I know in my own life that I’ve learned to utilize spirituality more than I have to base my identity on it or even follow any particular method other than that which is most appealing at the time. My romantic side that perpetuates my belief that the new-age crap I’m reading by, say, Eckhart Tolle–I actually think he’s full of it now, but for example’s sake I’m using him–brings me closer to myself, to an understanding of the unknown, the connectedness of humanity, the potential for peace and love.

BUT, I find (constantly) that these are more fun, or more like a hobby, than they are necessarily useful for anything practical (whatever that is at this point). We’ve all known and observed and perhaps envied that girl or boy in school who could love unconditionally, transform any group into their group and attract positive responses from generally all kinds of people. These transformative personalities are what many people are supposedly seeking out. It’s what I myself have envied and thought the goal of social interaction for myself: to become the Ghandi or the Jesus that could transcend trivial conformation to become a leader of a higher purpose which both redeems and challenges/upsets people.

Maybe these men were ironic in their beliefs, too. This is, or was, a far stretch for a homegrown Presbyterian like myself who grew up being taught that Jesus wasn’t dutiful or faithful in his beliefs as much as he was his beliefs. He embodied the mythology he spoke of in a way I’ve found to be nearly impossible and none too short of self-aggrandizement/ egoism/sociopathic. These latter terms sound derogatory and I don’t want to suggest that these are the only traits of the purest mystic; however, the arrogance one must have to believe wholeheartedly in one Truth which can be described and adhered to in our language sounds like brainwashing and dangerous.

Therefore, a need for the conversational thinkers exists in spite of the fabric of mystical subcultures that serve, in their own unique way, the users in various ways that can’t necessarily be measured outside of personal preference, if one is so open to such a non-committal regard for what others might see as the delicate, one-and-only truth. By all means, such a capricious mental framework of the outside world is not a popular method of approaching the world even though we may be approaching its popularity in time.

(Story of the prince who was locked in a tower by an evil warlock. His voice taken from him, the only cries for help he could produce were of his royal crown on the bars of the mezzanine’s window. The subsequent sound was heard from miles away and anyone who heard it thought it the most beautiful sound to have filled their ears. Still, no one knew the source of the sound. Most actually thought it the gods blessing their crops and would congregate in large groups whenever the sound filled the air to celebrate in its beauty together.

Language itself is a removal from reality, as words represent atemporal, non-spacial judgments on a previous or present–although our judgments can never completely “present” because of the latency effect produced inherently by producing a thought. However, the interesting feature of speech or writing is that the very expression of it can become the reality of the moment. In this sense, language doesn’t defy the gravity of time and space; rather, it becomes reality through the resulting sense-inducing experience that accompanies it, complete with the stimulation of emotion and other —-

Relationships create more options for one’s own Broca’s region to develop more creative ways to relate their language with others. Relating to external language and conceptualizing expectations in other people’s behavior allow oneself to create a more defined, through language-based thoughts, portrait of an identity. This identity is useful in making sense of existence, particularly modern existence which, because of technology, has increased the amount of non-survival based experiences and leisure humans have achieved.

Can we only learn about ourselves through communication with other people, whether it be friends, acquaintances, parents, or even strangers?

We form sounds to articulate/express ourselves? Language formation is a congenital characteristic of human beings?

With that sad, I admit that Wittgenstein’s significance originally stumped me, even after reading Tractatus twice and sitting through a lecture dedicated to it–I was baffled that I nodded off during one of O’Neill’s lectures which have usually kept alert accompanied by mild angst. Last night, though, I had a bit of an epiphany and grasped, however minutely, a better sense for the intense postulations made by Wittgenstein.

I was completely oblivious to language’s role in philosophy or in thinking until that night. Now, I have to re-read any essay that mentioned analytic philosophy and the modern philosophers. Has any other work or concept redefined the field of philosophy like Tractatus since? It might sound as though I’m giving too much credit to Wittgenstein, but the idea that language governs any truth or human reason is a revelation. I’m now questioning everything I say, want to say, or would say in order to think about how I’m conceiving reality or representing it through language.

What I’ve gotten most from Wittgenstein is a self-awareness of the language I use as well as how I think that language emerged from some thought or if that is even possible. I think it was Noam Chomsky we discussed in class that believes language is independent as a function of other parts of the brain–perhaps I’m oversimplifying–therefore, it might make sense to think that language doesn’t necessarily have to be a result of thought.

