So Tues. I was at Philosophy on Tap and in a walked a woman I thought I recognized couldn’t place her for a bit, but eventually I did she was the reporter who covered the the wake after the first Motley Fool layoffs.
Some have held true animosity towards her ascribing epitaphs such as “emotion sucking vampire bitch” and others. I held a more neutral view. The story wasn’t overly slanted or biased it was merely unseemly to have here there at such a painful event. It was personal and she robbed us of our privacy in our moment of grief.
Her presence at another one of my bars (what is she following me around from bar to bar) reporting on another aspect of my life (though not as personal or as private) left a bad taste in my mouth. I just thought it wrong to have her there. She used the time to write this article.
Leave me to live my own life thank you very much.
Life, News
So I went to the philosophy on tap a couple days back, this one was covering Kant. Kant was a moral absolutist, which I’m pretty sure I’m dead against. But, he was the originator of a couple of points that I think are key to my personal philosophy.
Point one is the admission that perception does not make reality, but frankly there’s no point of talking about anything without postulating the common frame of reference provided by perception. My Beer may or may not be anything like what it really is in its true form, but that doesn’t much matter. True forms are interesting thought games but utterly useless in the understanding of people and societies. I can not prove or demonstrate even that the world exists and that is fine but there is no point in talking with others without the parties accepting that as a common vocabulary to speak from. We must postulate existence and a world defined by perception to gain any value in communicating with outside forces/entities.
The second Kantian notion that has guided my philosophy is the Categorical Imperative. I just found out what this means Tues. I always referred to it a reflexivity. An action can be judged to be good if it has universal applicability. Which mean I can’t judge an action simply from my own privileged position it also must be judged correct if fortunes are reversed. Making people work weekends without pay may be considered good to the company owners but it isn’t viewed correct by the one doing the work. It isn’t reflexive. I have yet to find a good way to write this so it is clear. It is about seeing with different eyes. The good action is judged right not only for oneself but for all the others it effects.
I’m not that naive, I understand there is no perfectly good action. Reflexivity is just an exercise to see in which direction lays the good.
Beer, Philosophy/Religion
It’s been a while and thought I should say hello before moving into making comments. I’ve been working like crazy the last week or so. I was at work until 1am or so last night. I’m going to have to say I have an issue with getting off of work and getting back to work when you couldn’t have even theoretically gotten the supposed eight hours of sleep.
Life