Tag: philosophy

Something & Nothing

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

I very nearly sat down to answer a question from one of my philosophy magazines which I subscribe to but don’t quite read as much as I once did. It happens like that sometimes but I still enjoy subscribing because they’re not expensive, there are still decent articles I do read and it’s an area of ‘entertainment‘ that is severely under supported. It’s strange calling philosophy entertainment, even though it can be used to improve entertainment as the television series The Good Place demonstrated and I don’t doubt there are countless plays using philosophical ideas as their basis. Is that philosophy as entertainment though, well not purely but then has it ever been since the days of Socrates arguing with people in market places. There is a good chance he must have put on quite the show if he was getting the crowds. Seeing as he was accused of corrupting the youth and forced to die by suicide he must have been doing something right; getting their attention, entertaining them and forcing them to think. However it still appears the philosophy itself, the philosophical words spoken were not entertainment but merely used as the wood for the fire. You can tell I’m trying to talk philosophy because all I’m doing is going in circles. It’s such a wonderful art form when done badly.

The question then I was going to attempt to answer was “Why is there something rather than nothing?” and I guess this could just define my attempt at talking philosophy in general. It wouldn’t be philosophical if you were to provide nothing for an answer, even if it were a ramble reminiscent of a Boris Johnson speech on the ethics of clarity, it would still be something. Saying that it is also impossible for nothing not to be an answer to something, even in the most irritating of way, someone will manage to find a way of using that as an answer. At which case nothing becomes something and we realise we’ve managed to both prove and disprove ourself in the space of two sentences. This is why I enjoy philosophy, you can really get away with anything if you want. Is there nothing you can’t say? Says the man who just used a double negative which is something you shouldn’t ever do but then I just did which means that doesn’t count either. You see this is why I had no intention of answering the question because I knew I would just get myself confused and ramble in circles. Again that does seem to be a popular approach at the moment so perhaps it’s the done thing. “Just don’t do something, unless you can’t do nothing. But be careful of doing nothing incase it somehow becomes something. Although that won’t happen because it is nothing and nothing is not something, until it is, and then it is something, but still nothing”. Stay safe people.

Is There As Much Value In The Dream As The Achievement?

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

I was reading an article about death and how if we accept it’s inevitability we’re more likely to lead fulfilling and ultimately happier lives. It is with acceptance on this inevitable that will apparently help us to do more, fear less and live closer to whatever our true desires for a full life are. It highlights the differing approach between western and eastern philosophy and is an interesting piece all told. I want to discuss an idea that came into my mind while reading it more than the actual article itself.

The author highlights the example of Heidegger, who “lamented that too many people wasted their lives running with the ‘herd’ rather than being true to themselves”, but who later went on to join the Nazi party in the hope it would advance his career, amongst other reasons. Now then Heidegger was a great philosopher and influenced many in his lifetime and subsequently but he was in this example unable to live by his own ideals. This is opposite to another person the author discusses, The Buddha, who managed to live by his beliefs until the end. Do we then need to give more credibility to the ideals of someone who manages to live by what they say than someone who is unable to. Does their inability to follow their own beliefs discredit them as fanciful or unachievable or do we take them as things to one day achieve. If we only ever professed what we were capable of would we as a species have evolved our thinking at a far slower rate because we never made any so called implausible leaps.

It is important to understand where ideas come from. We are undoubtedly inspired by those around us of course, our peers and family, by modern culture, and what we observe in our daily life. There is ourselves too though. Who do we get to spend more time with, experience the deepest thoughts of and understandings than ourselves. I know without an argument I don’t live up to all my protestations and ideals but if I did I would probably be enlightened like The Buddha or I would potentially be leading a very simple life.

Some of what I believe is what I know I am lacking in my own life. I’ve observed something in myself and see how a life with or without it would be ‘better’ were I capable of living or thinking like that. I understand it because I aspire to it and see it’s value through the lack of it in my own life. Does my inability to follow through devalue the idea. Evidently I’m arguing no and as such think we would be wise not to be too dismissive of such failures in follow through. We shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss ideas because they seem incomprehensible and unachievable. Everything is unachievable until it is achieved and there are no time limits from the inception of an idea to it’s completion as common thought. Heidegger’s ideas, like our own fanciful ones, are no less credible just because he wasn’t able to master them himself. The ability of others later who could proves this. Perhaps there’s some value in our wildest dreams after all.

