Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Latent Agnosia

Agnosia refers to neurological conditions that cause a person to lose perception or understanding. I believe that we can use the term 'Latent Agnosia' to describe a more widespread pattern of misunderstanding.

As a neurological condition, agnosia has its basis in specific human brains that are affected by the disorder. 'Latent Agnosia' affects us all. In my current situation I frequently feel empty and hollow. I have lost some things in the last few months that have left me bereft of the passion or drive to really do anything. Indeed, I do not have the desire to dig myself out of this hole. But why do I feel this way? My understanding is based on two things. First, the past figures prominently in my perception of myself. When elements of this past depart I am left with an emptiness. Second, the future bears down heavily on this perception. I frequently wonder if things will ever be fulfilling. In a previous post I touched on the problems that emerge when we base our existence too much in the past or in the future. In short, our mental understanding of a situation is warped by the many lenses we use to view it. My current mental understanding is warped by an unhealthy fixation with the past and the future. While I may be the same person I always was, I feel like I am in a much more difficult situation than before. I worry about my circumstances despite the fact that there is no objective basis for this fear. Obviously I am not the only one that undergoes these patterns. Society is full of people that do not understand their own situation. Risk takers often do not recognise risks, people prone to panic do not recognise how unnecessary panic is, addicts do not recognise the severity of their situation while office workers do not recognise the banality of theirs. These are simple examples that underline a common foundation: we get so wrapped up in our own world that we lose all understanding of the true situations we face.

There is also a social level to these patterns. Countless economic experts, politicians and ordinary people have identified our current economic realities as apocalyptic. The sky certainly does seem to be falling around us as banks fold and the prosperity of the past disappears. These seem to be uncharted waters we are facing, with unprecedented trials and consequences. But there is a precedent. There have been at least ten 'market crashes' since the eighties and many more financial crises. While this current economic recession may not be on the same scale as these crashes, it absolutely follows the same patterns. The Great Depression too offers an archetype for widespread economic difficulty. One would think that it also offered a warning of potential crises based on our economic systems. The Great Depression was heralded by failures in the economic system that we had created and the exact same thing is happening now.If we take the apparent fragility of these systems as identified by the frequent crashing of the market and the vast depths that an economic crisis such as The Great Depression can reach it is a certainty that we would face these patterns again. Yet here we are, in free fall and surprised by it. Countless other social issues undergo the same pattern. It seems that we are constantly on the verge of another world war as international tension grows and subsides in many different regions. Old world orders are replaced by new ones and many politicians offer their people change and progress that will free them from social crises. But what is changing and where is the progress? These social crises are seen as unique or new when in fact they are just expressions of past issues. We are blinded by a nostalgic view of past societies that we believe were free of these problems. We are also blinded by the belief that the future will bring us freedom from these problems. Our collective mental understanding of human society is warped by these fixations.

Our inability to recognise our own personal circumstances and our inability as a society to recognise our social circumstances exemplifies 'Latent Agnosia'. The thought processes that we use and the importance we place on certain elements of life equates to a misunderstanding of objective reality. We frequently misunderstand our circumstances and our world. I call this agnosia 'latent' because it is potentially present in all elements of our lives. So the question must be asked, can we escape this 'Latent Agnosia' and find some objective understanding of reality? While we attempt to create 'progress' in our lives or in society this is not possible. 'Progress' is an illusory term that shows a misunderstanding of the past and the future. So long as we focus on 'progress' we will remain trapped behind the warping lenses of the past and the future. Perhaps it is more useful to attempt to understand the underlying issues we face as individuals and as members of society. This strategy means that we should not look for 'progress' and instead should attempt to understand the connection our current situation has with other epochs. We should not attempt to defeat our 'Latent Agnosia', we should try to understand it and in this way approach some kind of objective understanding of reality.

After one hundred posts I could naturally ask myself what progress have I made. The conclusion I must arrive at is that while I have not contributed to any idea of 'progress', I have at least contributed to my own understanding.

-The English Student

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Deconstruction, not Destruction

Although it is an old theory, the idea of 'deconstruction' as posited by Jacques Derrida and others still has worth today.

'Deconstructionism' deals with the idea that there are no overall theories that can properly encapsulate existence. This school of thought came as a reaction to theorists who believed that literary texts are examples of unifying constructs that create understanding. These theories were pushed further with hypotheses that claimed that language itself was without any universal meaning and is a hollow construction that belies true existence.

These theories have often been derided for being elitist and abstract. On the surface, it is very easy to believe methods of deconstruction to be out of touch with common literary practice and common human existence. After all, by claiming that there is no universality in relation to literary texts, one can be seen to ignore the common tropes and form that are latent in countless instance of literature. It seems that we should take a slightly less extreme approach to criticism if we are going to engage with the theories of Derrida.

Indeed, it is important to make the distinction between 'deconstruction' and 'destruction'. We must not completely ignore all aspects of a text, but instead we should reduce them down to their basic form. The value of 'deconstruction' is that it attempts to make room for contrasting theories while looking for an underlying trope common to them all. Instead of forcing writers and texts together, sparing use of 'deconstructionist' approaches will allow a critic to identify the foundations of these texts rather than create a hollow amalgamation of the issues they deal with.

In this way, 'deconstruction' should be identified as another useful band in the spectrum of literary criticism.

-The English Student

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Securalism - Personal Affairs

"The road to the sacred leads through the secular." - Abraham Joshua Heschel

Religion no longer seems to have a spiritual basis, but rather a societal one. Listening to a preacher at one's chosen place of worship takes second place to creating appearances of attention to fellow worshipers. Some people even take their hollow evangelisation to the streets.

I have been stopped many times in numerous cities in this country by people preaching their religion. I must wonder what religious tenet it is that absolutely requires random strangers (such as I am to these people) to share a belief system. Is it a competition to see which religion garners more support, thereby confirming it to be the "correct" one?

I for one refuse to validate the wavering beliefs of these seemingly confused people. Even if I was compelled to, I very much doubt that there is anything that could be said to rejuvenate one's waning spirituality. These people mistakenly seek an answer to their subjective doubts in objective realms.

I could post my own beliefs here, but what would be the point? I do not require societal approval for personal philosophies.

-The English Student