Digital Underground - uXu - Underground eXperts United #uxu-384

### ### ### ### ### #### ### ### ### #### ### ### ##### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ### ##### ### ### ########## ### ### ########## ### ### ### ### Underground eXperts United Presents... ####### ## ## ####### # # ####### ####### ## ## ## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ## ## #### ## ## #### # # #### ####### ####### ## ## ## ## ##### # ## ## ## ## ## ## ####### ####### # # ####### ####### ## [ Philosophy For Beginners ] [ By The GNN ] ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ PHILOSOPHY FOR BEGINNERS by THE GNN/DualCrew-Shining/uXu Our world is ruled by money and power. For those unlucky fools who are unable to reach any of those two simple goals, there is still one chance of getting sex: get into philosophy. As we all know, a great number of the human race often says that 'intelligence' plays a significant role as a quality in the partner they are looking for. This is of course a lie. You will not get any steady partner if you get into philosophy, only causal stiffs. But you better get used to that. This short file will teach you some basic philosophy. Use and abuse it at your own will. I. WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS NOT To begin, we need to sort out some basic misunderstandings concerning philosophy. Philosophy is _not_ religion. True modern philosophers are all atheists, due to the fact that the existence of God is 1) Logically impossible (Mackie); 2) A great joke (Nietzsche), or 3) Completely uninteresting (Ayer). Some confused people use the concept 'philosophy' in the strangest ways. For example, they say that they have 'a personal philosophy concerning flowers' or 'I want to make profit, that's my philosophy'. If you run into such a person, you must act immediately and say that they are conceptually confused. This is an excellent move, since the mission of all true philosophy is to take basic accepted concepts and turn them into complicated and incomprehensible 'clarifications'. 'Eastern philosophy' is not philosophy. Yoga, meditation, Tai chi, Buddhism, mangaism, snobbism, etc., are things that you should sneer at the moment you encounter them. Remember that 'philosophy' is (C) the west world. _Never_ back off from this opinion. II. WHAT PHILOSOPHY IS No one really knows what philosophy is. But you need not worry. Whenever someone asks you what it is, you reply "Now, that's a very interesting philosophical question." III. ENTERING PHILOSOPHY Your next move is to choose if you want to dedicate your life to Practical or Theoretical philosophy. This distinction is not used in the United States; therefore, if you happen to be an American you should not hesitate to bring forward this fact to people who are ignorant of it. It makes you look like you were aware of the rest of the world, i.e., 'intelligent'. The distinction is quite simple: Theoretical philosophy deals with the question "Do we exist?" and "How are the things that exists constituted?", while Practical philosophy asks "Ought we exist?" and "Those things that exist, how ought they be constituted?" In general, this means that Theoretical philosophy includes Existentialism ("My life sucks and I wonder why"), Philosophy of Science, Logic, Phenomenology, Philosophy of Mind ("Do I have a brain?"), Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence, History of Philosophy, etc., while Practical philosophy enjoys itself with Political philosophy, Ethics ("Yes, it is right to fry the arse of your mama"), Theory of Value, Philosophy of Sick Sexual Behavior, Philosophy of Philosophy, and so on. IV. BASIC VOCABULARY The moment you have made up your mind concerning which discipline you wish to make use of, forget it. Never stick to one thing, which will make your conversations worthless. The main task of philosophy is to view everything from a dubious angle. If the angle is not dubious enough, try again. Remember, you are into this subject for money and sex, not 'progress of thought' or something equally stupid. The next thing you need to learn is basic vocabulary. There are thousands of terms and concepts available, but the following will be enough for your mission (use them in every sentence and grunt you produce): METAPHYSICS 'Meta' means 'after', i.e., metaphysics is 'after physics'. No one really knows what one will find after physics, so neither need you. But whenever someone accuses you for talking 'mumbo-jumbo' explain to that person that "Yes, it might sound like that to uneducated ears, but I am talking metaphysics". PROTOPHYSICS Not all that unexpected, 'proto' means 'before'. Since physics is regarded in the west world as a somewhat holy cow due to its way of producing luxury items like microwave ovens and atom bombs, you should attack it often (that will make you look like an 'uncomfortable truth sayer'). Explain that all physics is in general worthless, and if someone asks you 'why' (a question you should avoid) say that your recent studies in PROTOPHYSICS - that you naturally gained during your annual trip to the Erlangen School - has revealed that. EPISTEMOLOGY Epistemology deals with knowledge. A true epistemological question is 'How do I know anything at all?'