Cum Mors Omnes Veniat Tamen Ego Illum In Testiculibus Calcitrabam

Whilst Death May Come for All, Still I, Myself, Will Kick Him In the Nuts

Vimes, my ferret, who has been the only constant in my life--the only one that I felt I knew completely and totally was in my corner and would agree that whatever I decided to do would be the right thing--for seven years, has developed a cataract in his left eye. I noticed it today when I checked him over since, after an overnight trip to stay with his auntie, he's not ventured below the second level of his cage.

A cataract in the eye of a seven and a half year old ferret is not a big surprise. Hell, it's not a little surprise. It is, in fact, a statistical probability. He's half a year late, which is almost surprising since his $1500 vet outlay (which all ferrets seem to face at some point) was for a sebacious tumour that wouldn't have been more than $800 or so if I wasn't a coward that refused to acknowledge that a spider bite goes away after a month or so. Sebacious tumours are one of the most common ailments for ferrets. Next to cataract, apparently.

I got Vimes from a pet store in a Surrey mall. Not a breeder. And he was already six months old, not 8 weeks. He's been a perfect little pet. Everyone agrees that he's the sweetest, calmest ferret they've ever met. This is probably because I'm a very impatient person and he's an exceptionally smart little weasel (case in point : no interest in chewing on powercords, though he does love plastic rubber). He learned from me that I'd give him all sorts of attention if he could manage NOT to do something I didn't like.
I've never been happier with a pet, or more ashamed that I haven't been better as a pet owner, than I have been with Vimes.

And now I know he's getting old. And that he's not going to be one of the few magic ferrets that live to fifteen that make up for those poor ones living less than the average of 7 - 10 years.

So my philosophical point of the moment is, fuck essentialism, existentialism, humanism and deism. Fuck you all 'til I get a handle on ontology so I can manage Space and Time and figure out how to get back my little baby ferret that hid in my couch.

Pecuniae et Cupido Pecuniarum Inferios Via Sunt

Money and the Desire for Money are the Road to Hell

If you could have anything, anything at all, what would it be?

I can't answer that definite with finality for myself, easily. If I could have anything at all it would begin with a desire for the first breath upon waking (or not if you've read earlier entries). I am fully convinced that to want something is in and of itself the entire point of existence. For some it is the wanting of dinner, for others the wanting of a home of their own. Still others wish for an apartment as delicious, and as well placed, as those of their friends. Or a car, a promotion, a grade, a position, a desk, a person...

Our brains are geared for envy. The level of happiness we feel is directly related to the level of success we feel that surpasses that of our colleagues, peers and surroundings. North America cannot be any more happy than Japan, China, England, Spain, Greece...or North Korea. Especially North Korea and China, really, since they have such firm censorship that the people within cannot know how their countries compare in wealth and "happiness" to other countries--they can feel as happy as their governments tell them they should be (even if some are eating the same food as their goats).
The grass is always greener. Keeping up with the Joneses. Trite, simple phrases. But they are so for a reason.  We are happiest when we succeed...a by-product of being descendents of those coming down from the trees. And we judge and measure our success against those around us.
I'm very lucky to know that as a professional student I'll never measure up to my friends in financial success and can therefore dedicate my time and intention towards building my ivory tower.
I've just put in new hardwood floors.

Sexualis Natura et Aetas Conveniens Mores

Sexual Nature and Age Appropriate Behaviour

In my last post I wrote about how disgusting I found some of the goods and services being marketed towards parents for their pre-preteen girls.
Today, I'd like to bring to attention this which discusses the recent fashion spread in French Vogue featuring a 9-10 year old model in "typical" high fashion poses.
One news report describes her as "provocatively posing with her hip jut out" (covered by a bunny rabbit she's petting) and with the sexy pout and seductive eyes of a much older model. There's even mention of wishing nostalgically for the days of Brooke Shields as a teenager telling us "nothing comes between me and my Calvin's"--forgetting her stint in Blue Lagoon.

And here's my controversial opinion. She looks hilarious. Not sexy. Not provocative. Hilarious. Just like a little girl does when she steps into her mother's high heels and smears her mouth with lipstick (and the picture of Thylane Blondeau smudging her lipstick in a mirror comes off almost EXACTLY like it). It's wanting to grow up. To be glamourous. Her body posing is awkward, her head is MUCH too big for her body (as it should be for god's sake, she's only 10) and she looks more confused and vacant than comehither.

