Let's Deconstruct!

Deconstruct: A linguistic issue in which the meaning of a word is extracted and changed.

Dude BEFORE: a well dressed male that lives only in big cities

Dude NOW: somebody


Asshole BEFORE: Anus

Asshole NOW: IDIOT!

now the cool pics

Is "Nothingness" posible?

well, I think nothingness depends on the subject. the nothingness of someone is what that someone is not. so the definition of nothingness can't be applied to everything at the same time. what is the nothingness of the universe? well that can't be posible. but my nothingness is posible. so, is the question refering to nothingness of everything? if so, then no. If nothingness depends on the subject (as Sartre said it), then what would be the nothingness of everything, if that is the subject. so, what is NOT everything? that should've been the question. but let's say, the nothingness of a chair, that changes everything. the nothingness of a chair is the space around it. what is the nothingness of the space around the chair? the chair. what is the nothingness of everything? SYNTAX ERROR!!

now the cool pictures

What kind of art do I like and why?

well, the art that I mostly like is the art of making people change for good.. but going to the art as we know today (music, literature, scuplture, etc.), I mostly like music. the reason why I like music over other arts, is because I like an art where talent can be shown. even if that breaks the rules of the essence of art, i like talent over the truths of the artist.. i dont know why.. maybe i don't have the talent to identify good artists over talented people, but that's just me. i did a whole classwork about the talent and the truths of the artist.. i feel like i will repeat the classwork here, so Jose is the one who knows my work.. i dont know if i should feel shameful for being lazy and not doing the work all over again or just keep living and get what i deserve.. i hope we get to talk about things related to the classwork, but not too alike like this one..

Ding an Sich -> Meaning

Meanings are mental representations accepted by a society to be considered that way. What makes a meaning a meaning? We stablish meanings, we say if this is that or that is this, and if many people say that´s ok, it will be on a dictionary saying that many people consider it that way, and after a generation the new dictionaries will say that that representations is the meaning of something, so there is a new word.
the ¨meaningish¨ of a meaning as just said is its concept; this is the base of the Ding an Sich of everything. I did a classwork saying what i just have said before in 2 pages, and i don´t have my notebook here and i don´t want to think about it again because after school my mind takes a break and i don´t want to interrupt my mind on its break, so deal with it
here are the nice pics

Sanity = Power -> ?

Well, sanity doesn´t exist. I believe there is a missing part on the question or Jose is insane, but there is something wrong.
how can sanity represent power? is insanity not powerful? i can´t think of answers to this questions, it doesn´t make sense. sanity doesn´t exist, sanity is not defined, insanity is overrated, insanity is definded by societies, THIS DOESN´T MAKE SENSE!!
now some pics for personal enjoying

Neurosis...

well, one neurosis of mine, is when people are lazy and depend on other people. it can be for studying or it can be for asking him to pass on the remote. i can't tolerate those people. maybe the reason of that is because my dad wants me to be autosufficient and independant, and i want that too. but there are other neurosis caused by my father which didn't help much in my childhood but its all good now... i can't remember my childhood because of that

Socialism.. or Capitalism?

well, in class we learned a lot about socialism, but not about capitalism. but now i know
Socialism is the economic system that has scales. in one scale you can find the rich people, and in the other side poor people. the poor people make one side of the scale to stay in the floor while the other side can't do anything about it. Why are the richs on the low side? because in their pockets their money is heavier than them, making the poor people with no money go through the roof. so what now? Socialism make the scales (or tries to) be equal. so how does that happen? everything, but absolutely everything regarding to economy is supervised by the government. how many money you make, your goods, your actions, everything; in order so the extra money you have goes to the government so they will give it to the ones who need. you know, that is a perfect economy, a governments dream, a Disney world. but that ain't happening nor gonna happen. we are not kings and queens with perfect values, we are people; persons who are different to each other in all aspects. as once Hobbes said, man is not good by nature, because we always look for more, more is good; and for poor people, they are too lazy to work, to think, to be brave, to seek for money not for pleasure but for their family or their goals in life. because of that, Socialism is an utopia, as said before the magic of Disney (maybe disney should put princess on Cuba and say that the government is good; wait, that wouldn't work...)

