“The School of Athens” by Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino

Walking the streets of ancient Athens during my travels two years ago, I imagined Socrates conversing with people my age in another time. By touching upon the tangible markers that inspired Plato’s text, I re-construed his philosophy in its original context. I realized that Plato’s dialogues are a product of Socrates’ initial goal of inspiring conversation in public spaces with ordinary citizens to question their pre-existing ideas. My love for the humanities lies in its ability to challenge how the world is and imagine how it should be. In an age of distractions, where information is abundant but focus and empathy are scarce, sitting with Socrates demands sustained attention and a pursuit of ends rather than means.

A course I took required every participant to give a presentation on the philosophers important to our culture, I focused my analysis on Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset’s notion that, “Since love is the most delicate and total act of a soul, it will reflect the state and nature of the soul.” Encountering his conception of love as a reflection of the soul, I couldn’t help but think back to Plato’s theory of the tripartite soul. Both philosophers, though separated by two millennia, seek the nature of the soul by examining ideals: justice on the one hand and love on the other. In comparing these texts, I realized that we can only understand ourselves by seeking to understand the ideals to which we aspire. It is through the study of the humanities that I hope to further grasp those ideals and strive to embody them myself.

Photo Credit

Photo is Wikimedia Creative Commons

Guest Author Bio
Yumeng Fan

Originally from Barcelona, Spain, Yumeng loves ballroom dance, Hispanic literature, collage-making, and the wide, tangled worlds of literature, science, poetry, and art.

Partially hidden among the larger headstones, the deer got to their feet as we walked towards the grave site. But, as we spent time in quiet contemplation, one of them laid back down again. They seemed to understand our sadness and that we meant them no harm. Especially for Linda, the ultimate animal lover, this seemed so appropriate.

Unfortunately, she was not able to fight off this second bout of cancer in recent years. And, after saying that he was hanging on by a thread with her passing, Don died just days afterwards. Linda efficiently handled all the couple’s business affairs. But, everything was password protected on their computer. And, without any handwritten information or phone-book, he couldn’t access anything or call anyone. He felt so lost.

I’m sure there’s a scientific explanation (like dementia) given for his death; but, I believe he could also have died from – what used to be called – a broken heart.

We were unable to attend the brief burial service held earlier that day. Yet, attending by ourselves – along with our two new furry friends – felt perfect for us. During our last phone conversation Linda, not normally one to share her feelings, uncharacteristically told us how much she loved us. It was as though she decided to draw family and friends ever closer to heart.

Thinking back, I wondered if it were possible that God’s nature was channeling Linda’s and Don’s spirit through those two deer. I know, to some, this will sound silly; or, maybe naïve to others. In their own ethereal way, their presence seemed to be saying, “Don’t grieve. We’re at peace now.” To me, all the love in the universe is ours… like a never-ending river of life flowing through us .

However, it occurs to me, we tend to put “Life“ on trial – without giving it a chance.

We demand what we want from life instead of accepting what life has to offer. When we don’t get it, we try to run things on our own. Yet, running against the wind in some self-defeating manner is not a long-term strategy for living.

We know love when it’s given, but we can’t help our paranoia. For some reason we find it hard to acknowledge love’s impossible solutions. So, by expecting the worse we are strangely validated when it comes… like being programmed not to trust others. But, contrary to our efforts it dawns on us: we need each other’s help and kindness.

Life really is the master and it demands a grateful heart. We’re free to dismiss or condemn it, but experience shows how circumstances can change and worsen as we harden our attitudes. Plus, we run the risk of losing the good things we’ve actually gained. The hardest lesson? Seeing in the mirror what we’ve become without love.

As psychologist Wayne Dyer said, “If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change.”

“No longer riding on the merry-go-round,
I just had to let it go.”
~ Watching the Wheels by John Lennon – Watch on YouTube

That’s the way I figure it. FP

Photo Credit
Photo is from Pixabay

First published at fredparry.ca

Guest Author Bio
Fred Parry

Fred Parry lives in Southern Ontario. He is a lover of people and a collector of stories, music, wisdom, and grandchildren. His raison d’etre? “I’m one of those people who believe that if my work serves the common good, it will last; if not, it will die with me. I still believe that’s true.” Fred spent ten years as a columnist for Metroland Media Group – a division of the publishing conglomerate Torstar Corporation.

