tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11104096295335472042012-02-16T02:41:20.438-05:00Philosophy of WhyA personal exploration into historical and current forms of philosophy, always with an eye towards understanding the why of life.John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.comBlogger451100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-56617775849461832982012-02-04T01:52:00.001-05:002012-02-04T01:52:35.034-05:00To not play the game of life
To paraphrase a friend, "the real us is never shown as we embrace the illusion, the game." I have to ask whether this is actual truth. Do we show each potential mate/partner/friend the make believe version of ourselves? Do we play mental and emotional chess with them? Is there a dividend that we earn that makes the deception worthy?
Historically people have fallen into cliques. Whether it is John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-47880636423021423922012-01-24T02:39:00.001-05:002012-01-24T02:39:21.077-05:00Buddhist concept of mindfulness
There is a concept in Buddhism known as mindfulness (satipatthana). In it's simplest form it means to be in the moment at all times. A person should always "live in the moment" so to speak. Is this something that should be practiced? How is it beneficial and/or dangerous?
To be mindful, one has to have triggers to keep the mind in the moment. How many times have we just zoned out watching inaneJohn Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-487423616624345592012-01-07T00:55:00.001-05:002012-01-07T00:55:08.497-05:00Suggest a topicIf there is a topic that you'd like for me to write about, feel free to post it in the comments. My specialty is First School Critical Theorists, but I also love Theory of Mind, and Philosophy of Religion. But don't feel limited to those. I love a challenge.
For 2012 I plan on posting at least once a month (good plan). We shall see if that happens...John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-5194890303093515232011-12-15T01:56:00.001-05:002011-12-15T21:14:31.571-05:00The internet burped
So the internet crashed tonight. And by that I mean for everyone in this area, regardless of carrier. Of course the news is slow to respond. That dinosaur keeps forgetting to die.
The reason I post about this is because it reminded me of the power outtage that happened a decade or so ago in the NE US.
It was a time of zero internet. Those among us who can remember life pre-internet are getting John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-51241040516315551892011-12-06T01:23:00.001-05:002011-12-06T01:26:45.662-05:00Integrity
"One of the truest tests of integrity is its blunt refusal to be compromised." ~ Chinua Achebe
Let me preface this with stating that I am a former chef-restaurateur (though always a chef).
Had that thought mulling around my mind today. Being active on Yelp (http://www.yelp.com/) I've known all along that one day that someone would take offense to a negative review and contact me. And today wasJohn Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-4055223713906779132011-11-16T02:07:00.000-05:002011-11-16T02:07:38.237-05:00Kind v. LoveSo a friend of mine posed a question that was a variant of "love thy neighbor" which was "be kind to thy neighbor". The reasoning behind this being it is easier to be kind to those who are different from ourselves as opposed to actually loving others. Naturally I began to question the differences between being kind and loving.
Love is not ambiguous. Either one loves someone/a thing or nothing. John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-78486645343911236492011-11-04T02:40:00.002-04:002011-11-04T22:22:26.515-04:00What would human actions be if we knew if an afterlife existed?I was in the cemetery the other day and a thought crossed my mind about the existence of an afterlife. It was not whether one existed or not, but what would humanity be like if we knew? How do we define our actions or even decide them? What is the affect of impulse?
There are 3 options to an afterlife, once we remove the need for a deity (with one there are 27 options): 1. it exists. 2. it does John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-43060530064977234302011-10-11T00:58:00.003-04:002011-11-09T00:30:53.704-05:00Wow, sorrySo the last 4 months have shot by without an update. Sorry about that. Been coordinating my move to Costa Rica in the coming months.
New post soon!John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-81205753666737504772011-06-22T00:16:00.000-04:002011-06-22T00:16:54.525-04:00The importance of wordsQuine, Wittgenstein, Rorty, and many others spent most of their careers arguing the semantics of words. What they truly missed is the actual importance of words. Amongst many of the Native American tribes conversations take hours, not because of the number of words spoken, but because of the rarity of them. They weigh the importance of every single word. They assign it importance.
