Tag: filozófia


Last season i was doing the anime C for gg. It was all about economy with loads of technobabble, but now that i’m preparing for my exams i see that it was all about a variety of problems that economists face. For example, the big argument between the two main characters about whether it’s worth sacrificing the future for the present is a 1:1 interpretation of the problem of time preference. Also the concept of “losing the future” is very similar to something i read about in one of my classes papers about current actions limiting the possible routes of the future, and the idea of a “lost decade” is present in the japanese common knowledge like that. So yeah, C wasn’t all just a noitaminA Yugioh, it was a noitaminA Yugioh with lots of economy.


It’s said so much nowadays that we must understand other cultures and must not try to convert them to our way of thinking, which might be just as strange and/or revolting for them, as theirs is to us.

This occurred to me today while reading FTW on the train. It’s one thing that in that given culture what is accepted, and it’s pretty much the way of thinking of the parent that decides how the kid is raised. But. For me, it’s one thing to understand, that it’s normal in India (according to the book, correct me if wrong) that parents would beat their kid for disagreeing with them and saying so. It might be normal in certain families that instead of talking with the kid about what’s the problem, you just take them out from their school and send them off to a boarding school where he won’t play games that much… Okay, that’s their way.

And i disagree with that, and i say so.

It’s scary how this thought is similar to how America’s preaching equality and liberty and the spread of the global culture, while it doesn’t even try to understand other cultures. It can go either to war with countries that it doesn’t like (see middle eastern conflicts) or let the multicorporations do the job by slowly infecting the said culture with the “global greatness”.

Oh no. I wouldn’t bother trying to convince a traditionally thinking indian parent that his way of raising the kid is wrong. For the simple reason that the understanding i try to enforce on myself itself is a product of my culture, so i can’t really expect others to think the same. Even if i tried to convince someone their way is wrong, they would be right to ask what makes me think mine’s better.

The meaning of Liff

When i happen to be in the mood to think about such matters, i soon end up with wondering about the meaning of life. A while ago a friend took a facebook personality quiz and i dared to say the results use the typical technique of saying big and very general phrases that yet will make anyone feel like it’s about themselves. Actually this matter is discussed on the very first page of the book on persuasion and critical thought i’m reading. (The conversation is really important. I made my comment, was labelled sceptical, went cynic and suggested trying to find out the meaning of life in a facebook quiz, a response with the said person’s “meaning of life”, which i countered as being a way to live, not the meaning, then the friend said it’s the same.)

I’m sceptical, that’s probably true. I don’t consider myself strong or exceptional, so if i can debunk something it’s simply not good enough.

On Wittgenstein’s private language argument and solipsism

Yesterday while researching solipsism for my report for japanese class, i came across Wittgenstein‘s private language argument, which states, as in my understanding, that language is a tool for communicating mental images, ideas and thoughts to other minds, thus if the solipsist has a language, that implies the existence of other minds that he could communicate with.

I’m not a solipsist, though i have to say that i long considered the possibility, but it’s an endpoint of ontology and epistemology at least, of the branches of philosophy, and as such, it’s not fun. Of course this is not an argument about the philosophical validity or possibility of solipsism, what i want to point out that philosophy is a “love of wisdom”, and as for me, i enjoy developing or even just understanding a system that could explain how and why the world is, how we sense and so on. Solipsism simply kills that fun.

Sober and irrelevant

Oh, i’m both and it sucks (unlike the In flames song of the same title, which also centers aroud the same topic). Mostly the irrelevant, because there’s no easy helping that. Six-seven times ten on the ninth (billion or whatever you call that in whichever english) people is just too much inertia in the world, and i can’t see that unstable point where i could be the “small change” in a chaotic system that results in large effects—you know, that flip of the butterfly’s wing in China.