His book, ‘The Music In Me’ (2013) Friesen Press is also available via Indigo / Chapters.

Blog / Website: www.fredparry.ca

I suppose this is why we are encouraged to be gentle with ourselves throughout this process; although ultimately, the result is indeed a more centered and balanced state of being, it is not an easy undertaking.

In my experience, the silence of meditation can be deafeningly loud sometimes. All the ‘mind spin’, ‘reasons why it’s a waste of time’, and the lingering habituated cycles of thinking about ‘what else we should be doing’ and ‘how we should be’, has often caused me to have to ‘come out’ because if I didn’t, I would have thrown up or passed out. I think this speaks to the healing process; a purging, in a sense, of all which rises to be acknowledged and addressed and perhaps let go, if it no longer serves us.

Breathing deeply helps. Deep belly breathing I’ve learned hits the Vagus nerve, which stimulates the parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn, invokes a sense of calm. ‘Rest and digest’ mode. Allowing the emotions that might come up to be released through crying helps as well.

What it feels like to me is ‘sitting with woundedness’ and attempting to be there as a loving caretaker, even as the woundedness seems to ‘fight to stay wounded’, and not because it really wishes to stay wounded, but because it is familiar with that. It feels almost like Stockholm syndrome: Like I/we actually developed a loving bond with patterns and habits which have ‘been with us for so long’, even as they damage us.

And when the habitual patterns rise – naming the thoughts, things and perhaps people attached to these ‘wounds’ – it feels as if the wounds become raw again. Like layers coming to the surface.

‘Why am I doing this to myself?!’ I often ask.

‘Because you value yourself that much. You’re the powerful caretaker. You’re the only one who can. You’re the expert on you’, I hear.

And even as it feels like attempting to build a bridge between the ‘no! you can’t change!’ subconscious design, and the ‘yes! you can!’ conscious one, over wounds that roil and boil like hot lava underneath the surface of our conditioning, we are called to breathe through the pain and discomfort knowing that this too shall pass. And once it does, a new neural thread is formed as part of that bridge.

Like a new little bud of hope opens up in the heart on a once neglected tree of we.

I’ve noticed that ‘re-wiring’ my thinking/behavior/tendencies is working.

I have noticed a change in my habits – simple things like always making my bed so I have it to come home to, being more mindful in my communications, in doing dishes, more intrigued by the nature of what is possible, false idea forms and limiting belief systems slowly removed and replaced by true knowing and belief in Self, smiling at people even when I don’t feel like it and having smiles returned, and not minding the ‘small stuff’ so much.

I encourage everyone reading to watch this TED talk, “Why we all need to practice emotional first aid”.

In short, meditation is sometimes transcendent; like I notice an immediate and lasting sense of calm in it. Power in observing what comes up, and not reacting as I have done in the past. But sometimes, it’s not. Sometimes, it feels like doing hours of dirty work only to find more mess the next time. Like, it’s not working. But it does work. It just takes practice and time.

I hope this resonates and/or helps.

Please be gentle with your selves.

Love, light, and luck to you all.

Photo Credit

Photo is pixabay creative commons

However, some artists may disagree, as they probably like to paint humble places, where poor and tired faces linger, children with bare feet play on the road, and everything is dirty and messy, yet artists are motivated by this modest scene to stroke their brush over their canvas and sketch inspiring paintings out of this chaos and disorder. If you ask them: “What motivated you to depict such a place?” they would tell you: “there is something real about it”. Perhaps this shows that sincerity overrides all. It is exemplified in the care shown in the eyes of a mother and the warmth of her hug. Her love is beautiful because it is unconditional and genuine. Smiles and tears move us only if they are real. That is why the laughter of a baby is warmly received as it comes deep from the bottom of its pure and innocent heart. Indeed, sincerity must come from a living being, as the dead are not capable of being deceitful or sincere. Certainly, a handmade carpet is much more appreciated than one which is machine made. Beauty can be found in any form of life.

