And now for something completely different

I'm posting again because frankly reading through the previous post makes me wince. Substandard bullshit. If any of you feel the same way I do apologise (for all the good that does (I've been using parentheses more often haven't I (z0mg parentheses in parentheses. AND ANOTHER! I actually did this once in an older draft but I lost that awesome rambling paragraph of like 4 layers of parentheses.) ? I suppose it gets confusing after abit. People, this is not the way to write. Excuse my obsession with parentheses.) , which is bugger all)

After receiving some -very- constructive feedback on my previous post I feel obliged to compensate by writing another post. TWO POSTS IN TWO DAYS. Enjoy it while it lasts. Also, the voice in my head is suddenly English, so I'm reading all of this stuff (what I type) in a fantastic British (London (oh look, more parentheses!)) accent.

To begin, Baldur's Gate is a CITY, Jerome. It is a city. It is not a gate. It is a city. Again, a CITY. Once more, and repeat after me on this, "Baldur's Gate is a city." Named after Balduran. The adventurer. Balduran. Baldur's Gate. You see how it works?

And now for something completely different.

Philosophy is not actually an abstract thing. I say this because many people are automatically disinterested the moment a conversation moves towards discussing such a topic. From the Greek (And I quote from Wiki, which is actually pretty reliable on the more significant pages, despite what people will tell you) "φιλοσοφία (philosophia)", which literally means "love of wisdom". Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Talking to some people, the moment you even mention a long word, they begin to say, "Okay I don't know what you're talking about." This is insulting to yourself because you are implying that you do not have the sufficient intelligence to comprehend it (Although frankly it just sounds like a more polite way of saying "I don't want to talk to you." Come to think of it, that's probably the intended meaning. Hm. Whaddya know). The main reason why this is annoying is that most of the time, you are fully capable of understanding it. For instance, suppose I say, "I do not think that moral objectivism holds true. Instead, I believe that morality is a relative concept that is dependent on the context, i.e. the society in which this morality is being discussed." You may not know what "Moral objectivism" is, but by listening to the second sentence, it is not a difficult task to infer that moral objectivism probably means the belief that morality is objective (again, this is GP. Compre skills). And if you're not sure, you can always ask, "What is Moral Objectivism?" On a completely unrelated note, I realise I'm writing walls of text again.


My main point is that most of the time, when someone says something, and you think/say that you don't know what is being said, do you truly not understand, or are you just not trying to understand? For instance, if I start talking about "Mohist consequentialism" (found this term on wiki), you may not be familiar with the philosophy of  墨子, and it is excusable that you are not familiar with consequentialism (though only barely. Still, it is a 6 syllable word.). But if I say moral objectivism, as an 18 year old JC student taking GP at 'A' Levels, it is not really convincing to say that you don't know the words "Moral" and "Objectivity". IN CONCLUSION, the next time someone says something long/seemingly complex, before blinking and staring in stunned silence or simply proclaiming that you have no knowledge on the matter, actually take a moment to think about what is being said and review your knowledge, seeing if you truly have no bloody idea what is being said.


Because I've forgotten (yet again) what I want to say for the rest of this post, I'm gonna put in some filler material, which will probably help me remember. I need to start writing stuff down. Keep forgetting what I write in my blog posts. Sadly for those of you who are seeking a more base form of entertainment, it is still philosophy. I'm gonna try and write(type) out my philosophy on certain matters, which I've come to over just a few months of occasional reading and a bit of thinking and debate.


First, and I think, most pertinent (or at least the least boring (again, this is bad writing. If you know you're boring people, you should probably change what you're writing)) to my readers, I am an atheist. It is not a stand I have come to simply out of a desire to rebel against any specific social order, and it is definitely not so I can proclaim it. I was raised Buddhist (though that is debatable. More of raised Chinese. I wasn't really educated on Buddhist principles. Although I've picked up some over the years), and in primary school I tried being Christian (-GASP- (shock and horror) yeah it happened). The reason why I essentially stopped believing in Buddhism was that I couldn't really believe in the concept of becoming enlightened through removing craving (in any form). I haven't gone through it, so frankly I can't say if they are right or not, but I can safely say I would not wish to. With regards to trying to be Christian, I actually seriously considered it. Eventually I concluded that the reasoning did not make sense TO ME (this is important because it may make sense to others. I cannot judge because there is no way to confirm that everyone's minds work in the same way, or even whether other people have minds at all (this is solipsism). Or maybe my own reasoning is inadequate. Regardless, this is besides the point) and so I stopped believing in it. After reading arguments for both sides over the years, I've decided that it is much more likely that there is no God. Note that my view is not that there is definitely no God, but that it is impossible to prove that there is a God, and that it is highly unlikely. Of course, you are free to believe what you want, since, as mentioned previously, my reasoning may be inadequate, or simply just that our minds work differently. 


Second, I do not believe in moral objectivism. I think that morality is a relative concept, dependent on the society in which one lives and was raised in. DISCLAIMER: Just because I say that nothing is intrinsically wrong (since I said morality is not objective), DOES NOT mean that I condone it. For instance, I may say that killing is not intrinsically and universally wrong, since it is only wrong relative to human society (Lions don't seem to have a problem with it), but it DOES NOT mean that I condone killing. In fact, for all my reasoning and all that, my morality is actually rooted in an irrational adherence to what my feelings tell me is right (which, in most situations, are congruent with societal notions of right and wrong), which I suppose ultimately comes down to social conditioning. Interesting.


Ooh I remembered what I wanted to say (see above if this line is confusing). Philosophy is boring if everyone agrees. I would really like to be able to talk to someone about philosophy and have them disagree with VALID ARGUMENTS. Most of the fun of Philosophy is in debate anyway. It is somewhat annoying (yet strangely satisfying), and does get dreadfully dull when I argue for determinism by presenting arguments and citing relevant analogies, to hear, "Yeah, I think so too". At least tell me why you think so too (unless you happen to have the exact same line of reasoning.)


Abrupt ending because I can't think of what to write for the moment and I'm kind of sleepy. There is a significant chunk of text to wade through already, anyway.