Maybe And Probably Not

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

How do we really know. Fixed absolute ideas of how things were. What if one clue to histories truth was lost and now we determinedly believe an inaccurate story. We miss one piece of the jigsaw, now we cannot see what once was. What if all we need is this one piece to confirm what many suspect but none can prove, do we dismiss entirely the possibility that this may in fact be the true story and not the one we think we know. When do we learn to question. Who do we trust to ask the right questions. What if we already have the piece but refuse to believe what it is showing us, at some point we need to accept, but do we ever do this as final. Should we.

And then our ideas in general. Our beliefs range far and wide. Think of all the philosophers out there disagreeing with each other. They can’t all be right but seemingly each one is. Each set of eyes view their own truth. In that case what is right. Do we have objective truths, how about one truth. Did that truth change when a new piece of the jigsaw is added and what happens when some accept it and the others turn away. If the greatest minds cannot agree, what hope are we.

How do we know the truth about scientific explanations or medicines. Both may be true at this time but new truths are constantly discovered and newer truths again. Always missing the point as the only truth being the inaccuracy of the old and therefore the latest too. How many letters behind my name are required before I can credibly speak these words. We never accept anything as final says the scientist or doctor before professing an absolute belief that they are right and you are wrong. They have facts but can they ever be true.

How do we really know that what we believe in politics. What if we are wrong. Are we strong enough, and arguably are we smart enough, to take a step back from what we believe and think we believe, see these beliefs for what they really are and readdress them. Can we do this objectively or will we be forever tarnished by the inaccuracies of existence. In these subjective times that have existed for eternity, we will never know as they run for another infinite millennia.

How do we advance society and people, and what really is the best approach to running a community. What if we’re wrong? No one person is the same yet we box the pack away into the very same space the world over. Who are we to tell others they are doing it wrong when we have never checked to see if we’re doing it right. Are we doing it right. Am I doing it right. I don’t even know what right is. I definitely don’t know their right.

As religion pokes it’s empty head around the corner we decide to not even entertain.

But to all I say maybe and probably not. Let’s start from there.

When Business Misses The Point

Hamar WilliamsLeave a comment

Another example of people missing the point was raised in the Sunday newspapers today. Interestingly like young people who dream of having an interesting creative arts and sports filled career, this one also involves those in education; the University of Sunderland, which like most universities now operates within the corporate world, has decided to drop it’s humanities courses and rely solely on ‘career focused’ courses. One can assume therefore that they are under the assumption that there can be no career possibilities for those studying sociology, history or politics yet I’m quite sure there continue to be a raft of political positions opening up on a regular basis. Evidently though it seems those who actually want to get into politics are better off studying business or law and never the actual field they plan on moving into. Perhaps as a former politic student myself it would be worth pointing out that all politics courses do is educate you on the vast corruption and immoral behaviour required. Not exactly something to aspire to.

The point though with this move is that people continue to overlook the arts. How many of those involved in business will patronisingly belittle the arts and then wonder why they cannot find any decent artist to run the visual side of their advertising campaigns. Do people not realise that were it not for writers and poets the language they speak would be simplified to uninspiring simplicity, they would never be able to manipulate people into buying or believing new things. How about all those middle-aged balding Chief Executives squeezing into their old band t-shirts and seeing some overly priced tour of their favourite now-geriatric band from their youth. Just imagine if Roger Waters or Robert Plant had decided they should focus on a more sensible career and not become rock stars.

People forget about how much in their life is down to creativity. Everything around us whether it is art, music or ideas has such an affect not always upon our bank balance but certainly on how we enjoy and sense the world around us. Sociology, philosophy and politics create the societies we live in; the arts and music make them comfortable. Even the architects who design those beautiful buildings we’re all so fond of advertising to the tourists who spend money visiting our cities and monuments. It’s endless and just folly to overlook these vital glues that hold everything together. Maybe economics and business studies are the pragmatic drivers although thats a debatable concept, without some inspiration though even they would lack the creativity they require to push themselves forward. Like creates like after all, but in this case the first like seems to be born in an ever shrinking and ever under appreciated part of society. One which at this rate will disappear into the forgotten reams of the new grey, permanent growth of our future dystopian world.