If butterflies, peacocks, flying birds, flocking fish, and beautiful girls are dead they instantly become ugly. A dead flower, although it keeps its lovely scent for a while, quickly loses its beauty. But is beauty limited to living beings? You can find beauty in the structure of an atom, in the fabulous architecture of a building, the magnificent urban planning of a city… etc. This raises skepticism about their lack of life, for they must have something alive in them. I assume that this is the touch of a living designer who created them, in other words the designer’s intention.

Does our perception of beauty lie in our appreciation of beauty or our appreciation of the designer’s art?

Certainly, you will be fascinated by watching the synchronization of the dancers’ movement in a live performance as they hit their feet on the stage rhythmically in an orderly fashion. Have you ever asked yourself what is so beautiful about live performances? Is it because it just looks great or because you know that it is the fruit of huge time and effort exerted including months of rehearsals, team work, training, desire, persistence and hard work?

Have you ever asked yourself why when watching a soccer game, the goal that is achieved with skill and talent is better received and appreciated than one achieved by mere luck or chance?
Intention is the greatest key to beauty, for it gives meaning and life to every aspect including colors, shapes, proportions, style and function. When you know that things are meant to be designed like this, this makes them really beautiful, especially when you realize that beauty is intended for you!

Photo Credits

Photos by Salma Hassaballa

Guest Author Bio
Salma Hassaballa

Salma Hassaballa is an independent filmmaker; she mainly writes her scripts and puts in her initial music and lyrics. She also writes different genres of books and she is a member of the Arab Writers Union.
Blog / Website: www.salma-hassaballa.com

Lately, I have come to what feels like the edges of me. That place inside which demands radical severance from that which serves to take away my power to run better code. This radical severance or shift must occur in the heart and DNA – in the deepest and original parts of us – before it can happen in the mind. The heart and the DNA are where the code is found; the mind is just the server than runs it.

The code I have been running could be mirrored in any person; those which serve comfort and familiarity, manifested through established patterns of behaviour, are those which we tend to run as a conditioned ‘go to’.

Repetition works.

Whatever wills me will be coded in me. Whatever will be will be coded in me. I will to will thy will. Whose will? Who is running this code that has become established as the ‘go to’? Conditioning is commanding. It is so entrenched – seemingly merged with radical counter intuition – that it can even cause behaviour that serves to severe one from one’s actual Self.

At this point, I have to ask: What if the code is inferior?

I am in pain. Still nursing an injury, and the system is down. I cannot run the code. I cannot train the sweet science.

How do I respond? This is just a test, right? It’s all a big metaphor.

I do what is in me to do.

I connect with that which serves to release me from the pain. And indeed, it takes what feels like supernatural determination to do so.

I am used to being able to train very hard, for long periods of time. But I have had to find other ways to address the pain, the demons, the inferior code. Meditation and box breathing are of great service to me, but sometimes, the slow process amplifies the pain.

Doing something differently – especially something good – is like calling a showdown with the inferior coding.

What if my code is inferior?

We’re talking about me, right?

My demons are just psychological metaphors representing my internal, old patterns right? They’re not external representations of projected enforcers, sent to make me feel defeated and confused. Question mark?

I am in pain. My healthy ‘go to’ outlets plugged.

How do I respond? I don’t always feel apt to run better code.

Sometimes, I eat my feelings, especially when I cannot train like I am used to.

I ‘go to’ that quick sugar fix into a false but reliable sense of comfort and familiarity – even when I know it’s bad for me. The pull of what has been conditioned as acceptable – that which is immediately gratifying – provokes and promotes a feeling of escape, from the fight inside, and it requires no determination. Addicted to the need to feel comfort and security. Too torn sometimes to see that my ‘sugar fix’ is short term and causes long term damage, and through repetition, reinforces the coding of old conditioning.

We are programmed to survive, and to do so as comfortably as possible serves to make the experience more than just about survival. It adds a soft element to a hard truth.

But what if the code is inferior?

‘Go to’ outlets becoming unplugged. The fight you fight is for an unknown…and it’s perhaps beyond you to code a new program.

Here: Eat and repeat.

The determination to both literally and metaphorically stand up from the table and simply walk away escapes me sometimes. These old programs which run perhaps the simplest code are undeniably reliable, but they are serving not me, but poor outcomes.

So why do I run them?

So many labels we are given for standing up from the table, and stating clearly – if only to ourselves – that we are done dining with the demons of bad conditioning and inferior coding.

