About
I’m working on my fifth decade and my first bachelor degree (for the second time). My wife and I have been adopted by numerous felines; currently, there are one two four five four three four three six five four of them. (Felines, not wives, silly!)
I had a fantastic childhood; at least that’s the way I remember it which is all that really counts. I learned to read early and often. My Dad was the greatest person I’ve ever met and I’ve met a lot of people. Dad left a wake of kindness in the world and the world is a better place for it. While we disagreed about a lot of things, after 31 years we realized how much we thought alike. We just found different reasoning for our thinking. I was lucky enough to see the world from two very different perspectives having lived in the south in the 60s, then the Midwest in the 70s. I saw a little more of the world in the 80s and in the 90s I returned to Florida, where I was born, and met Kim, who finally agreed to marry me. My first job was delivering newspapers on my bike. Since then, I’ve been a reporter, a carpenter, a singer, [I’m not sure why I left out soldier, or for that matter, why I’m putting it in now. Maybe because I had a not so soldierly job (71R Broadcast Journalist) or because the only real bullets I had to deal with were during target practice. Reagan kicked that Grenadian butt so fast my services weren’t required.] an actor, a busboy, a waiter, a bartender, a plumber, a software developer and a real estate investor. I guess you could call me a jack of all trades, or just curious or totally devoid of any real ambition. Currently, I’m studying physics. It was that or philosophy, but I figure even difficult answers are still easier than no answers.
I am a practicing agnostic latitudinarian and by that I mean that I don’t know what the ultimate answer is, but it’s a worthwhile pursuit to look for one. (My position should not be confused with the non-practicing agnostic or the practical atheist, which – in my opinion – are just hypocritical cop-outs for philosophers who know their atheistic beliefs are logically indefensible, but hypocritically hold them anyway and just call them something else so their other philosopher friends won’t make fun of them at parties.) I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything; at least not on the topic of the existence of God(s). It would be rather absurd to say, “I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m sure I’m right about it!� However, if your opinion requires me to reject scientific understanding, I will be very hard to convince.
I’m really a novice at talking about philosophy, but not necessarily at thinking about it. Some things just make sense to me; others don’t.
I subscribe to a theory that there is a physiological foundation for morality, but then it evolved like everything else. Morality usually gets out of hand when it either gets organized, someone sees a way to profit from it, some crazy person gets put in/takes charge, or some combination of the above. I’m working from the premise that no philosophy/religion/system of morality is completely right or completely wrong, so rather than looking at the differences, I look for the similarities. I think both philosophers and scientists make the same mistakes; they either concentrate all their attention on the extreme case or completely ignore it. The answer is most likely to be some where in the middle. Also, they assume that given the same circumstances, they will get the same result for every person and that can be pretty scary as well; If there’s one thing I’m absolutely certain of, it’s that all people are not the same. Other than that, I think absolutes are just an excuse to stop thinking and to stop looking for a better answer. (Since writing this little blurb, I’ve taken introductory classes in ethics and philosophy, so I have a better idea of how everyone else refers to these concepts, but I haven’t gotten around to editing this page.)
To imply that someone who disagrees with your position is in denial of the facts, usually means you know you have a weak position and are attempting to avoid (but still win) the discussion. In rhetoric, this is an example of an ad hominem attack.
Where Darwin is concerned, the fittest means the most adaptable, not the strongest. By the way, evolution is still happening; but maybe not the way you might think. Get used to it. After all, the earth isn’t flat.
Are humans inherently good or inherently evil? In physics, there is a concept of potential energy and kinetic energy. Potential energy doesn’t do anything; it only has potential. Kinetic energy is the energy of motion; through motion, this energy can accomplish something. I think humans are born with potential. (Not necessarily the same potential, but I think they should all get a fair chance to realize that potential.)
I’m intolerant of intolerance. (Actually, I am for tolerance; I just like the ironic alliteration.) In fact, I don’t think tolerance is even the best word, since it carries the connotation of putting up with something unpleasant [Words similar to tolerate: bear, abide, stand, stomach, brook, endure, suffer, tolerated, tolerating, tolerative, tolerator, permit, put up, take, more… ] and think acceptance of those who are different from you is a preferable goal.
I think you should always be for something, not against something. When you’re against something, you’re simply pointing out a perceived problem. If you’re for something, it’s more likely to be a solution.
I think that recognition of a fact is different from a valuation of that fact. If you are a [whatever] and I say you are a [whatever], it does not follow that I hold a particular valuation of being a [whatever]. It definitely doesn’t mean that I necessarily share your valuation of being a [whatever].
I think there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. There is only prejudice, which is “a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation.� When generalities are taken as absolutes, things usually go wrong; very wrong. Let’s face it, “one size fits all� usually doesn’t fit anyone perfectly.
I’ve recently come to the realization that staying busy and active and interested in something – besides yourself – is a very important ingredient in being happy; so much so, that it deserves its own recommendation. This had less to do with reading a little Bertrand Russell than with thinking about what the people I know who are happy, or unhappy, have in common. The happy ones mostly stayed busy either learning or doing something they found interesting.
Why did you cross through ‘nice’,� you ask? Well, being nice usually requires politeness at the expense of honesty; however, this is not always in the object of your niceness’ best interest. However, when this happens, convince them; don’t decide for them. (Interventions only help someone who wants help.)
This page – and whom it describes – is a work in progress. I will change my mind when necessary.