NOW (aaaaawwwwww!!! i was getting tired of Socialism), Capitalism
Capitalism is like saying, you done your work, this is what you get for it. you get what you give, everything is fair and justified, and the government can worry about other stuff. this is the type of economy that works here in our country and a lot of others (not gonna say examples, just think of a country that doesn't have socialism and there you have your answer. stop being poor). it doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, you are what you give, you get money for what you do. there are no scales, no government visiting you to know how you scratch your balls at work and take your money, disney can go to hell, we live our lives, we don't care of the poor lady with cancer, we mind our own businesses.
now, to take a stand, i go for capitalism. as said before, socialism are your unconscious thoughts when Disney comes around, is the dream we don't dream because we are capitalists, we worry about ourselves, we live our lives, we reproduce, we die. if we were socialists, the rich people would get tired that the poor people use their money and believe that if they stop working they would still get money from the government. but what if there are no rich people, only poor? no one pays taxes because they don't have money, so where does the government get money to keep their citizens alive? socialism would work if everybody would work hard and be rich so no one needs money from the government, but that can be done in capitalism also. Socialism is Marx dream, in which many male reproductive organ heads tried to make it real, and still want to do it. DISNEY IS NOT REAL LIFE! I WISH I COULD SMACK AND SAY: WAKE UP YOU SOPERUTANO ARRAPASTROZO!!!!!!!!! THIS IS SPARTA!!!! NO DISNEY HERE!!! YOU HAVE NO FREAKING IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING!!!!
(Sighs)

Are humans matter.. or psyche?

well, we must first define matter and psyche
matter is everything that occupies space and has mass and weight
the psyche is the influence of thought, personality and behaviour of humans
now, if we had to decide one or another (not both, nor neither), i would decide humans are matter, because we are mostly mass and weight and occupy space. If we were only psyche, were would that be? Because we are matter, we do have a brain. We can think, do and be. If we were only psyche, were would we be? that will bring us in an existentialism crysis, because if there was no matter, this would all be a dream, or matter is not physical just like psyche, so physical things don't exist. We don't exist. Were are we?
So, we are definetely matter. Psyche doesn't change us at all. We are who we are because of our DNA and because of our experiences in life. If psyche is the influence to think, do and be, then what is our brain? Our brain does have conscience and unconsciousness and we have our personality because of our DNA and we are who we are because of that and because of our experiences that later become knowledges and wisdom. Psyche doesn't exist, psyche is a religion, psyche is impossible to feel, bear, sense. Even passion, the ignition that make us do what we do with or without reason, is called adrenaline, in small or big quantities, and its all a chemical process in our brain. PSYCHE DOES NOT EXIST!!

How can things become someone's property?

Well, now-a-days, everything that is inside the boundaries of a country belongs to the country (except people, duh!). Even animals. But my question is, why? In the beggining of times you found something and it was yours, but when did it happen that something that doesn't have an owner or a explicit and verifiable thing that says that that something belongs to someone, belongs to the government? To rephrase that, when and who said that? Is it on the constitution? (I could answer that question, but it would take me a bit of time and my will is not in a good mood today), if so, then who owns the piece of paper that says that I own something?
today, if you want to own something, you have to meet the conditions the previous owner says (ussualy to pay money), but, who is the very first owner of that thing? in fact, who is the very first owner of everything? God? (oh dear lord in the otherworld illuminate us with your wisdom and help your children in Earth to understand your will, OH LOORD!)
no, seriously, who was the first owner of anything?
I hope I can go on with this post, but I missed the class our teacher sent us this homework, so all I said started from scratch, not like my other posts where I actually did think a lot to say what its there. Well, this is the E.N.D. (the extreme point of something, or Energy Never Dies? did Black Eyed Peas answer what they meant with the name of their last album?)

