being eaten. The prey consciousness and predator consciousness meets somewhere in these universes for them to be aware of how to escape or catch the other.

While I'm Going To Fail AP Euro...

Existentialism.

Existentialism is a philosophical school that emphasizes the concrete over the abstract and deals with what the human subject can readily perceive.  Though I never really realized this, much of my metaphysical analysis revolves around existentialism.

Look at the "about me" section (though I know it's not named that), and read it.  I suggest, unlike many other existentialists, that there exists no human being beyond a body.  This human being is made of and exists only within the human body.  A person has no personality beyond his or her brain.  A person has no breath beyond that within his or her lungs.  A person has no life beyond the beating of his or her heart.  If you kill a person, you kill a person.  The value of life does not exist beyond what we can make out of any single human being.  We're basically machines.

Then, you might ask, is it right to kill?  Well, it isn't right or wrong, but it's not very helpful so we don't do it.

So what about a fetus?  Is that not a life too?  Well, a fetus is a vegetable.

So why can't we simulate it in a laboratory?  There's really nothing you can simulate in a laboratory.

Unalienable Rights

The Declaration of Independence identifies rights inherent to the dignity and existence of mankind-life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But I propose, or, rather, reveal, my own five rights.

1. I hold and uphold that all "people" have the right to their own emotions.

2. I maintain that all "people" have the right to the action of desire.

3. That no force may ever contradict another's principles without destroying them.

4. That any force has the right to redefine "people".

5. That all beings, abstract or concrete, have the right to resurrection.

Among each of these Truths is the right granted to interpret as one wishes, though any opposition to interpretation is allowed. No argument can be made, however, that disproves all five of these rights at once.*

Мартин Джетских фланаган

*Go ahead. Try.

Daily Critique

I'm going to kick Pandora's Box and go for this.  In debate: Lassen Sie nicht die Kritik fallen!.  Don't drop the critique!   (I think.  I got that off a computer translator.  Probably totally false.  Check out that system that puts whatever you type through like 12 translators and see the result [on a side note, who the hell has time for that?].)

Anyways, I have to say, I really respect people that can just say "no".  Sorry for some misogynist 

"rhetoric", but it appears very difficult for girls to say yes or no.  Look at rsvp responses.   Girls tend to stick in the "maybe" section.  If it's a "no", make it a "no".  There shouldn't be:

Yes: 15

No: 3

Maybe: 13

And when one (referring to both sexes) says "no", life is easier.

If you talked to me at 7:20 yesterday, thank you.

I'm finally back.

Yaaaaaay.  To the 7 people that read this.  Yaaaaaay.

Recently, I've been watching the Brad Neely comics on Youtube.  And I can imagine they seem rather obscene and bland to many people.  But in reality, as a Poly student, I'm just picking it apart, trying to find the life lessons in it.  And I did.

Philosophers try really hard to be as far from moderate as possible.  But this is ridiculous because their job is to define hypothetical life for "the subject".  But because "the subject" is so moderate, contemporary philosophers are really distancing themselves from the truth.

Notgonnalie.  I do that.  But at least I know.