"Better
a little which is well done, than a great deal imperfectly."
(Socrates,
to Plato's Theaetetus, regarding patience when discussing
philosophy)
I
once had an ambition to fully understand the entire intellectual history
of mankind, but found myself exhausted for lack of sources that could satisfy
me. I began to study dictionaries, encyclopedias, and various histories
of philosophy, which accumulated in several conclusions. Having examined
the beliefs I have had since creating this website, it is sufficed to say
that the previous title (Philosophy is Everything) was diffcult
to demonstrate, if not proving to be absurd from a realist perspective.
Hence, the change, because autonomy is something any morally and intellectually
responsible person desires for the sake of rights that any change of circumstance
imposes upon individuals in order for them to adapt (individually and collectively).
During
my youth, I had been searching for evidence of socalled "psychic" phenomena
when, after finding none, I became interested in psychology (mostly the
work of Carl Gustav Jung, 1875-1961, see link
here).
Being a book worm without any record of it, somehow philosophy acquired
my attention (probably from some of the works by Alan Watts, 1915-73, linked
here).
Alan Watts said
| "Words
can express no more than a tiny fragment of human knowledge, for that we
can say and think is always immeasurably less than what we experience...this
is not because there are no limits to the exhaustive description of an
event; as there are no limits to the possible divisions of an inch; it
is also because there are experiences which defy the very structure of
our language. But the intellectual, the man who has a great skill with
words, is always in danger of restricting what can be known to what can
be described. He is therefore apt to be troubled and suspicious when anyone
tries to use ordinary language to convey an experience which shatters its
logic, an experience which words can express only at the cost of losing
its meaning. He is suspicious of fuzzy and ill-conceived thinking, and
concludes that there is no experience which can correspond to such apparently
nonsensical forms of words." |
I
first made this website in 1998, following my first year at IUPUI, Indiana
University and Purdue University of Indianapolis. This site has since been
altered several times, both in content and presentation style. The advantages
of a free publication that I could publish on my own appealed to me. Control
over the appearance of this website, however, is really difficult. Internet
browsers, personal customizations, and a slew of potential differences
in appearance are possible. Nevertheless,
this material is copyright
protected under common law. Reason deserves expression, to be integrated
with contemporary rituals of communication. If, as I believe, correct reasoning
is universally correct, then errors of reasoning can be discovered by anyone,
regardless of age, race, gender, or nationality. In the practical belief
that truth, rights, and values are universal, then my credibility, here,
should be merited by my reasoning (which, of course, is only as materially
strong as words). Do not be frustrated with language for too long in your
lifetime. Enjoy life! Enjoy the good experience of living under the guidance
of correct reasoning!
This
web site serves as a record that may be referred to, and that I may later
modify (all of which is dated and published solely under my own supervision).
Any questions at all with regard for what is published here should be directed
to pcrugh.geo@justice.com (my
email address). The reason for that is, since such questions result from
this publication, as the author, I am responsible enough to assist in providing
answers. Like every human on the planet, I cannot anticipate all possible
problems. Hence, secondly, for whatever reason this site's material may
be used for discussion, please contact me so that I may participate. In
short, philosophy has to be engaged and taught. There is no way to learn
philosophy without participation.
I
do not leave conclusions or premises without statement, however, and so,
I do not expect any reader to perform that for me. As a rule, I do
not assert rhetorical sarcasm (the use of irony, or the use of words intended
to convey the opposite of their literal meaning, which causes an incongruety
between what might be expected and what actually occurs). Unfortunately,
many people perform such sarcasm on a regular basis (which tends to insight
some practical use for it, probably because it conveys one's ability to
discern between right and wrong, although no common sense would require
irony, e.g., the site: link,
and in contrast, e.g., link).
Those who emulate rhetorical sarcasm typically do so inappropriately, before
establishing a rapport with someone who makes correct discernments, the
proper judgment of which (either by social law or conventional wisdom)
can be disputed. Irrational confusion is probably the result of sarcasm.
We may agree that any intellectual rigor, however, is a moral freedom.
As
for my beliefs regarding religion: I am not religious. So, there is no
dilemma for me in deciding what religion is "best." Ever more credible
evidence of human intelligence can be found readily in intellectual demonstrations
(that is to say, demonstrations of reason, usually the correct sort, since
correct reasoning is universally correct). The "psychic" stuff is really
irrational, for lack of a better word, because the reasoning is so subjective
that no succinct universality is possible to it. It wasn't until I reached
a point of trying to make a case for my own reasoning, or my philosophy,
that I finally sought a formal education. This was not spiritually inspired.
I think religious terms are synonymous and analogical to psychological
terms, but without any necessarily orthodox version as any science is likely
to require. So,
spirituality for me is simply the mind's desire
to acquire wisdom.