What if the code is inferior?

The code I witness, day in and day out in life, business, medicine, communication, politics and society in general, is most definitely in need of a reboot. We need to care about this. About each other. About our Selves.

This code of conduct, remaining seated at the table with bad patterns resulting from bad conditioning, dishonors the fact that you are willing and capable of wrestling with this fact.

Remaining seated with your demons, while they grow weak and tired of you, and you of them, is both foolish and brilliant. Foolish in that sitting with them – the inferior code – the ‘bad wolf’ inside – provides food data to the feedback loop of habit, ego and immediate gratification; and brilliant in that, if patient and thoughtful, we can make them tire of our persistent presence and our good wolf question: “Is this really the best we can do?”

The running script is so elegant. It’s almost impossible to permeate it because the illusion is all encompassing, and not all bad. And it undeniably includes us; both sides. All sides. Both wolves. All wolves.

What if the code is inferior?

Feedback tells me that the inheritance of ability and power to write better code will not be revealed until ‘bad conditioned behaviour’ has been abandoned. It’s like an archetypal/archeological dig into DNA; into the code itself.

And for me, to do anything else is the only thing that is impossible, because so long as I am alive, I will be curious. I am curious to understand why such ‘flagrant system failures’, keep running, over and over again. So I seek to decode and rewrite the code. To abandon that which no longer serves the system, so that the ‘servers’ can enhance efficiency across the system. To run better code; so that we can all do more than just survive.

How?

By facing the demon inside. To summon, write and run better code. To wake up the D(emo)N A? – by yes – addressing it appropriately. Choosing inferior CoDe-mon is easy and deeply embedded, but it also dishonors what existence is, and reinforces the idea that this is just a game.

And I call it all out.

Not to fight.

But to find out who is really willing and able to contribute not to better arguments or rhetoric, but to better coding. To discover who I truly am.

Thank you for reading.

Photo Credit

Photo by Mary Rose – All Rights Reserved

I am starting to think that we don’t actually think our own thoughts at all, rather, we simply receive them… from everywhere and everything that visits our sensibilities.

So, in essence, I’m saying, I didn’t just think this.

It’s possible that there truly are no un-thunk or original thoughts. Which explains why writers often describe ‘the flow’ of higher level writing as an out of body experience…like they are humbly channeling…like a bridge or a conduit to and from somewhere other than their own mind…to and from the infinite imaginarium of possibility…tapped into an optimal, crystal clear frequency, so to say.

Like radio receivers. Tune-able. We can choose the station…the thought and image frequencies which we allow in through our mental filters, just like adjusting the dial on a radio, are ours to notice and adjust. All the low, no-one-wants-to-listen-to-those-shit frequencies (like annoying commercials), are out there too, but if you don’t tune into them, (willfully block them out, turn the dial, change the channel – all of which can be done simply by making a small movement), they cannot become thoughts in YOUR mind, and thus, cease to exist in YOUR reality. Which gets passed on. Like a contagious smile or a yawn.

I think this is how we will manifest a better outcome – on all fronts.

We are designed for more than to be enslaved by an ego-based mindset which thinks itself the creator of all thoughts and things great. Ego distracts us from using our intuitive ‘pick ups’ to their full extent…and these pick ups are like frequency bridges to the infinite realm of ‘is’ (best probability) as opposed to that of ‘might be’ (ambivalent possibility).

Ego ‘tries’ and fails because there is no try, and we can hear it failing as it whispers inconsistent, mixed signals into our minds all the time: Which is why we get torn between totally right! and good enough!, and totally wrong! and not good enough! Between genius and total dumbass. That’s ego playing chess with itself. And listening to that game? Booooooooooooourns.

If we realize that we don’t really ‘create destiny’ (which, let’s face it, is a HUGE and scary thing to have to undertake), rather, we choose what ‘destiny’ we tune into – one that already exists among an infinite number of possibilities – we dismantle fear, doubt and anger.

Feeling that kind of control – that kind of power – to choose at every moment what to let in for processing, and thus, what occurs as a result…it’s self-actualization but it’s more than that…it’s like seeing who you ‘already are’ from the POV of a future you. Like having a magical navigation tool; a scrying mirror, in the land of optimization.