In this age weJohn Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-12629726766459156462011-05-24T02:09:00.000-04:002011-05-24T02:09:17.195-04:00End of the world failSo a recent quack tried to predict the end of the world and failed.
I don't question his dedication to his chosen path. I do question his mathematical skills. And by that I mean the ones specific to biblical mathematics. For those who do not know this obscure form of math, phrases and words have values and adding the values together supposedly give one the "end of days."
The real problem in John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-57509987607449608872011-05-02T01:39:00.001-04:002011-05-02T02:13:24.698-04:00Debugging morality v. ethicsIt is, indeed, a fact that, in the midst of society and sociability every evil inclination has to place itself under such great restraint, don so many masks, lay itself so often on the procrustean bed of virtue, that one could well speak of a martyrdom of the evil man. In solitude all this falls away. He who is evil is at his most evil in solitude: which is where he is at his best - and thus to John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-67074481177820895602011-03-23T00:45:00.000-04:002011-03-23T00:45:14.596-04:00Altruism aka the lie we tell ourselves subconsciouslyAltruism (coined by Comte) is defined as "the selfless concern for the welfare of others." A little more clearly, it means doing x for y and not expecting anything in return. But is that possible? Can one genuinely do for others without expectation of reciprocation?
The classic example is giving money to a homeless person. What are is the true motive? Do you do it because you feel sorry for the John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-20876788362917014382011-03-23T00:11:00.002-04:002011-03-23T00:11:51.892-04:00SorrySo much for my plan to post every 2 weeks. Life caught up with me. Never fear, I have a new post coming!John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-80331023751826441772011-02-22T02:04:00.001-05:002011-02-22T02:10:36.409-05:00The question of life can no longer be avoided because of WatsonIn the 50s Alan Turing in Computing Machinery and Intelligence proposed what is known as the Turing Test, which measures whether a machine is truly intelligent. Basically a human asks questions of A and B and has to determine which one is a machine and which one is a human. No machine has successfully beaten the test.
Until IBM's Watson went on Jeopardy!.
Sure the voice could use some tweaks, John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-45649253443832013782011-02-15T01:58:00.000-05:002011-02-15T01:58:45.811-05:00The Concept of Time TravelBefore discussing multi-linear time, one must establish what the concept of time is. Time, for this argument, is a tool that measures the cycles of day and night. It can be divided into decreasing discrete measurements (hours, minutes, seconds). A collection of discrete measurements can represent a block (day) or several blocks (week, month, year). This is an universal truth, but not a law. Our John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-11621036124003789902011-02-09T01:12:00.000-05:002011-02-09T01:12:44.935-05:00Intelligence and rainConsider this implication that the human brain is composed mainly of water and that thoughts are electrical transmissions. These are scientific facts. Also fact that the brain requires oxygen to remain functional. Heck let's toss in that it is a complex structure. And we will take the final step and say that we are explicitly discussing a fruit fly brain.
Now, remove religion. I am not saying John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-88247090168341775932011-01-05T13:18:00.002-05:002011-01-05T13:18:48.608-05:00Happy 2011Sorry for the infrequent posts. Hopefully I can get back to posting at least once per month this year...John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-21889241827351168322010-10-06T23:58:00.001-04:002010-10-06T23:59:34.315-04:00What is bad?A local television ministry has the following statement in their commercial:
if its good its god, if its bad its the devil.
Putting aside the question of whether such deities exist, instead we need to focus on the ambiguity of the words good and bad. Neither word has an absolute meaning. Each person, pending we have free will, makes constant determinations as to what they believe is good and bad.John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-37490371208483873922010-06-10T00:35:00.001-04:002010-06-10T00:36:38.016-04:00The truth questionNietzsche once wrote that "Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies." And of course the begged question is what is truth then? How does one define it and validate it. Can that even happen? Do we kill truth be the simple process of definition?