. You can crush any argument by claiming that the speaker do not really know what he is talking about. If someone says "oh dear, it is raining" you ought to reply "how do you know that, _epistemologically_ speaking?" Make up the rest. ONTOLOGY Ontology wonders 'what is'. Is a cow? Is a car? Everybody knows that a car surely is, but a philosopher must deny this, just because 'everybody' knows this. Keep in mind: you are not some simple 'anybody', you are a _philosopher_. DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS Those who deal with this kind of ethics 'describe ethics', i.e. what kind of ethics that exist in a society. Pretend that you believe that your friends are able to understand ethics by asking them "what kind of moral do we have in our world?" After they have given you their amateur opinion move on to... NORMATIVE ETHICS ... which wonders not what kind of ethics that exists, but what kind of ethics that _ought_ to exist. "Ought we look to the consequences of our actions?" (consequentialism) or "Ought we look to the motives behind our actions?' (deontology). Confuse your friends by showing them that they are inconsistent (wonderful term to use) in their morality. The easiest way to do this is by first ask something like "Ought we kill a new-born baby with a butcher knife?" (to which they reply no) and then "Ought we have killed Hitler?" (to which they will reply yes). Of course, your friends will say that there is a difference between those killings, but this is something you must, 'for the sake of the argument', deny. If, however, some smart-ass sees right through your charade, move on to... META-ETHICS ... which does not give a damn if we kill someone or not. Meta-ethics wonders, for example, what the specific terms 'ought', 'should' and 'fuck' really means. If someone confronts you with the question "Well then, what ought we do?" you reply "What do you mean by _ought_?" (Remember, _you_ should ask the questions, _they_ should make a fool of themselves by trying to answer them.) A popular meta-ethical theory is Emotivism which says that morality is nothing more than what we feel, or do not feel, to do. So, if someone says "I don't want people to suffer" you reply "Don't be such a fucking cry baby". RATIONALISM Rationalists (like Plato) denies that we can gain any knowledge by using other things (like eyes and ears) than the mind itself. Hold this position if your opponent is into Empiricism. ('Cogito ergo sum' is a classical rationalistic conclusion; see Descartes below.) EMPIRICISM Empiricists (like Aristotle), on the other hand, says that the mind does not give us any knowledge at all. The only way to reach understanding is by using our eyes and ears. Hold this opinion if your opponent is into Rationalism. "I have seen ten white Volvos today, thus I know that all Volvos on planet earth are white" (empiricist knowledge, inductive method of proof.) If, however, you talk to two people, where one is a rationalist and the other one a empiricist, claim that you are both at the same time. It worked for Kant, thus it will work for you too. V. ADVANCED VOCABULARY You cannot, however, use the above words without filling in the blanks between your serious bullshitting with some slightly more advanced terminology. Therefore, you must also learn a little kindergarten Latin. PER SE 'In itself'. Something that is 'per se' impossible is completely impossible. "I believe it is impossible, per se, to make my Chevrolet dance the rumba." or; "Per se, it is not impossible that we go over to my apartment and have a drink." CETERIS PARIBUS 'All things being equal', or 'Forget all stupid contra-arguments against my excellent thesis.' When you say "One ought always, ceteris paribus, have sex." you mean "We ought always to fuck, and I don't give a damn if you say that one might get AIDS because that is a question that only fools like you dare to ask." PRIMA FACIE 'When first looked upon'. When someone says something that you really cannot find a good knock-down argument to (of course, this should never happen), say "The things you say sounds good, prima facie". Which, to your opponent, translates into: "I know that your ideas are worthless, but my modesty prevents me from mutilating them at once." EXPERIMENTUM CRUCIS 'The way of the cross'. Philosophers should emphasize their search for the only (single) truth (which is of course a lie - philosophers only searches for arguments against commonly held opinions). Therefore, say that there is no third alternative to your questions. Claim that your opponent must answer 'yes' or 'no' to your question, since it is a experimentum crucis. Sneer at all 'third-alternative' ideas, then make a fool of those idiots who falls into your trap and actually answers 'yes' or 'no'. EPISTEME 'Knowledge'. (Stems from Plato's "Respublica"). Say that you possess episteme while your opponents are merely stating... DOXA ... which is not knowledge, but 'opinion'. An opinion is not about something that is true, but simple verbal results of primitive emotions. "I _think_ it is wrong to torture animals..." (doxa), "I _know_ it is right to torture animals..." (episteme). If someone asks you where the hell you found your episteme, say that you saw it while studying the 'real forms' (which all real philosopher do, according to Plato). VI. FAMOUS PHILOSOPHERS Some knowledge of other losers is necessary for your personal success. You need only keep in mind when they were born and when they died. Make up the