Even Naruto (what a banal example, isn’t it?) is about how plain hard work can bring results equal or better to naturals or genii (genius (plural: genii (classical roman mythology) or geniuses (colloquial)), and now i’m mythological too, though not logical). The only problem is that it still is terribly frustrating to see the talented get to a much higher level much easier and much quicker. Of course most people (i dare not write everyone) has talent for something. If i was in a shiny and optimistic mood, i’d write that of course you can still do better than any genius, if you work hard, and it’d probably be affirmed as true by many. Just not too many people will take on the challenge of competing with naturals in their own field, simply because it takes tremendous efforts in most cases. On the other hand, after a while they (the genii) have to work just as hard as well, simply because there are limits as for how far their talent goes. And the hard workers will always be catching up. Always. The good point, that will make no difference to aforementioned hard workers to work hard further. But it will take a hell even out of a genius to learn how to learn and work hard, if all went light and easy until then.

The male chauvinist

It all started with a video a friend (who’s not online right now, and might mind having his/her name published) sent me, with Dick Masterson talking about his philosophy, and i find it really… intriguing that whenever i show it to a girl, the reaction is the same. One tried to tickle me to death. One started her comment with a “nice” vulgar sentence in all capitals. I’m not going to details. Still, it made me think.

When a guy stands up and preaches chauvinism, every woman, intelligent as well as brick stupid, get angry, shout, kill and so on. Now when a woman starts to preach feminism, like two highly attractive women in the Politically Incorrect talk show, intelligent guys at least say “yeah, you’re right”. (Then have a nice round in bed and prove the chauvinist theory that way. Joking here.) Of course there are guys who get angry, and smash in the face of that woman.

Actually, in the second part of the earlier linked Politially Incorrect video, some intelligent arguments can be found. Carl Jung’s anima and animus for example. Michael Moore has the point i wrote about above, of “just nod, just agree”.

If someone happened to ask my opinion, i don’t care. I don’t care about being better in this stereotypical way, i don’t place myself higher than others based on their sex (i do place people relative to myself based on my experience and opinions). It’s sure nice to hear a guy stand there and say all that stuff, simply because it sounds nice to the male inside. That doesn’t mean i think the same, it’s just pleasing. Just the way feminists’ fights are funny.


All these human rights declarations, the countless treaties about human rights are all unnecessary. They are made because of the ambiguity of the phrase “free”. When is someone free? Who can be free? Check, all the declarations of rights limit these rights, to citizens of that given state (like too many constitutions), or more generally, to humans. It’s so interesting that humankind couldn’t yet resolve this problem. The declarations and treaties list all what humans are free to do or what they have right to, but this is not the right way. This way, the rights and freedoms are inverted: it would be more practical to suppose that everyone is free to do whatever he/she/it wants. And then come all the limitations. First limitation: as long as it doesn’t limit someone else’s rights or freedoms. And all the others of what you’re not allowed to do.

Are these the same? Are the human rights actually just the limitations of the rights of the community? For sure, since we’re a race that has to survive, the community has to be put higher than all else (meaning that if one can reproduce, they have to). And an “embodiment” of the community is the state, which would explain why there are so many freedoms from the state.

Are we trying to write our own laws of humanics (after Asimov’s laws of robotics), the same way, just since we’re not born bound by these laws but impose them on ourselves, nor are we good, we have to detail them to minimize the damage possible. What’s the answer? How to deal with the whole of our race, and later, with the whole of lifeforms?