From convictions truth becomes irrelevant. Convictions force truth to be what it wants it to be. In religion, conviction would make a deity John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-54742872390038001392010-04-19T15:25:00.002-04:002010-04-19T15:25:58.345-04:00A question of timeIt was Augustine of Hippo who declared that time exists in the created, and that god exists beyond the created, for god was not created. This notion goes against all human-established/observed laws of nature. But since these laws were written by man does it necessitate that they are actually true? Could our observance of these laws be nothing more than an intentional illusion, or a weakness of John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-73658213928514810132010-02-26T22:13:00.000-05:002010-02-26T22:13:48.351-05:00NowismA key component to religion is personal survival after bodily death; that our "soul goes somewhere". One could view religion as a risk/reward situation, in which, the risks of living a "good" life, avoiding the temptations of "badness", are rewarded with an eternal afterlife. The pious gain an eternity of goodness, and the evil an eternity of suffering in the common view. The neutral? Hard to sayJohn Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-32284509068536626072010-02-26T22:11:00.002-05:002010-02-26T22:11:56.310-05:00Sartreian FreedomAs an atheist, Sartre denied that man is born with certain values, that man is born with universal ethics. As such, man must define freedom through his own actions. Freedom, in a classical definition, is to be without restraint. Sartre attempted to expand that definition by asserting that man was a prisoner of his own freedom, and that freedom was the only source of values. In short, man decides John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-2875833907809212572010-01-15T23:54:00.001-05:002010-01-15T23:57:09.262-05:00Dennett and Game Theory: Voodoo Mathematics?Dennett's use of game theory (Dennett, Daniel C. (1995) Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks) as either an explanation or a support for adaptationism is curious. Game theory in evolutionary study seeks to understand the mathematics behind the moves taken by an organism (rational or bounded rationality) to explain why some organisms John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-47223195558216201372009-12-20T23:29:00.004-05:002009-12-20T23:36:34.343-05:00Sartreian FreedomAs an atheist, Sartre denied that man is born with certain values, that man is born with universal ethics. As such, man must define freedom through his own actions. Freedom, in a classical definition, is to be without restraint. Sartre attempted to expand that definition by asserting that man was a prisoner of his own freedom, and that freedom was the only source of values. In short, man decides John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-13677922233672201822009-11-15T23:13:00.003-05:002009-11-15T23:22:01.955-05:00Epistemology and Analogical of the Teleological ArgumentThe epistemological and analogical methods of the teleological argument are attempts at proofs for the existence of a god. Epistemology (knowledge) relies on the Platonic idea that knowledge is composed of truths and beliefs. It is the beliefs part that makes a proof for god difficult, if not impossible. Analogical arguments rely upon building logical proofs that combine humans with natural John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-56225509703404489232009-10-01T00:07:00.002-04:002009-10-01T00:11:53.052-04:00Heidegger’s Pursuit of NothingHeidegger, high priest of neologisms, has presented the question of metaphysics by presenting the idea of the Nothing. One could blame translational problems on the difficulty of understanding exactly what Heidegger was trying to say, or one could simply blame Heidegger for creating words to aid in hindering the understanding of the Nothing. Perhaps Heidegger is intentionally oblique or perhaps John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-64752181982442009022009-09-15T23:44:00.005-04:002009-09-15T23:58:20.148-04:00Horkheimer’s Illusionary ScriptTo understand Horkheimer’s “The End of Reason”, one has need to understand the historical timeline the paper was written during. In 1937, four years prior, Horkheimer published the essay “Traditional and Critical Theory”, an essay which defined critical theory as a revolutionary form of Marxist theory, which called for the radical transformation in social theory and practice. It was not until John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-48075544143841705752009-08-28T00:08:00.004-04:002009-08-28T00:22:06.682-04:00Cosmological FallacyThe irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.