"But the pedophiles!" you may cry. "They're looking at her and it makes them think it's okay to sexualise little girls." Here's a hint, people. Pedophiles -already- think it's okay to sexualise little girls. That's why they're pedophiles. And they don't need to look at a photospread intended to create controversy to get their rocks off over a FULLY clothed and made-up (to the point of a near mask) child. There's this thing called the internet. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Homo Similis Est Cum Homones Similes Sunt

F**K YOU, Marketing machine, advertising budgets, brand awareness, bottom line and everything ELSE about the business of business that can bring these products into the world. You are F**KING disgusting and I'm putting a lock on the door to my ivory tower tonight.

I just...look, I'm socially extremely liberal. I firmly believe that sex is a fun, healthy, enjoyable activity that is not wrong on most levels (and even when it seems wrong on the level of reality it can be completely acceptable as fantasy). I think in a perfect world children would grow up playing sexual games with each other the same way they play competitive games. The same way other apes play and explore and learn what they need to know to be active, happy, productive adults.

But these products are not designed to teach children about their bodies, or how bodies can interact, or how their bodies will change. These products are intended to make children seem more like adults...to other adults. When two little kids are playing doctor in the field behind the house NOONE is going to notice panties, pushup bras etc.

And on that note, these are all sexualising little GIRLS. So, why are 7 year old girls supposed to worry about bra size while little boys get to be concerned as to whether they have DC or Marvel characters on their underoos?
As for the waxing...the same people that think waxing skin that has not yet actually developed to a point where hair follicles are even PRESENT is a good idea also believe shaving your beard makes it grow in thicker.

Leave kids to be kids...they already are going to have to clean up the world they've been given, they shouldn't have to consider whether they're also sexy while they do it.

Dissimilis Genus Amoris

A Different Kind of Love

So it's officially official. I live in an ivory tower, so please wipe your feet because reality stains the floors.

I know I live in an ivory tower, (besides knowing Latin) because even though I know my socio-political philosophy is unsustainable in the real world I will continue to argue untheoretically from that standpoint with current affairs nerds. (BTW, fans of Robert Nozick should not, under any circumstance, tell people who sometimes volunteer in soup kitchens that welfare should be abolished.)  I also know this is the case because if I have more than one drink during a discussion I will NOT be able to keep on the topic without saying socio-political at least once.

I wonder if there's a formula to derive how many times I say "anthropologically speaking", too. Nah, I'm with Hume on this one, there just may be a black swan sneaking up behind you right now.

There is an interesting aspect to knowing that you know more than most of the world's populace (even the -western- world's populace) on a subject while also being aware that you don't know enough on what you think is important and will -always-, when someone discovers your field, not have read at least one thing they think is seminal. When my current class professor discovered I was a philosophy major, he enquired if I'd read a book called "Endgame". I had not.
I am reviewing the book's topics and argument on Wikipedia right now and I must say I begin to get a glimmer of understanding as to why I packed my bags and moved from corporate-marketville to my lovely new location. At least in my ivory tower I can avoid the bleak arguments that sway people towards the concept of original sin (and Derrek Jensen seems to, though he's referring to complicence in civilizational violence it's complicence from belonging to society even if you abhor it.)
I'm not sure if I'm going to read the book, as I've had my fill of intellectuals trying to convince the populace that all is lost and there's nothing left to do but scrap it all and start over. See, the thing about my ivory tower is it has a sandpit in it, where I can hide my head when things get hard. This is why I'm with someone who sometimes also volunteers at soup kitchens...you know, looking after those that can't look after themselves.

I like my ivory tower, but am I ever damned glad it has a bathroom and kitchen in it.

Mortem Huius Loci Subsistimus

We Pause the Death of This Place (...for a brief actual post)

I've not been around because I've been much too focused on causes and other interests to devote time to a blog about philosophy when I spend around 30hrs a week on philosophy for school. But I have an entire semester of Economics, so hopefully I will have something interesting to say in the field of my favourite subject very very soon.
In the meantime, please enjoy one of the funniest freakin' comics I've seen in quite a while. Dead Philosophers in Heaven (Incidentally, in Economic History we're discussing the Malthusian Trap...ah, Malthus, you bastard.)

'til I have a moment to rant about something pertinent,
--A

Si Nihil Refert Cur Eat?

If Nothing Matters Why Go On?

A Nihilist's Purpose.
It's an important question to ask, when one is a nihilist, why one shouldn't "end it all". After all, if there is nothing that is being strived for in this life as a way to reach something greater in the next, and, in fact, there is nothing of value at all in this life, why not just end it as soon as you reach this conclusion? What is the purpose of the nihilistic life?

Well, of course there isn't one. There's nothing that can be done to convince me that when life gets hard, the simple solution isn't really...simple.