So, I tune into what ‘feels right’, and that feels like…clear skies bliss…an optimal frequency. I find that this then is automatically passed on through the same ‘receiver’ process, to those I visit my own presence upon.

Now: Anyone else care for a warm spot of tea?

Photo Credit

Mary Rose with a sword – by Mary Rose, All Rights Reserved

Sifting through most of what others taught me, either through their need to pontificate or to use their intellectual muscle, I became aware that I was unable to identify with their belief system. Some offered definite conclusions about my spiritual beliefs, others of philosophy, still others of psychology. And of course, everyone had a lesson to teach me about my own writing – write this, don’t write that, your story is about this etc., when I was the author with the thoughts; but they seemed to know better.

Then of course there were the quote-thinkers who appeared knowledgeable, but were really only trying to find themselves in the quotes to make sense of their lives or, in some cases, to dismiss mine. I was often unable to process their quotes, which I believe was their way of disarming my ideas, therefore making me feel they were invalid.

Then one day I realized something while skimming through the pages of a book that had been given to me – I was not following my own intellectualism. I was becoming a copy of what everyone else was and who they wanted me to be. I was being restricted intellectually and it was by design. Society counted on me to be as inept as the next person. My education was grounded in the presumptions that I would become middle-class and nothing more, but if I were to amount to less, that was fine by them.

When I finally realized this was not for me, I was eager to think outside the box. I wanted to start my own business, to somehow redefine the limits placed on me. It all came about when I went to North Carolina for a conference. The first thing I noticed was the fierce sense of competition for excellence – not just in writing, but in making more of one’s self.

Speaking about classism in the United States of America kind of made me think it was not applicable in this setting, or at least it was politely ignored and thought of as invalid. At first I thought this was wrong, but after finally catching the American entrepreneurship bug, I realized it was the difference between the social welfare system I was raised in back in Canada and the redefining-a-life concept in America.

Despite first appearances that it was a greedy system, I began to see it was not just about greed – it was about a form of intellectual freedom to think and create your own life. When the penny dropped, I was a convert to the American business mindset. I began to think more freely, my creativity blossomed and I was not afraid to take a risk. I wanted to increase my awareness by becoming close enough to a system that I often disliked, but could still build a model of the life I wanted for myself.

Perhaps restructuring your own life is indeed the ultimate form of understanding. I watched Shark Tank and noticed an intensity of thought in each of the creative business people. And then, for the first time in my life, I realized that these people were looking to not just make money, but were looking for the freedom to think and do what they wanted. They were intellectuals as well; creative intellectuals capable of stepping outside the box. Maybe they hadn’t read Kant or Plato but they were formulating a philosophy of their own. The philosophy of freedom was indeed the entrepreneur’s mantra.

When you can challenge the assumptions of your past or how it should be according to the rules of others, then you are a thinker – a free thinker and yes, a free human. I realized that perhaps a thinker isn’t a trained person as much as they are innately born to do so. And, maybe building a business is a natural process of finding one’s own intellectualism or form of it.

With this in mind, I watched thousands of people get on a train to go to work and as they did, I wondered –  if the noise stopped for five seconds would they, too, discover their own philosophy of freedom? My small business was now mine. I was beginning to discover that the ability to create an idea and a concept and then bring it to fruition was an intellectual freedom I’d never experienced before. You see, the fact that the world has become anti-intellectual is not necessarily true. What has happened, as the economy struggles to maintain itself, is individuals are entering a new level of intellectualism through the freedom to define how they make an income.

I guess this article is to encourage others to find a niche for themselves in the world and to enter a new level of intellectual freedom through doing so. I will continue to love Plato and embrace my favorite authors, but I also know that to truly think freely, one has to create something bigger than self and then, as a result, create freedom.

As I fought my mentor’s teaching of freedom and the concept of capitalism, I failed to see the philosophy of freedom I was already living through my writing and my business. So, I will thank my business coach as I take greater steps toward this freedom. I have found my intellectualism and as a result, my vision for furthering it.

Photo Credits

Photo by Melinda Cochrane – all rights reserved

Language for the eyes but what is that language conveying?

What if anything does it speak to in our present culture?