How was God addressed in the middle ages?

God was addressed by some ways: heritage, and by society.
I dont really understand the question but I'll talk about some other stuff
back in that time, there were some problems when it came to God, and there were 2 types: the philosophical ones and the theological ones.
God was (or is..?) an omnieverything; by that I mean omnipresent and omnipotent, and everybody that didn't agree with that should shut up or should be burned in the bonfire, and also because of the individualization (you are what you are because God said so, and if you don't agree with that, you will be what God lets you to be)
a very big problem problem back in that time, was that, What language does God speak? its still a mistery...

Idols of the Mind

the Idols of the Mind are (for me) the margins of error that appear when we think, and also are not really easy to change, and are named by Francis Bacon. There are 4:
-Tribe Idols: they are idols that appear when we are in a new or different situation than usual and that request a fast response, and what happens is that we do what others do.
-Cave Idols: they appear when someone does a terrible, horrible, grotesque thing, and asks for a response as same as terrible, horrible and grotesque.
-Marketplace Idols: its a language problem, which can arise from differences in the culture, in the characteristics of the message (speed, tone, complexity), etc.
-Theatre Idols: wrong apprenticeship or misunderstanding and the diffusal of it.

the only thing I can say about it is that I hate them with my whole being and I think they come from people that like to act like idiots or are ignorants..

an example of a cave idol is what happened today at school: our homeroom teacher told us that we must bring the memo's signed by our parents, but many parents get the memo's through e-mails and of their children mouths, but still he insisted that we must bring them signed because his boss says so.

Rene Descartes

René Descartes (pronounced "ʁəne de'kaʁt" in french) was a french philosopher, mathematician and physicist born in 1596 and dead in 1650. he was considered the father of modern philosophy because other philosophers will base their works in Descartes'. Descartes thought a lot about materia and substances, but he was afraid of what his thought would cause (back in that time, philosophers where chased to death, or to the bonfire).
Ignoring that he could die because of his thoughts, he made up a method bonding Epistemology, Phenomenology and Existentialism, which is called the Cartesian Method. With the use of this method, Descartes affirmed that everything can be explained.
Also, he got to the conclusion of I think therefore I am with that method, and this is how he got there:
I don't know what I am, and I don't know the answer of it, but I can make questions about it, and that assures me that I exist
He also got to other conclusions, like that the Soul is the combination of the machine part and the substance part of the human being.
As the class went by, I started to get my own conclusion if I am real or not, and my mind seemed to explode. I didn't have any reason to think about that, and if I don't know the answer it wont change anything (i guess), but I did broke my brain joint thinking about that, and after some relaxation and new ideas I got to the conclusion that Descartes' conclusion is the most reasonable one about my existence (until we study others existentialist, i guess)
well I skipped some part of that class here in the post because its really complicated to blog about it but i got it so i think there is no problem :D

Descartes' Grave :D

What makes people follow a 10 year old kid talking about god and creation?

Most of the people follow everything that has a relationship with faith or God. But, what makes them follow a 10 year old kid talking about god and creation? I think because they find the kid cute, screaming all over the place, talking about God. At start, they think its a joke, but later on, they pay attention to what the kid says, and start to believe on him (remembering how was the first time.. the first impression is never erased). Most of traditional christians think religion is a big deal, and they take everything personal, even this kid; so when they hear someone talking about this kid, there will be 2 reactions:
1. Oh yeah, that kid is so right. Everybody should be like him (Hipocresy in another words)
2. Hey! stop talking like that about the kid! He is right, and don't mess with his mother! (Complete ignorance of the big picture)
Also, maybe people believe this kid because of the trust and emotion it inspirates on others (he could be talking about how he peed in his bed last night, and people would still take it seriously), his phrasing (which I think he made up while remembering one of his traumas as a strange boy), and because of the fact of being a boy with a suit that doesn't fit him. A clear way to prove that is watching his actual videos, and see that he doesn't have that charm he had as a boy...
Maybe every kid should go on stages, talk about things you dont understand, wear a big tuxedo, give interviews, sing, etc. and make money from it, because why talk about something you don't even understand completely with people clapping and (blindly) loving you if you can't make a profit of it... Which bring us back to the same question: Why? make your own conclusions...