Language without thought sounds like quite a stretch; especially for me, who since my youth has constantly abided by my father’s rule of “think about what you say before you say it.” However, since college and gaining a more profound sense of independence and self-understanding, I’ve used a more stream of consciousness way of communicating that has undermined my learned pattern of speaking. Were I to describe this stream of consciousness method as it relates to thinking, I’m unsure whether I could. Usually, though, it still requires some amount of internal signal, whether emotional or figurative. This method requires a lot of trust and at times even self-deprecation in order to demonstrate.

It should be noted that I use this style of speech most when I’m in a general peer conversation or writing an editorial or op piece for the newspaper. Only then can I trust myself to not publicly humiliate myself and even receive understanding from the listener/reader–because, after all, they will attribute such a quirkiness to my personality, to an open-minded, unique expressive quality that has come to be expected of me even though I can return to my old mental behavior which would make me look more normal/dignified.

Language may very well be the only gauge we have to measure ourselves in comparison to reality.  A question remains unanswered: does language exist without rote, “nurture,” or relationships?   What language skills will an average person develop if its kept in isolation without any formation of schemas of how language or verbal expression is supposed to work?  Do we have inherent brain functions which are a result from our evolution?  Are these not the functions that allow us to be self-aware and adept at such high reasoning–in comparison to other animals at least?   

“But what is a man?  Shall I say a reasonable animal?  Certainly not; for then I should have to inquire what an animal is, and what is reasonable; and thus from a single question I should insensibly fall into an infinitude of others more difficult.”  Here, again it seems that while Descartes is not trying to prove the complex and vital role that language plays in philosophy, he is flirting with the idea that an infinite Truth can only be reduced to a language system. Derrida’s hermaneutical approach to philosophy can therefore exist because of the inadequacies of language and the need for analysis of definitions and relevant meanings so as to uncover the closest Truth of the writing being analyzed.  

I’ve been wondering whether writing is the best media for passing on philosophical ideas.  In the way that Socrates and Plato used mixed media to attract a broader audience.  Their media included drama, legal procedings, comedy, epic poetry, and Sophist debates.  These are highly social genres to introduce philosophy into.  They leave much room for opinionated dialectic and discourse. 

If “talking about philosophy” is how Socrates thought Truth could be attained, then how do today’s genres compare.  First of all, we saw how Kant and Descartes were more introverted thinkers, reliant more on deep introspection rather than social provocation of ideas–this isn’t to say these men didn’t mull over ideas with the local polymaths or philologists who could challenge their thinking, but it does question the importance they put on social interaction and others’ Truth in comparison to the Athenian tradition that Socrates and Plato followed.

With the invention of Gutenberg’s printing press in 1440, European culture shifted along with its perspective on knowledge transfer.  Knowledge, in books and manuscripts, would be easier and easier to access.  These mediums of knowledge (in the form of entertainment as well as education) could be transferred to a mass audience now–which meant that popular audiences could be targeted.  But most importantly, reading alone became more common for the average person.  Descartes could hole up next to the fireplace in his den and read for days, never once having spoken to another person let alone hear another voice!  

So what do philosophers today rely on?  The popular mediums today are the Internet (text/video/interaction), printed materials, music, radio, and television.  The next generation of philosophers will have grown up with particular influence from the Internet, music, and television.  Not to say the other genres won’t have consider influence and don’t experience their own amount of innovation (e.g. graphic novels, XM radio, and visual arts).  These days, we have multi-functioning, multi-capable devices at our constant disposal.  This means we can and do and rely on access to highly interactive genres where we might experience other people’s opinions, videos, speech, etc. at the drop of a hat. 

Like Socrates’ Athens, we depend on  we can interact instantly with people around the world with the most diverse opinions, but we have the option to have these social interactions with complete indepdence in the safety of our own homes.  Today we have the technology to read, write, listen, and watch anywhere we want.  Homes offer comfortable places to do these things as well, less Socrates’ Athens and similar to the isolation experienced by Descartes during the Reformation.  Sitting in our apartments/houses drinking my kool-aid and eating a hot pocket, I can Twitter and Facebook and Wikipedia and such until my eyes redden and tire.  The new era of human experience is a mix of Socrates’ and Descartes’ social experiences; today we are more ironic, having an isolated interaction at our disposal. 

We are constantly able to access or be accessed by technology (cell phones/TVs/laptops/mp3s/gameboys/etc.).  These things barage us with interactive stimulation, sometimes human and other times cyberhuman and other times completely computer-generated.  This stimulation, its irony and its queer detachment, makes me how these things effect modern philosophy.  In our class, we have explored Plato’s and Descartes’ and Kant’s environment and how their ideas reflected the zeitgeists of their times; now, how will our culture be reflected in the vanguard of today’s thoughts we have on what philosophy is, can be, and/or will do for society and individuals.