Bullshitta (March 2011)

The notion of “bullshit” pervading academic, social and political life is a common theme most people encounter in their adolescence. Everything can be reduced to bullshit if it appears to be contrived. Many are repelled by the huge amount of bullshit that exists in the world once they realize what bullshit is. It’s quite alarming actually – acknowledging bullshit puts you right back into the philosophical position. Hence bullshit’s not something that draws approval from many, except the few that use it to their advantage.

What I’ve been seeing lately is all the academic bullshit that tends to push the young enthusiasts away, maybe myself included. However I’m focusing on the “intellectual” part of life that encompasses all forms of social, political and academic thought – or what can be called bullshit at times. 

Bullshit hits people the hardest because it goes against the very nature of the context from which it’s born, which is understanding/truth/knowledge/intellect/ whatever-you-want-to-call-it. It’s not an easy target to eliminate because it hides behind what we want to believe. Yet I think bullshit can be seen in a different light. We don’t have to necessarily see it as a positive feat and try to understand its significance for humanity’s development, but rather why instead it can be considered necessary in our existence.

The world consists of many living things. Some things are observable. Some are not. I’d like to illustrate my interpretation of bullshit through the use of a metaphor. So, take this notion of intellect (that which encompasses everything related to thought) and imagine it as a living organism in your mind. There it assumes a figure and contains internal parts, etc. that keep it functioning healthy. Literally the term bullshit refers to excrement that the bull’s body gets rid of because the body has identified it as useless. Every living thing gets rid of its waste somehow. Either it’s exited out the body or that part of the organism that is no longer useful will deteriorate to waste. 

Going back to the idea of viewing the intellect as a living organism – it must also relieve itself of all the excess useless waste. Life has a great variety that any organism, after a certain amount of consumption, gets rid of irrelevant waste. It’s important to note that nothing starts off as waste. It enters the body just like everything else; except now that these parts have no real value for the body, they are bid adieu.

Similarly the bullshit that we read about in books, hear from people, see on TV, etc. that make us think “what a load of crap the world is” – it’s not the final story. The living organism of intellect, so to speak, that exists beyond any tangible reach also needs to sometimes just “shit it out”. Unfortunately this can be overwhelming for us when we come into contact with this type of waste; yet it’s not indicative of all that there is. Instead what it reveals is that there are other parts to our thought and existence that persist and are in fact healthy. Consequently the living organism of intellect decides to keep whatever’s good and healthy for its well-being while spewing out the excess as bullshit. The immediate manifestation of this health is the fact that civilization has survived – not all our thoughts or ideas destroyed us.

There is a common complaint that there is too much bullshit in the world, hence the entire world can be said to be made out of bullshit. However that’s not necessarily the case.  Rather this just signifies that we are looking in the wrong place. Instead we ought to look at the healthy parts of our thought in human existence that has persisted thus far.  The bullshit parts may not matter,  but the healthy parts do.

"Yet" - (March 2011)

The word “yet”. It’s a word that can give you hope or it’s a word that can haunt you. It triggers a lot to mind. Namely stuff that pertains to the future but also sometimes stuff that refuses to leave the past.  I like the word “yet”. It’s a flirty word – it’s saying something but you don’t know exactly what it is. It lures you out of any chaos or sanctuary because you cannot deny the truth of its essence: yet. Yet will always be.

What do I wish to do this word? Use it propose some grand humanitarian dream of world peace by stating “it’s not that it’s impossible, it’s just yet to come.” That word will lose all meaning then because no one will believe it. Hmm, that’s interesting. The word “yet” can lose all of its meaning depending on the truth value of its context. Well, no duh. The truth value of a proposition differs from person to person but too often a word such as this is left behind as unnecessary baggage.

I don’t want to focus on that though. I want to examine the word “yet” as it stands alone, given that it’s worthy of standing by itself. The origins of the word are unknown to me and irrelevant to my focus. Instead I’d like to posit the idea that “yet” reaffirms what we all tend to forget nearly every day, which is our own agency. It’s easy to fall into a lifestyle, an identity, an imaginary grounding of sorts where time passes and we aren’t dumbfounded by questions such as, “what is this?”, “why am I here?”, etc. 

