On theories.
Hi everybody!
It's good to be back on Blog Collective. I just finished reading a very interesting post on theories at another blog. I admit to being one of those people who promiscuously bandies about the word "theory." To defend myself a little bit, though, I only do this as a substitute for using even less applicable, more specialized words like "philosophy" or "ideology" for people's ideas.
Anyway, the post made me think about whether or not I have any of my own half-cocked theories by which I live my life. I like to think of them instead as little morals, earned from experience, dispensed only when solicited (unsolicited advice is a huge pet peeve of mine) and only with the best of intentions. They seldom make any grand statements about the universe or existence. For example, when at a university library with a copy shop nearby, always check out your book if you can, make copies at the copy shop, and then return the book. Library copiers are usually more expensive and break down easily. Or, a more recent discovery, try not to get a graduate degree in a field that differs from one's undergraduate major. You will have a lot of catching up to do.
My less pedestrian insights are probably only of interest to me :)
It's good to be back on Blog Collective. I just finished reading a very interesting post on theories at another blog. I admit to being one of those people who promiscuously bandies about the word "theory." To defend myself a little bit, though, I only do this as a substitute for using even less applicable, more specialized words like "philosophy" or "ideology" for people's ideas.
Anyway, the post made me think about whether or not I have any of my own half-cocked theories by which I live my life. I like to think of them instead as little morals, earned from experience, dispensed only when solicited (unsolicited advice is a huge pet peeve of mine) and only with the best of intentions. They seldom make any grand statements about the universe or existence. For example, when at a university library with a copy shop nearby, always check out your book if you can, make copies at the copy shop, and then return the book. Library copiers are usually more expensive and break down easily. Or, a more recent discovery, try not to get a graduate degree in a field that differs from one's undergraduate major. You will have a lot of catching up to do.
My less pedestrian insights are probably only of interest to me :)
put here by Anonymous at 7:24 PM
4 Comments:
Who says what's good and bad, the law(s) in a country, which are based on borders that are watched by armed guards?
Isn't the premise (of both articles) that we have our own laws/theories/philosophies, that we in turn live by or practice? And if not our own, then someone else's (i.e in the form of laws, or rules)?
So another point arises: Is it more "dangerous" to live a life based on someone elses theories/philosophies, or your own?
Damned good point, Peter! Thank you!
Wasn't it Dostoevsky who said something like:
"I'd rather be a failure in my own path than a success in someone else's" -- or something of that sort?
I consider myself a bit of an existentialist (among other things), and you're totally right to point out that we should live by our own rules, not by anyone else's values.
The problem as I see it is still that people come up with their own rules for things that are half-thought-out (at best) and which they do not bother to test in experience. If people uncritically adopt any set of theories/principles that they come up with, that's about as bad as uncritically adopting someone else's rules.
It's like the lazy way to Nietzsche's revaluation of values. We can't just throw out all values without reflecting and tapping with our little idol hammers to see what's hollow. We can't just come up with theories to live by without regarding the living experience in which these theories might make a difference and impact the world. "Oh, I think that all people do X because Y. Look at me! I figured out existence!"
And, speaking both as an existentialist and as a transcendentalist, I think that being intellectually/morally lazy/irresponsible enough to use someone else's theories/princples/rules is self-destructive in a manner which is totally unacceptable. And it makes the world a shitty place to live in.
Too bad it's always stupid white Americans who do it. I should call these half-thought or un-thought theories "Wal-Mart theories" -- LOL.
(Kidding, I've been known to leave Wal-Mart with a full cart myself.)
Hey, man, I said "white Americans," not Christians. lol
Pluralism rocks and all that, but it won't solve people's half-assed theories. A plurality of unreasonable crap is still unreasonal, no matter how open or multifarious it may be.
Maybe requiring that people reflect and test (etc.) goes against pluralism and is partially closed-minded. If so, then I am totally biased against stupid people (white and American or not) and their half-thought-out agendas. I detest them and would remove them all to another planet (or the deep of space) if I could.
There, I said it:)
P.S. Italics seem to be working fine.
Are you remembering the backslash before the second i?
If it was up to me, I'd make like descartes and scrap alot of useless nonsense. Start from null.
John, what fits the definition of a "stupid" person? One who does not properly organize their thoughts? Perhaps they do not know how.
Interesting concept, not knowing how to reason and think "properly".
Communism works on paper, democracy doesn't work anywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home