Aristotle

Aristotle (in greek Ἀριστοτέλης, born in 384 BC, died 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and a disciple of Plato. His thought differs from Plato's in a lot of things, like in metaphysics, political theory, and in psychology (the theory of the soul), speacially in the theory of the soul. Aristotle's base of psychology is this theory, and he bases his theory on natural science (I still don't know what he means with natural science), saying that the soul is the thing that owns the psychic functions (memory, breathing, nutrition, growing, emotions, perception, and thought), and the body is the thing in which these functions are embodied and receptors from other people. Also the soul is able to survive after the body is dead, keeping all its characteristics (but where does it go? no explanation there), totally independent of the body (so it can take over a body. Where? In the body factory before its delivery?) and immaterial.
In ethics, Aristotle talks about eudaimonia, moral virtues, virtues of intellect, the "mean", and how all this cant be achieved, only some of this or parts of all of them (maybe because that would be perfection itself... hmmm...)
I can specify all about Aristotle, but its late (22:00), I dont remember much of it because it was something we saw 2 weeks ago (short memory =P) and it must be done so Jose can check it and stablish my grades.

Is the soul a product of body functions?

For Aristotle, its the other way around (body functions are the product of the soul), and for me too. Only some body functions which end up to be fake or to be empty don't come from the soul, because soul is passion, and if there is no passion on what you do, then that body function comes from nowhere.
The soul is something immaterial, independent of the body and capable of surviving its death, according to Aristotle. I initially thought that the soul for Aristotle was the passion of a human being, the motor that keeps dreams alive, but I now see its something else.
For Aristotle, the soul can't work without a body, and also the other way around (well, it can work, but it would be the same as someone in a coma), because the soul has the functions of memory, breathing (well, the breathing is controlled by the brain, not the soul), nutrition, growth and emotions, and the body was only the thing that would interpret these functions and receive them from other people. In another words, Aristotle is saying that the brain is independent from from the body itself, but can't blame him for that. Technology wasn't so advanced, and they thought women are not people.

Socrates

Socrates (pronounced ˈsɒkrətiːz and wrote in Greek Σωκράτης) (born in 469-470 b.C.E., died in 399 b.C.E.) was a Classical Greek Philosopher that influenced in the definition of concepts like Society and Ethics in the time he lived, through dialectics.
some of Socrates characteristics were:
-Ugliness, which make him believe that beauty was not only on the outside, but on the inside, on the mind.
-Never wrote anything, all we know about Socrates is what Plato, his disciple, has wrote.
-The fact of being a philosopher, to actually create the concept of Philosophy, because in his time there were only sophists, by implementing dialectics to express arguments and develop wisdom and not only knowledge
-Naturalistic influence, which made him a particular philosopher with his believes, like the man is not equal to nature, that there is reason and that we think for something because of that.
-"Divine Voice", he thought that that actually existed, and because of that he was accused for creating new gods, and that was the straw that broke the camel (didnt mention it before, but sophists were pissed off with Socrates because after he created Philosophy the sophists classrooms were empty and they wanted to kill him, but couldnt find a good reason, so after the "divine voice" thing, they found it so accused him and thought they were free of Philosophy, but Socrates left an important message to Greece, so it was actually the beggining of a new era of Philosophy, people created and spread new ideologies)
Socrates wanted to teach people that we should learn from ourselves, and not from nature, and from that thought Ethics appeared, which means that if we think something is good, then its good.
But, if a thieve thinks that stealing is good, for reasons like its easier than working, you can do it whenever you want, you get what you want, etc., then, because of the concept of ethics, its good right? for the thieve its ok, but for everybody else its not..
thats why we dont discuss ethics in class.. total confussion..