My existential chest infection

Blegh... I am currently the gracious host of a particularly nasty bacterial chest infection and as if I’ve run over my cosmic yearly talk minutes, I am currently unable to speak. I’d like to say that the raspy back ally drug dealer tones, interspersed with old man coughs every few seconds is a worthy replacement but to do so would be lying. At the very least, it gives me a decent reason to avoid every day dull conversation but at the same time, I can no longer piss people off. Pissing people off is all I have... So, instead of spreading my own-brand of crazy upon the unwitting recipients of my usual inane chatter, I’ll be injecting it directly to your frontal lobe via the written word. A man’s gotta annoy someone.

Recently, I’ve been thinking through a particular philosophical problem with infinite wisdom bestowed upon me by my single year of AS Philosophy. I had planned to write it as a self contained post but then I realised that most philosophers wouldn’t want to read my bollocks, however obtuse and misinformed it may be, so I won’t subject you to 500 words of it; the topic in question is whether ‘the truth’ is subjective or objective. The main reason I started to think about all this was due to an over abundance of time during work and the fact that conclusively deciding the truth to be one way or the other will drastically change many of my other philosophical beliefs. Welp, here goes my try at chronicling my internal monologue on it all:

The first thing that must be decided is the definition of ‘the truth’. Usually the truth in philosophy is split into two forms, analytic and synthetic truths, analytic truths are true due to the definition of words, i.e. a bachelor is an unmarried man or triangles have three sides; they are true in all possible worlds. Synthetic truths are true due to the world they are in, e.g. London buses are red or metals expand when heated; if the world were to be changed, synthetic truth would change. My example for this discourse will be synthetic due to the tautological (A phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words) nature of analytic truths rendering them pretty useless. My truth will be that at 2:30 pm on the 14/12/11, I ate a kitkat. This event occurred and was empirically verified (checked by my sense experience e.g. touch, taste, sound etc.) by me, thus it is knowledge held by me and is also part of ‘the truth’. Anybody of any denomination or inclination could have witnessed the event and thus is objectively true in the chronicles of history. Let’s deconstruct this further; our new truth is ‘the kitkat bar I ate was red’, simple enough you’d think and all of my original truth could be simplified as such, now watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b71rT9fU-I&hd=1 – How our words shape our perception of the world, it’ll change your world view.

If the words we use can change how we categorise and perceive colour, something so basic, how else does it shape our world view? Do we only see similar things due to our similar language use? I believe that what we think to be an objective ‘truth’ or ‘matter of fact’ is simply the misnamed summary of our general consensus of similar subjective perception. This happens due to the fact that we all use very similar language categories for the world and as such, we all draw similar conclusions, yet these conclusions do not mean that what is being perceived is the truth. Others such as these African tribe’s people may have a completely different truth that is no less true than our own.

My conclusion leads to far more problems than it solves that I, with my limited knowledge and ability to give a fuck, cannot solve. If my hypothesis were to be true, something could exist and not exist due to both being ‘true’, which is a logical impossibility. Maybe it is folly to think in terms of ‘true’ and ‘false’. Who knows? All I know is that I’ve rambled enough for today. Laters, fuckwits.

Joke from my mother, she has the best sense of humour

Q. Where do alligators keep their money?

A. In the riverbank

Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings

Ah, friendship. A word loaded with a multitude of different meanings and connotations, so much so that were you to ask 60 different people as to what the word means to them, you would likely find yourself with 60 completely different answers. At this point you are probably already questioning whether this is just another one of my emotion-induced, sloppily written rants with no actual relation to the real world... and you are probably right to some degree but indulge me as you would a senile relative, beset by age but still eager to pass on the war stories. Could you actively explain to someone who had never heard the term just exactly what friendship is? More to the point, the time at which a person jumps the bridge from an acquaintance to that oh so elusive title, the one you have most likely given to a multitude of people throughout the short space of time in which we have to do so; when they become your friend?

There is some degree of method to the madness that is my choice of topic; I had made a promise to two of the lucky people who have been deemed worthy by my particular set of warped standards and thus, earned their place amongst my friends. Therefore, I think it prudent of me to dedicate this particular post to Erik and Niall, the two that without which, our three musketeers status would be in serious jeopardy.  

Without going into too much detail (for fear of irreparably damaging our reputations and future jobs prospects in any credible company), I will say that we have gone through a lot of crazy shit together, for lack of a better phrase. So much so that if any member of our odd trio were to be in a particularly vindictive mood, they could easily screw over the other two, yet that would never happen. I don’t know whether it is the history or the understanding or just plain ol’ trust, but there is an indescribable bond, one that seems unbreakable to these naive pair of eyes. At the end of the day, I suppose that is all you can really look for in your companions, that understanding where you know you could gladly give your all to someone who will not take it for granted. At least, that’s what I must be looking for; complete subjectivity in an idea makes it rather hard to generalise.

Now I’m not saying that is all I, or anyone else for that matter is looking for in a friend because as with notions as complex as this, an intricate series of much simpler ideas form the foundation of whatever twisted metaphorical yard stick it is that you, I or anybody else uses to make the all important decision on friend eligibility. It is here that you will find the greatest degree of variation, where the opinions and the bias really come into their own. As where I may be looking for someone who has a stock of jokes just as terrible as my own, you may want someone who is reliable in a crisis or just fun to be around. Just don’t get too bogged down in trying to figure out the qualities that you most desire, it can all get terribly confusing when you delve too deep into your own rationale. Keep doing as you have done so up until now, keep on following that gut instinct you get when you meet a person or that tried and tested method you have for picking the inner circle. Do whatever works for you and make sure you have fun whilst doing it.

Remember this though; life is a solo journey at the end of the day. People come and go, some stay for a mere moment, others will be there until the day you die. Make sure you hang onto the important ones, the ones that make you happy or sad or excited, whatever quality you believe is most important. Keep them close and enjoy the ride.

Joke that I have inherited from my dear mother (who you can also thank for my disastrous sense of humour)

Q. What do you call a three-legged donkey?
A. A Wonkey