rest. "Ah, yes, <philosopher>... born in X, died X. Excellent/Worthless philosopher. He has truly changed/destroyed/misunderstood the whole world." If your imagination fails, study the information below for some basic ideas on what to say. THALES (585-450 B.C) You must keep this dude in mind. He was the first 'philosopher'. The reason for this was simple: while other, less intelligent people, replied "God" to the question "What rules the world?", Thales said "Water". Remember to say "water", not "Perrier". SOCRATES (470-399 B.C) Homosexual alcoholic who picked up young men by asking them questions without answer, like "What is justice?" (something no one still knows what it is). History tells us that Socrates was executed because he criticized society too much for comfort, but the truth is probably that his pedophilic behavior went overhand. PLATO (428-348 B.C) Famous, but not famous. This butt-surfer of Socrates (but use the word 'student' instead) did nothing except for writing down all the crap Socrates stuttered when drunk. A popular hate-object among modern students, since Plato invented the first university, 'the academy', and thus also 'exams'. RENE DESCARTES (or RENATUS CARTESIUS to his friends) (1596-1650) Descartes had probably never seen a mirror, since he had to prove his own existence by thinking; cogito ergo sum: 'I think, therefore I exist' is his famous conclusion. If you meet someone who is aware of cogito, do not hesitate to ask "What do you know?". The person will, naturally, reply "that I exist". Follow up with: "Is that all you know? Ha ha!" DAVID HUME (1711-1776) This Scottish fella suffered from too much weight, possibly because he fancied good food and wine. When it comes to ethics and wine, Hume is an expert: "A good wine can only be enjoyed by modern people, thus not by niggers and indians." He also showed the world that an 'ought' does not follow logically from an 'is'. Example: "It is a fact that I am about to punch you in the face" does not imply "It is a fact that I ought to punch you." IMMANUEL KANT (1724-1804) German hermit; possibly the ugliest man that has ever existed on Earth. Due to this, he had to exclude women out of his life, and dedicate his living to philosophy (I guess that did not surprise you). Kant meant that no one could dare to claim anything at all, if they had not first examined the tool they used to claim anything at all; i.e. reason. When talking about Kant, do not refer to 'Critique of Pure Reason' but to 'Kritik auf dem reinien vernuft'. (A book that you need not really read; just say that "it is impossible to fully take account of Kant without speaking German", then 'explain his ideas' with the help of some german sentences you have found in a dictionary. Example: "Mit der Kant ohne raus abzug ist daruben schon und jung und stark, alarm".) S0REN KIRKEGAARD (1813-1855) Unhappy Danish existentialist who dared to claim that women, booze and common fun was no fun at all. The only way to become happy, according to Kirkegaard, was by believing in Jesus. Ha ha. LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN (1889-1951) Lovely man for wanna-be philosophers. The writings if Wittgenstein can be interpreted in any way you like. But remember to refer to 'Tractatus Logicshischsh Philosophiscisccichh' when boasting about your 'knowledge' concerning Wittgenstein. (And, as with Kant, fake german quotes.) MARTIN HEIDEGGER (1889-1976) No one has ever understood Heidegger, which makes him an excellent philosopher. Unfortunately, he was also a nazi, which makes some people uncomfortable. Deny, or do not deny, his importance, depending upon the situation. For example, when you are dining with your Jewish friends, say that Heidegger was a genius. It will put you in the centre of all attention for the rest of the evening. (I need not say what you should do at a party with W.A.R.) JEAN-PAUL SARTRE (1905-1980) French promiscuous coffee-addict, famous for his idea that 'man is not what he is, but what he is not.' Use this phrase as often as possible. It does not really mean anything (in fact, Sartre would agree about that) and can thus be used anywhere, anytime. VII. PRAGMATIC TECHNIQUES If you do not smoke, forget philosophy. All philosophers smoke. Tobacco, that is. It is not philosophically correct to smoke marijuana, haschis or heroin. I mean, for Christ's sake, can you imagine Plato sucking on a glass cock day in and day out? The right clothes are important. Your wardrobe should consist of 1) An expensive suit, and; 2) Trash. The days you feel like playing ubermenschen, wear the suit. Other days, dress up in trash and scream that you are misunderstood by society. Also, wardrobe (1) implies health and strength, while (2) implies heavy drinking. Hint: Go for (1) when you are having a hellish hangover. Last but not least: Never ever tell anecdotes about philosophers. That makes a childish impression. And never laugh. Philosophy is the most important subject on earth, and cannot be regarded as mere humor. Humor is something small people have a primitive drive for; philosophers write books _about_ humor that does not contain a single joke (example: Bergson). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- uXu #384 Underground eXperts United 1997 uXu #384 Call DESTINY STONE II -> +61-9246-3491 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

← Svenska e-zines (1990-2008)