All the existential questions that tend to only lead you in one direction: circularity. To discover you must return back to where you started from, hence the never-ending frustration that accumulates with questions like these. Some people have managed to find ways to bypass them and lead quite happy successful lives. The word “yet” I feel brings you back to that circle. In order to escape the circle you desperately look around, searching to find some other word to jump onto. But when it’s just you and “yet” alone, you’ve only got one weapon that’ll enable you to step out of the circularity. Specifically that you acknowledge and welcome the existence of the word “yet”. Pay the word its dues. Show some respect. It only looms when you crouch before it in fear. If you stand up straight and bid it a sincere acknowledgement, you’ve won. 

Ok – this sounds like a poorly drawn out metaphor between a human being and the word “yet”. The picture may strike as odd but it’s really not that difficult. Despite all the fancy weapons we have to defend ourselves, these weapons don’t stand a chance against our deeper fears. The word “yet” embodies a whole train of thought that most people stand by and watch as it disappears into no-man’s land. They believe they’ve outsmarted the villain. No-man’s land is treacherous territory – no way will that sucker return!

That’s a cheap battle though. If one takes a look around at all the great monumental structures, both physical and non-physical (i.e. the construct of society, culture, etc), that human minds have created – can we really do no better than trick ourselves into victory by avoiding the so-called enemy? It feels rather silly to me. Not because it hits at some human pride about how great our species are. Rather the battle is only prolonged and assumes a never-ending status. It gains endless ammunition through our own inability realize the different tools we have at our disposal if we chose to think differently. A word’s but a word – sure you may say that. Change your interpretation of the word “yet” if it carries a negative connotation and you’re set. But to recycle meanings that rely on validation from others and not from the discovery itself leaves you with a very limited stock I find.

February 2011 (pre-exam writing)

Why is it that all arguments can be deflated through reducing the argument down to a claim of subjectivity? Whether the content appears to be an innate structure like mathematics of a broad topic like colours, the individual’s receptivity of the content matters. Others may dismiss the receptivity of the individual an irrelevant detail; yet that does not change the nature of the problem. You cannot ignore a person’s claim to “well that doesn’t make sense to me” because that detail in itself proves the existence of a larger problem. The problem of scepticism about knowledge has been around for quite some time. My only concern is that scepticism does not only lead to fatalism or nihilism, but it creates this new form of believing in the “I think”. The “subject” gains so much power and credibility in his or her own thoughts/ findings, once they accept scepticism as their foundation.

While they may profess, as sceptics, to disbelieve any claims about knowledge – they are still forced to, by virtue of being alive, navigate through life. This entails adhering to some assumptions of how this or that works, etc. The only difference is that the sceptical person has more reason now to believe his or her own assessments (both moral and intellectual) than what anyone else says. The sceptic has a bit more certainty when it comes to his or her claims about the world because they have the power to test it out and verify the authenticity of the proposition. This capacity performs a dangerous function. It empowers. Not only does it get a person who is mired in confusion onto a path but it gives the individual a bit more control. 

This control of course is never placed right in front of the individual, like the reigns of a chariot to some would-be champion; instead it exists as a mirage. It assumes a position of tranquility that helps push one forward during a fruitless, waterless journey.

The unfortunate part now to think about is whether one can avoid falling into this trap of personal validation when it comes to knowledge. The sceptic rejects what’s to count as evidence for all other knowledge claims because he or she views it from an outsider’s point of view. This form of assessment structures around a “oh you think…”, hence it is much easier to break the argument down into an incomprehensible or “not universally valid” form. However when the sceptic is caught from the insider’s view, what normally appears as “evidence” no longer assumes that connotation. Instead it takes on a natural/taken-for-granted light that appears to add more illumination for the sceptic’s eye. 

Can this issue be remedied? Like all epistemological conundrums, it appears you can only get so far before being struck in the face of just how large the landscape is. We are only given feet. A vehicle or a moving companion of a sort would prove beneficial in these circumstances. I like to think that we rely on our “mind” as the vehicle to navigate through this land. You can keep on walking forever on Earth, for a sphere/circle never ends. Similarly I have a slight suspicion that that this applies to our mental landscape as well. Well, it’s a good thing I like walking!