There is a sensation of standing on the ledge of a great cliff when viewing one of the pieces. There’s little in the way of texture-of a sort that one could say is beyond the paint. It’s more than that though, it is truly, a window into another world and if one is standing before the window, one feels the rush of blood to the gut because there is a very real edge of reality.

Revival 2015. Ink and stain on paper, 8×10 in.

It becomes clear after only a few minutes of viewing the works that Van has created a language for the eyes. But what is that language conveying? Perhaps it’s proper to mention the somewhat graphic design inspired appearance of Van’s work. There are bits and pieces and even standalone works that feel as though they’ve been commissioned by a company. Indeed, Van has been chosen by several companies for just that, more singular, easy to consume works. So is that same hand at work in his other pieces? Yes and a very loud no.

To help explain, think of those moments when first waking from a dream-your head is heavy with the fog of so much unconscious management. You feel the last vestiges of the dreams who had slipped through your head like sand through a sieve. But there are remnants. You take hold of those familiar parts and squeeze with all your might and try reel them back into your waking thoughts. But all that power would make them real and the same feelings afflict the viewer when seeing Van’s impressive work.

The Harvest 2015. Ink and stain on paper, 8×10 in.

So to whom does the artist work? The critic, the laymen, perhaps both but to stand before a work and place it in a large, amorphous group seems to be missing the point. Who the art is for is irrelevant. The messages in the piece are not privileged or insular in anyway and yet, once you’ve taken in a few of Van’s works you begin to familiarize. It’s not unlike making a new friend: hesitation giving into the adoration of a newfound relationship. Thus is the relationship with Van and his work. Each piece is a friend to the viewer, whosoever they may be.

Guest Author Bio

Steven Van
The fine lines between the reverie and the tangible, a rooted fascination with the visual luxuries of ancient Suessian and a commanding hunger to explore the native charm within the disciplines of the real and unreal cultures are all at work for Southern California-based artist Steven Van.  His meticulous draftsmanship and articulation in executing hallucinatory perspective and line contribute to the timeless quality of his visual discourse.  Sometimes occupying in surreal surroundings, sometimes poised in a soundless lagoon of negative space, his compositions dictate a distinctive presence wakening the royal breeze of a new Renaissance-era.  These finely-drawn works communicate a sacred, time-honored juncture.  Devoted to authentic, creative intuition and infusing a native, urban taste into his work, Van’s work is grounded in a diverse range of foundations from Renaissance pen and ink, Surrealism landscapes married with contemporary graffiti and platinum age comic books.

Steven Van was born in Fallbrook CA in 1986, and is entirely self-taught.  For the last ten years, Van’s work has been exhibited at commercial, private collections, galleries and museums in California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.  Van has been featured in Art Nouveau Magazine and The Press-Enterprise.  Van lives and works in Southern California.

Blog / Website: www.stevenvan.org

I suggest that since science aims to uncover hidden truths about reality, science ultimately needs philosophy. I first explain what I mean by “needs,” and then I discuss the relevance of the main areas of philosophical inquiry to science.

Science does not need philosophy in every detail or experiment; but it needs it around the edges and sometimes in its methodology. Philosophy helps us to better understand how science works, how scientific laws and theories fit into our worldviews, and the place of humans in nature. A worldview is a general conception of the ultimate nature of the world, values, and humanity; a worldview is a map of our most fundamental beliefs.

Logic, a subfield of philosophy, helps us plot the relationships between all of the beliefs and claims in our worldview—about scientific matters, values, and what is possible. Principled reasoning is of utmost important to science. But besides logic, there are three other main areas of philosophy: metaphysics (the study of reality), epistemology (the study of knowledge), and ethics (the study of values). In reverse, I will discuss the importance of these areas to science.

First, science needs ethics in order to guide the application of science in creating technology and solving problems. In deciding whether to use new computing technology to build better weapons, or to use human embryos for basic biological research, we should consider the possibilities from different ethical perspectives. Ethical theories like utilitarianism (the objective cost-benefit analysis of actions aimed at maximizing good, associated with J.S. Mill) and deontology (the duty-based analysis of actions, associated with Immanuel Kant) provide guideposts for ethical decision-making (find treatises from Kant and Mill here). The ethical views of scientists working on controversial projects could, and should, be informed by the rich theoretical framework developed by moral philosophers.