Informatikai ontológia

Ma programozás (táblás) gyakorlaton (ugyan már eleve ez a fogalom röhej) volt egy olyan feladat, hogy “n” napig mérjük a déli hőmérsékleteket, majd megszámoljuk azokat a napokat, amikor nulla fok volt, azzal a kikötéssel, hogy addig még nem volt negatív hőmérséklet. (Nagyjából szó szerint: hány nap volt nulla fok az előtt, hogy először negatív hőmérsékletet mértünk?) Aztán beindult a nagy vita (ami a szokásos “értelmiségiek” jelenlétének köszönhetően időnként személyeskedésbe fordult), hogy vajon ha nincs egyáltalán negatív hőmérsékletű nap, akkor mi van? Adjuk vissza az összes nulla fokos nap számát vagy mondjuk, hogy egy ilyen se volt? (Én az előbbit, a tanár az utóbbit választotta.) És főleg: miért? Mert oké, mondjuk akkor azt, hogy a feladat erejéig megegyezünk abban, hogy legyen nulla – de azért el lehet gondolkodni, hogy miért. Nekem igazából egyetlen egy ellenpélda is elég lett volna, amikor a gondolatmenetem abszolút rossz megoldást ad vissza, de ilyet nem tudtak mondani. És hogy jön ehhez az ontológia (lételmélet)? Végül is ez a vita arról szól, hogy a nem létező negatív napot a sor elejére vagy a végére rakjuk – ha az elejére, akkor soha nem lépünk be a ciklusba és nullát adunk vissza, ha a végére, akkor meg végigmegy a sorozaton és a megfelelő napok számát adja vissza. Infós szakemberek véleménye?

És ha már informatika: a laptopom tegnap a stadionoknál a táskám szíjának kapitulációja okozta jókora zuhanás után nem hajlandó bekapcsolni, és előre láthatólag életem első (de szerencsére nem utolsó és nem is legnagyobb összegű) egyetemi ösztöndíja rá fog menni a javíttatására. Hurrá.

A körkörös történelemszemléletről

Annak idején, amikor Hegelt tanultam, nagyon nem tudtam egyetérteni azzal, amikor azt állította, hogy az emberiség történelme folyton ismétli magát, és nincs semmi haladás (nagyon remélem, hogy tényleg ő volt – ciki lenne így egy filozófia oktv döntő után egy ilyennel beégni), ehhez képest most én is ugyanerre a következtetésre jutottam – igaz, kevésbé a világtörténelem vizsgálatából, mint inkább a társadalomból, ugyan az egész elindítója a zene volt. Méghozzá a diszkó és rokon stílusok – tudjátok, transz-keltően dübörög a basszus, közben kántál valami érthetetlen szöveg… Nem ismerős valahonnan még ez a leírás (a többi elektronikus stílust kivéve)? Pedig a sámánokról is ugyanezt lehet elmondani – pár ezer évvel ezelőttről. Itt vagyunk az istenvesztés korában, és tudat alatt újjászületik a sámán-zene. Most jön majd akkor az a rész, hogy még a lámpaburának is szelleme lesz (ebben gondolom lesz némi szerepe a japán kultusznak, ahol a politeizmus még mindig fontos része sok animének), majd a szimpla ógörög-stílusú politeizmus némileg fejlettebb zeneiséggel, majd jön egy megváltó és egy új középkor, gregorián muzsikával, majd egy újabb felvilágosodás újabb beképzeltséggel – és mindezek mellett persze végig tombolnak a háborúk, a kolonizálások (a’la XVI. század) és az inkvizíció.


I’ve just read a post at Mr. Tiny’s with the third part of the Zeitgeist documentary. I haven’t seen the first two parts, and i don’t plan to watch them, except if someone posts something interesting about them. This third one was enough to make me think. To think about how crazy this world is, and how crazy it ever was. I can’t believe anything i’m told, because i cannot be sure it’s true at all. There are sure trusted sources, my personal friends and people i know, but the internet in general is not. There are so many concepts about the order in this world, whether it exists or not, and if it does, what is it like, that reality is impossible to grasp. It’s like Harry Potter: you know it can’t be true, because if it was, then the magicians wouldn’t have let it be published… (And it’s also way too detailed.) The same goes for all the theories: if something is published, then it’s published with acknowledgement from the heads of the world (in case there is such a thing)… Then come two chances: either it’s true, and they let it be published because they are sure that no one would actually believe in it, or because it’s in no relation with realty. It doesn’t really matter, if it’s Umberto Eco’s Tres, or the Rockefellers, as long as there is someone up there. I know though: if the throne of the world was empty, if heaven was empty, then people (Aizen of Bleach) (would) have already occupied it. This world is so hopeless, i would run away.