Povert

Men who are unhappy, like men who sleep badly, are always proud of the fact. Perhaps their pride is like that of the fox who had lost his tail; if so, the way to cure it is to point out how they can grow a new tail. Very few men, I believe, will deliberately choose unhappiness if they see a way of being happy.

— Bertrand Russell

I sleep badly, and I must admit I probably seem proud of it. And I now have cause for some unhappiness. I’m glad Russell believed this shit. That means I can too.

Though I’m taking him out of context. Meh.

I’ve long believed that truly smart (or maybe wise) people can minimize or avoid unhappiness. Good ole’ Bert seems to agree.

Ok, this is awesome.

First, let me explain something. When driving across New Mexico, you have to get through some moderately dangerous spots. Usually these are bridges across chasms. Depending on the shape of your car, your speed, and random natural occurrences, you could be plucked off these bridges and tossed down to your death. It’s rare, but it happens.

In these spots and others, there are signs that say “Strong Winds May Exist”. I, being a student of philosophy and a smart-ass, always thought that these signs were hilarious. They seem so contemplative, as if they were inviting the driver and passengers to explore the nature of Wind. Is wind something which exists? In the same way that a car exists? Is wind so much a thing as it is a description of movement? Can all things be described this way?

The absurdity, of course, being that it was just a dumb sign put there to advise people that their lives may be in danger. Never mind whether they could actually do something about it. It was those two words: “may” and “exist” that just cracked me up.

I know. Philosophy students are weird. I know. Weird senses of humor. I know that Jason was in on this joke.

So some of you may think this is funny, some may not. But this article about Douglas Adams made my day. Specifically page 5, the story told by Mark Wheaton:

… Adams talked about the nature of humor, recalling a story about driving in the American Southwest and passing a sign reading: “Strong Winds May Exist.” He extrapolated on this for awhile, making eloquent use of his trademark humor …

I need to get Jason or someone to snap some photos of one of these signs for me.

I came across this the other day. It’s a good list of bad things people do in discussions & arguments.

I know I’m guilty of some of them. Specifically:

• “We need to define just exactly what you mean by _________.”
• “So you think we ought to just throw out the whole system, then?”
• “How is that different from classic fascism?”
• “Why, that’s Calvinism!”

What I really hate is what the page calls “Question As Opportunity”. Politicians do this all the time and it drives me nuts. The 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates were full of them. It certainly undermines the ostensible purpose of the debates.

Ok, I’m a geek. I watched it again.

Slightly different take on it now.

I still think that Isabelle Huppert’s character embodies a sort of continental philosophy, though I’m not so sure about the analytic part now. They seem to embody more of just classical western philosophy, which is more in line with analytical philosophy than with continental. I’m talking about Platonic/Socratic thought, and perhaps some pre-Socratics as well.

The interconnected and oneness thing, in particular, reminds me of some ancient Greek philosophy, though nowadays that sort of angle is seen as more of an eastern thing.

But, I will say that this movie is totally in line with my whole joke about how philosophy ruined my life. It’s not exactly a joke — it’s actually pretty accurate. The deeper you delve into these questions, the more unsettling things get. It’s particularly scary when you start to see yourself more objectively.

On the other hand, it is eventually beneficial, even for pragmatic reasons. Kind of hard to explain, though. But I’m certainly a different person having studied philosophy. Well, maybe. I don’t know how much some friends would agree with that. Hmm.

One more thing about Chris’s take on it. As far as lack of resolution… I still think there was resolution, but any remaining threads are there for a reason. I mean, I don’t think anyone achieves true understanding of reality. You might think you do, but as time goes on, you’ll start to see holes in whatever theory you’ve embraced. If you don’t see those holes, then you’re probably not being intellectually rigorous.