?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Journal it out... fuss fuss...

The numbering no longer makes sense. There was supposed to be, at some point, division between general questions and then some different sides I could see the arguments taking.


Ethics
1. Define "evil." --- See conversation with A.A.
2. Define "moral."
3. Where does conscience come from?
4. How can/does one reconcile individual interest with community interest?
5. Does one need to?

Value in Art (See previous post.)
1. How is what people value in art changing in the face of technological media?
2. How is what people value in art changing in the face of increasing globalism?
3. Are there tariffs on art? Should there be?
4. What possible routes can arise from the intellectual property arguments?

1. skill in execution vs. skill in design, handcraft vs. digital
2. rarity of idea - harder in global context
3. rarity of physical manifestation - counter to digital context, sides with live performance
4. cultural rarity prior to globalization : exoticism
5. value as an exercise and practice:
Purpose of Art
1. semantic, political (shock, critique, monument)
2. aesthetic
3. self-expression (some say outlet for Id, can't remember article)

Purpose of Society/Civilization
1. If perpetuation of the human race with higher standards of living is the goal of civilization, in what ways can war be justified?
2. How does the early civilization concept of specialization of labor relate to global patterns of outsourcing and manufacture?


1. Perpetuation of one's segment of the human race, making use of division of labor a la Mesopotamia, etc.
2. Build off collective achievements, greater than those possible on an individual, subsistence basis.
Then what the hell is war for? -- Giving home group advantage over another by seizing resources of physical or political nature.

Education
1. In a society where digital technology makes an overabundance of information readily available, in what ways is it more advantageous to teach heuristic research methods and critical thinking than fact based knowledge? In what ways should fact-based knowledge be incorporated?
2. How can one teach critical thinking? (Appeal to the cynicism of today's youth! Channel it into application rather than apathy.)
3. Teaching the history of philosophy is one thing. Teaching argument analysis is another. How can one teach the process of philosophy?

Individual Approach
On one side, there's passionate drive to do things, seek meaning even if there isn't any, create meaning...
On another, Tao says let it be, don't be a busybody, enjoy the moment, act according to your nature.
But what is that nature?
Buddhist/Hindu Karma- ++ by acting in accordance with the dharma, duty, associated with that role, that self nature.
But isn't that active acting?
And the nihilist... If nothing has a point, enjoy the moments? Same conclusion?
Epicurus in the old sense.

So... Better not to know of the world's problems, to focus small? Simple joy of subsistence, not harming others?
Or better to engage with civilization, which has so much potential, if gathered up and cast forward in a great heave?

Better to ponder as a hermit, finding thoughts and lessons from experience, picking one's own way?
Or in a community, to strengthen arguments by beating them up against the counterarguments of peers?
Or to seek from the page?
Or to seek from experience?
Or to investigate common wisdom, questioning its source and the source of its strength or failing?

A lesson learned on one's own may stick better.
A lesson book-based on those centuries of tomes... Lacks the individual inspiration... But builds a foundation for new progress. And so on, ever upward, and so on, more broadly...
There are more available perspectives than will occur to any single one.

Nothing new under the sun? Repeat and repeat?
But if it is new to me, mayhap new enough.

Fizz fizz. Fuss fuss.
To a mvsevm, to see the glory of natural and created items of Earth!
To a library, to see the sculpted dreams and treatises of so many souls.
Letterpress letterpress, press with such weight.

And who will hold the media to task?

I am aware of things such as FAIR, but I am fussy because I think there should be a group with as much visible presence as a major news network whose sole purpose is to keep commentary on the responsibility, ethics, and accuracy of mainstream news. Could be funded by taxing advertisement.

I also think critical thinking and source-caution should be taught from a young age.
Never let education get in the way of learning.

Nor, apparently, sleep.