---Friedrich Nietzsche At the latter end of the 1200's, John Duns Scotus put forth his idea of the first efficientcause (Opera Omnia. Civitas Vaticana: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1950-). It was an attempt to logically prove the existence of god. His argument, composed of seven steps, is as follows:(1)John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-30902943859725456502009-08-15T12:50:00.000-04:002009-08-15T12:52:34.597-04:00Science as ReligionSaint Anselm, in the Monologion, postulated that there is some one thing that exists which all things exist and that one thing exists through itself so therefore is greater than all other things. The significance of this statement is that Anselm side-stepped the problem of faith in a fairly convincing way. He would later define his position even more sharply in Proslogion.Religion is philosophy. John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-36587031652128538822009-08-04T23:26:00.002-04:002009-08-04T23:36:59.536-04:00Death and HumanityFirst off, let me toss out there that death is a state (being dead) and does not have the usual religious attributes attached to it. You die you are dead. That being said, Feldman's Termination Thesis (2000) is to me, the most logical position to take regarding death. In layman's terms, when we die, everything about us ceases to exist. In effect we are annihilated in the process. Religion of John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-48647944279087477472009-07-25T23:47:00.003-04:002009-07-25T23:56:58.051-04:00Free will and consciousness: are they conjoined twins?There are those that believe that you can not have free will without being conscious. Most will accept that you can be conscious but have no free will. I won't get into the Ontological portion of the argument in this post (but will eventually I am sure). I maintain that one could be either conscious or have a free will but it is not necessary to have both. To clarify, I can be conscious but have John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-17198311387869015262009-07-18T23:31:00.002-04:002009-07-18T23:37:40.616-04:00Brain-state and causalityLet's start with a quote by Donald Davidson:The notion of supervenience, as I have used it, is best thought of as a relation between a predicate and a set of predicates in a language: a predicate p is supervenient on a set of predicates S if for every pair of objects such that p is true of one and not of the other there is a predicate of S that is true of one and not of the other (Davidson, 1985,John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-52199453793109697822009-07-11T22:10:00.002-04:002009-07-11T22:15:04.822-04:00Kant and LoveKant put forth an idea that love is nothing more than the legal co-ownership of physical parts. Many philosophers have bemoaned this idea, notably Horkheimer, as though love is an actual obtainable ideal. I put forth that love is nothing more than acquiring goods in return for services, a form of capitalism, if you will.Zeus would impregnate females on whim. De Sade used love for the purpose of John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-77091176841629472712009-07-08T23:50:00.002-04:002009-07-08T23:53:43.706-04:00Is theory of mind true science?Using Searle's Chinese Room as a basis, when it was first proposed, it was believed to be untestable because of the limitations of computer technology. Even so, to test it would have required the inclusion of computer science and mathematics. Theory of mind at that point was just philosophy and thus pseudo science (Popper, Kuhn).But, along came several brilliant philosophers (Mooney comes to mindJohn Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-44432744211000067132009-07-08T00:21:00.002-04:002009-07-08T00:48:03.551-04:00Metaphysical Questions: can we do away with them?Given that one of the purposes of Post Modern Philosophy (PoMo) is to eliminate the need for metaphysical questions and adhere to some sort of "language game", tossed out by Wittgenstein and furthered by Rorty, the obvious question has to be then, is it possible to remove metaphysical questions?Rorty of course, in his "don't want to get trapped in an argument I can't win" style, has relegated John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-2459752341404752922009-07-08T00:15:00.001-04:002009-07-08T00:18:34.731-04:00Chaos and realityIs there anything that has stability, or are all things governed by chaos? If you think about the lifespan of a human, on the surface it is mostly stable, but it is not at all. A person can die at any moment for any reason. The seasons are on a Gregorian calendar, and that is a stable thing, but we all know that the seasons change as they will. Summer begins sometime in June, not necessarily on John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-90341729856693291582009-07-06T23:10:00.000-04:002009-07-06T23:12:21.005-04:00Understanding the empty roomThe Spacious Mind By Ajahn