Second, science needs epistemology. Scientists rely upon epistemic principles to guide belief-formation. Principles that claim that the simplest explanation is most likely true, or that the theory that unifies the most empirical data or has the most predictive power is likely true, are themselves not subject to verifiability by the experimental method—what kind of experiment would show that the simplest explanation is necessarily the true one? These principles usually operate in our cognitive background in scientific reasoning. There are pragmatic reasons to accept them, but they are philosophical presuppositions. Epistemologists and philosophers of science evaluate epistemic principles, and discuss conditions for carefully employing them.

Do we know the currently accepted laws and theories of science? Assumptions about what it means to genuinely know a claim are philosophical. The concept of knowledge is important in scientific discourse, since science aims to produce knowledge. But critical analysis of this concept goes back to Plato (see especially his Theaetetus). The conversation continues in contemporary philosophy. In 1963, Edmund Gettier trenchantly criticized the traditional analysis of knowledge as justified true belief, and his criticism is still being discussed. We want to understand what counts as knowledge, so we can reliably decide whether some evidence justifies a specific scientific conclusion and becomes part of our assumed knowledge.

Third, science needs metaphysics. Scientific exploration is often situated in a philosophical view of nature: that events are (and will continue to be) unified and ordered, that there is an objective reality, that the laws of nature are discoverable, mind-independent realities. These assumptions can be challenged. Any time one makes implicit or explicit assumptions about the ultimate nature of the world, one is making metaphysical assumptions. These metaphysical ideas need rational discussion and evaluation if we are to have the most complete understanding of reality. As an example of how metaphysics can benefit science, the concept of a species cannot be defined entirely by biology but requires philosophical examination. An interesting and current research project at the intersection of philosophy and physics is the Rutgers Templeton Project in Philosophy of Cosmology.

I am confident that philosophy should be informed by our best science; the best philosophy is probably a scientific philosophy. However, science itself also needs philosophy. If science does not use philosophy, then it cannot fully uncover and understand truths about reality.

Photo Credits

Photos courtesy pixabay

Guest Author Bio

William Bauer
I teach and work on philosophy; it works on me too. I am an adjunct professor at North Carolina State University, regularly teaching introduction to philosophy, biomedical ethics, and introductory logic. My research interests include metaphysics, philosophy of science, and bioethics. I earned a PhD in Philosophy from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, an MA in Philosophy from Miami University (Ohio), an MA in Humanities from California State University-Dominguez Hills, and a BA in Biology from Illinois Institute of Technology.

Blog / Website: William A. Bauer, Ph.D.

Follow Your Bliss

My favorite scene in the 2009 film Up in the Air is the one in which Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) is sitting across from yet another victim of his company’s “services” – terminating employees for firms that don’t want to do the dirty work themselves. Bob is of course very angry and he is crying. He is concerned about what his children will think of him now that he is jobless and unable to provide them with what they need and want. Here is what Ryan does:

RYAN: Your children’s admiration is important to you?
BOB: Yeah. It was.
RYAN: Well, I doubt they ever admired you, Bob.
BOB: (looks up shocked and pissed) Hey, asshole, aren’t you here to console me?
RYAN: I’m not a shrink, Bob. I’m a wake-up call. Why do kids love athletes?
BOB: Because they screw lingerie models.
RYAN: No, that’s why we love athletes. Kids love them because they follow their dreams.
BOB: Yeah, well I can’t dunk.
RYAN: But you can cook.
BOB: What are you talking about?
RYAN: (Picks up Bob’s resume.) Your resume said you minored in French Culinary Arts….How much did they first pay you to give up on your dreams?
BOB: (flat) Twenty-seven grand a year.
RYAN: And when were you going to stop and come back and do what makes you happy?
BOB: Good question.
RYAN: ….I see guys who work for the same company their entire lives. Clock in. Clock out. Never a moment of happiness. (Pauses for effect.) Not everyone gets this kind of opportunity. The chance for rebirth. If not for yourself…do it for your kids.

Bob’s eyes begin to water again. He’s a changed man.