But to die now, while it means that I myself as an entity end (I'm not sure that "entity" is even the right word, since the entirety of what makes me, me, is stored in my brain and that won't go away when I die, so am I not still the exact same entity?), it doesn't mean I stop affecting what has already occured and what will still occur.
This is not to put some kind of "It's A Wonderful Life" kind of spin on suicide. Like, I'd regret it because of all the things that would have been if I'd stayed. And it's not even to bring up again what stopped me as a rash and depressed youth, that is, knowing that my family didn't really deserve to go through something like that. It's simpler than that. It's biological.

It's genes.
The entire purpose for being here, now, alive, is to make sure that my genes continue. No, I have not reverted from my position as child-free. But the genes that are in my body aren't just the genes of my parents intermixed and they're not just the biophysical history of my ancestors. They're the code of the evolution of my species. To continue my genes is to continue the species. And that requires me to make sure there's somewhere for my species to be.
My purpose is to be an environmentalist, although only so far since we're all going to die sometime, aren't we?  My purpose is to protest human rights violations because the cruelty involved hinders the ability of those members of the species to keep their section of the code active and healthy. My purpose is to argue for equality for all minorities because every single person on the planet is a genetic history equal in worth for the continuance of the species as any other. Basically, any socially-conscious activity I participate in comes down to this.
The purpose of my life is to make life like mine continue for no other reason than we're here now.

Modo Paucae Minor Res Dialecticorum

Just a Few Minor Matters of Logic

Correlation does NOT equal causation = That nearly 50% of cancers of the mouth larynx and pharynx are associated with heavy drinking does not mean they are CAUSED by heavy drinking. You know what else heavy drinkers tend to do? Smoke. Now, I'm not saying there's not a possibility that if you drink Apple SourPuss by the case that there aren't any carcinogens. And I'm not saying that the peaty flavour of a good Scotch might not be actual peat and actually cancer-causing. What I'm saying is they haven't isolated the factors.

Utility is awfully underrated. It's so very overlooked when calculations are done for price comparison or "good value". A few Philosophers will even dismiss "'people like' sometimes means 'it's good'" type arguments. I do, often. Until I pay $1.00/100mL for mayonnaisse instead of $0.84/100mL because a squeeze jar means I'll NEVER get FAT all over my HANDS which results in having to WASH them!
Being neurotic means 16 cents per hundred mL (about two-three days less a month of mayonnaise for the cost) of savings is just NOT worth it! CONVENIENCE! Or, for philosophers and economists, UTILITY!

Parsing matters. I understand that I am sometimes, especially when writing an actual paper, hard to understand. I interestingly put words in order; sometimes, I order words interestingly; sometimes I even put words in an interesting order. And each time I do it means something different. Please, if you're reading my work and find it hard to parse...break it down to the symbols, parts of speech or phrases, the same way I do with Latin...because it MEANS something. I'll never not use a double negative just because the kids in my classes don't understand what emphasis means.

And finally,

Dear Punctuation,
I know you want to be inside of me; but sometimes, I'm just feeling we're not that connected.
Signed, Quotation Marks.

Pittacia Necessarie Non Est Quae Cogitetis

Labels Aren't Necessarily What You Think

This is going to sound weird coming from someone who actually has the words "existential reactionary libertarian narcissistic absurdist" in the title of their blog, but I would very much like it if people would STOP using labels. I mean it. Stop.


Because I have yet to see anyone in this big ol' blogosphere use labels correctly. They aren't supposed to limit your thought or your action. You needn't fit every single trait typically associated with a label to use it nor must you use it if you don't want to even if you fit most of the traits. I don't reject the idea that the universe was initially begun by a "god" who wandered away, but I'm not a deist. Yet I believe in universal healthcare, education and taxes, but I AM a libertarian. Where will the madness stop?

Kit at Stuff that Bugs Smart People  in a recent post mentions that she "wouldn't be a feminist if [she] didn't disagree to some extent with every other feminist out there...it's part of our handbook" and while I know it was meant humourously I find it a little insulting. It seems to be saying--in a feminist post, no less--that women cannot all agree and that's because they're women and feminists. Well, of COURSE they can't. Women are not just women. They are a race, an age, a career, a fiscal "class", a political affiliation...but so are men. That's why there are people like Stephen Harper AND people like Gandhi. NOONE agrees on EVERYTHING. (Including, apparently, what it takes to be a feminist. Sorry, Kit.)

So, let me change my initial plea. Use labels, often, as many as you like. Because the more you use the easier it is to express what you truly believe...just don't expect anyone else to use them the same way. : )