Sumedo, Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, Vol. V, #1 The spacious mind has room for everything. It is like the space in a room, which is never harmed by what goes in and out of it. In fact, we say "the space in this room," but actually, the room is in the space, the whole building is in the space. When the building has gone, the space will still be there. The space John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-82596709136672990532009-07-03T13:45:00.001-04:002009-07-03T13:45:46.089-04:00Intelligent Design = No free willID (intelligent design/creationism) has purported that the entire universe was created by an intelligent 'designer' and actually do use some factual scientific evidence to support it. And of course, their scientific evidence is dwarfed by the Darwinic evidence. But I digress. The hole I want to poke into their entire argument centers on free will.For about as long as philosophy has existed, free John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-70283650119158791812009-07-03T13:41:00.000-04:002009-07-03T13:43:00.050-04:00A bit of Hegel regarding willRemoving one's will from the body is not relinquishing one's will, one's self. Only death could accomplish that. Allowing another to possess oneself, in the apparent absence of the will is just an act of the will, but not a true possession, nor is it coercion. The will is not something that can be arbitrarily turned off and on, as it is an universal. Only through the rejection of life, accepting John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-64766655816971267042009-07-02T23:32:00.003-04:002009-07-03T00:02:43.932-04:00The Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma: A meta-solution for evolutionDennett's example of the prisoner's dilemma, used as a backdrop for the evolutionary stable strategy (ESS) of Maynard Smith, may be a foundational explanation for adaptation. Adaptation is best illustrated in Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning: “Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-63689085531664831832009-07-02T16:09:00.001-04:002009-07-02T22:57:10.826-04:00The existence of good and evilOne of the commonplace arguments in Philosophy of Religion is the existence of good and evil. Cicero once wrote that "The function of wisdom is to discriminate between good and evil." The Marquis De Sade urged people to explore their darkest nature to truly understand it. This seems a groundwork for Nietzsche's "Beyond Good and Evil". In a nutshell, Nietzsche wondered what good and evil would be John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-88627759923340604722009-07-02T16:06:00.002-04:002009-07-02T19:06:51.960-04:00Free will v. HeavenOnce again I am reading Dostoyevsky's The Brother's Karamazov. As a philosopher, this is a seminal reading, and ranks with Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Sarte's Being and Nothingness, amongst others. The chapter known as rebellion (mistakenly referred to the Grand Inquisitor, which is the following chapter) attacks the notion of suffering and faith and the limitations of god's power. But it is John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-36550866558926729812009-07-02T16:03:00.001-04:002009-07-02T16:04:51.960-04:00Insecurity reflected as beliefAll belief is a cover-up for insecurity.Deepak Chopra (दीपक चोपड़ा)ABC had some sort of special about religion, and though I was programming, I heard those words. And of course, I knew that he would be attack visciously for saying it. But why? Too many people who "believe" are too wrapped up in their own insecurities to truly understand the beauty of that simple statement. And worse, too many John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-77133444117200745052009-07-02T16:02:00.002-04:002009-07-02T22:59:15.847-04:00DestructionSo I am thinking recently, I am my own destruction. And then the logical side has to ask: if you aren't who is? Of course we all are our own destruction. This does not go against what I have written before: "I know me. I do not believe in me, nor do I have faith in me. Either one cheapens me."It is what Nietzsche laughed at when he wrote "He who cannot command himself shall obey. And many a one John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110409629533547204.post-20646294961755867932009-07-02T15:59:00.001-04:002009-07-02T22:58:41.764-04:00Thoughts on FichteFichte is known for stating that the "I is aware of itself as making itself self-aware" (part of his Wissenschaftslehre).And of course across the decades people have wondered what the hell he has meant? Was it some precursor to Sartre's "man creates himself" or Nietzsche's "Superman"?In my take, we are only really aware of our selves, our own being, when we are self-aware, when we understand our John Dayhttps://profiles.google.com/117392722456404004541noreply@blogger.com0