Is Ryan serious about encouraging Bob to go back and follow his dream again or is he just leading him on so he can get him out the door and move on to the next “terminee”? It really doesn’t matter. Does real life imitate life in the movies? Maybe not. But that is not the point. The interchange between Ryan and Bob is there to make us think: Am I doing what I absolutely must do to be myself? Is there any reason I cannot be doing what I love to do right now? If I cannot follow my bliss at this moment, can I make and follow a concrete plan to do so in the future?

***

In a recent TED Talk, entitled “Enough with the Hero’s Journey Already,” speaker Colin Stokes lampooned Joseph Campbell’s concept of the hero’s journey, or the monomyth – which involves following one’s bliss – by pointing out that the heroes in the movies he watched while he was growing up in the 1980’s were all like him: white, male, straight, and able-bodied. Using the terminology of the monomyth, he told his audience that he learned that he was not the protagonist in his life when he embarked on “a journey of some significance…and crossed a threshold into a strange new world…parenthood.” Stokes’s argument is similar to Miya Tokumitsu’s in that he equates the hero in the hero’s journey with a narcissist member of a privileged elite.

The real point of Stokes’s talk is how we take for granted the built-in biases of our culture and society, how we fail to recognize that we have often been the antagonists in the lives of others – racial minorities, women, the disabled, the LGBTQ community – a situation he came to fully recognize when he saw films like 12 Years a Slave, The Butler, and 42. At the end of his talk he says, “When white people like me go to 12 Years a Slave and The Butler we might feel excluded; we might even feel antagonized. That’s probably a good thing; at least it has been for me. It’s one of those moments where I’ve been jolted off the monomyth into real life, where I’ve had to ‘protagonize’ someone else and ease up a little on the heroism and … grow up.”

Like Miya Tokumitsu, Colin Stokes employs a construct of convenience to shore up his argument. While his essential point is valid, his representation of the hero’s journey reflects either a deliberate misinterpretation or a lack of understanding of the monomyth. I suspect that Stokes has not in fact read Joseph Campbell in any depth; if he had, he would know that in order to identify and articulate the concept of the hero’s journey Campbell studied the mythology and cultural practices of numerous societies throughout history (none of which was white). He would understand that it is not possible to be “jolted off the monomyth into real life” because the monomyth is real life.

And if Colin Stokes knew anything about the life of Joseph Campbell, he would be aware that Campbell was not a movie-goer; he only saw Star Wars at the invitation of George Lucas because Lucas’s film was so profoundly inspired by the idea of the hero’s journey. Moreover, it is not Campbell’s fault that the predominantly white male overlords of the Hollywood studios presided over the creation of white male cinematic heroes. Again, if Stokes had studied Campbell’s life and work he would recognize and acknowledge Campbell’s deep respect for the cultures and religions and philosophies of the American Indians, and of India and Japan; Campbell was convinced, in fact, that these societies had achieved a greater understanding of how to live a happy and fulfilled and harmonious life than those of the Judeo-Christians.

***

In an ideal world, everyone would be able to follow his or her bliss. Because the world is not ideal – it is filled with greed, violence, inequality, poverty, and yes, exploitation – should we therefore teach our children that seeking and following the path onto which they are called is narcissistic or elitist, and that we should instead, as Miya Tokumitsu says in an interview with the CBC’s Michael Enright, “Do what’s right and try to love that”? As there is, in fact, no mutual exclusivity between doing what you love and doing what’s right, every person – mainstream or marginalized, of the majority or in a minority, young or old – should be encouraged to follow his or her bliss. Students – black, white, Hispanic, female, gay, straight, transgendered, disabled – should hear the stories of those who have followed their bliss and be guided and counselled to find and follow their own bliss.

The views that I have expressed here are surely naïve, unrealistic, utopian, simplistic. But if each of us asked ourselves if “reality” was making us happy, if “reality” was giving us a life of fulfillment, if “reality” was creating a better world for all, if “reality” was the legacy we wanted to leave for our children, could we honestly answer “yes” to each question? If we imagined ourselves doing what we truly loved to do, would we not also imagine ourselves to be less angry, more excited about life, kinder, more loving, more generous, less frustrated?

If following your bliss is naïve, I cast my vote in favour of naïve.

Image Credit

“Follow Your Bliss” by Elizabeth Cooper. Creative Commons flickr. Some rights reserved.