*Human behaviour tends to go from order to chaos back to order, bouncing in a rythmical symphony we call history.

*All the currents of though end up in their ultimate form being some sort of balance

*And as Camus said (didin't find the quote so this is paraphrase) "it doesn't matter how much tirany there will ever be, or the good intentions of the socialists, because human history has shown that we are driven only by a path of infinite freedom"

And maybe last point was not stated, but that is also something that an unauthorized philosopher must keep in mind.

So, by now I bet you have already though about this at least once in your life (if not, do not worry... just leave (jk)). It is important you know you have came far from the monotonous routine the system offers. But my dear dear friend, don't you think for a single second that just because you've reached high you've reached the top. Because you haven't.

Simply having socialist ideas mixed with reality's consience, stirred with the rod of world knowledge and served with existencialism does not do it. And it is important the unauthorized philosopher knows this, because one of the many facts of life is this: you will encounter in life people who have never had anything near this ideas. You will encounter those who cannot and will not even understand it. But that, I repeat, does not make you grand, because as it happens the fact that you were able to climb high only means there is people who were able to climb higher before than you, and long after you.

Clearing that out.

We chall proceed to understand that the human existence is not important, then to understand its real value. Because to understand the world that surrounds us, and the meaning of things we must first realize that we, are not the center of the universe. We must know how we are here mostly because of chance, some weird mutations and chance. The world was not made for us to rule, or else things would be different, and we have no right over other wildlife.

It is indeed difficult to cast away the antropocentrism in us, because sometimes it is deeply burried. And example is when someone says that the human race is the worse scum ever to exist, and that is has created nothing positive ever. But saying this just affirms the believe that the human is a special being that is supposed to have something good, to stand out and act correctly. Well, guess what, we are animals behaving how we best find benefical, even if that is stupid.

Another antropocentrical way of though that could generate debate, and finding the borders of it is up to every single person, is the other view that the human has a responsibility to take care of the other wild life. I know it would be argumented that if it's our fault that some specie was indangered because of us, it is our duty to make it up to it. But we must also understand, we are not special, we're just animals taking over the territory, the only difference is that the other animals have some equilibrium and have a way of coexisting that ends with not having overpopulation. That is what's makes us different, that apparently the "wild life" has better family planning than us.

So instead of taking a stance fo the other animals we should first take a stand for our specie and achieve the balance the others have. So yea, I also imply by this that we must work to protect the other animals that we adjust. And this is where the reader makes up their own idea about what should be done about this.

And now I leave you to think

What that you do or think that is truly antropocentristic but you though it wasn't?

by I'm the penguin

For a philosopher to understand the surrounding present, he/she must first understand how did things got to where they are, hence the importance of history. And the part of history we need right now, is the cultural aspect and main characteristics of the past.

I could give a really long explanation of things, but considering your and my attention span I will make it short and you will just have to wikipedia whatever you don't understand. So, the Greek, they were great and all, but what we care know is that they were driven (culturaly) by rules, logic and reason.

But then the world evolved into a more passionate place, we can see in the (OLD) English classics, as well as the fusion of East and West that the culture retook a more emotional turn. Also came the medieval dark times when the only stories were eiher epic or religious. Again, just about emotions and stories.

Then came the Renaissance, which was breaking the dogma out of the dark and building again a culture of science and reason. This time period was again of taking back the logic and rules into the art to make well planned works. This continued for the Neoclassical period, which was too a rebuild of the Classic age, embracing whatever there was to learn from the Greeks and Romans and mixing it with their present events.

Then came another strike of emotion, the Romanticism. This was a time where rules were left aside to show something deeper than high art made by fine technique, to show the dark emotions inside the artist. It was a celebration of the pain and angst caused by love and such. It was also a rebellion against the unexpressive forms of art which only showed superficial and though out beauty.

I think that would be enough to show my point. History shows us that general currents of thought go like that, in a constant change going from reason to emotion, from order to chaos, making a zig zag out of history. And if we looked deeper into it, we would observe that with time the period of staying in one side of the spectrum is less and less, and also the distance between each peak is less, meaning that the differences between "reason" and "emotion" decrease.

What must be taken from all this is that even if the changes seem drastic, the more we do them, the more we start to find the inbetween point, the balance between the two (or three or four, whatever number of variables you have). And studying the different doctrines to achieve happiness, you will find that each, in its own particular way leads you to that, balance.

by I'm the penguin

Well, I should explain myself.

I know you have philosophical thoughts every now and then, and that you have build theories of your own (maybe). But you have to understand, for someone who has spend his entire life discovering and unraveling currents of thought having hard debates with long dead people, and complaining about the statements of the yet-to-be-borns it is a whole different deal than just going trough some ideas. It is a lifestyle.

So in an attempt to be understood and leave something to the world I shall show you:

The steps of the philosophical points of view and understandings according to a local unauthorized philosopher.

The first step is to admit it: You have an interest for the nature of things, their beggining, their future and their condition of being. And by the first step you can't really accomplish much, because it is all about believing whatever people tell you is right, it is about learning of the world from someone else's point of view.*

(*quick note of writer: I realize the way of learning is really half based on someone else's point of view, and that trying to build knowledge from one self is impossible, but my point here is directing to those who only rely on what they were told)

Somewhere along the path of life, you'll encounter some of what you thought you knew was not entirely right, and so your jorney begins. Taking what you had and adventuring into leting another current flow into your opinion and mind.

I realize this is vague. And that is because this whole affair is really, rather vague. But that is the principle step in philosophy, breaking old conceptions of things and form others. And it is also rather vague because there is no way I can know what did you find. Also, you will find that a lot of times, this two different ideas are contrasting.

(Moving from all the political correctness part, stating everyone's right and it's all about subjective views, I shall continue to the real deal)

Generally you realize first that all rules are important, and that they are there for a reason. You think sometimes the reason is hard to find, or simply not important, but you know rules are there to facilitate things, therefore you enter the realm of the stoicism (sort of). Here you try to act in a correct way, follow whatever rules there are and live up to societies conceptions. With none or little hesitation. Your principles are those which you are thaught.

This first step is necesary, and it should not be treated as wrong just because there is lack of logic. But by no means should a person stay in that area of philosophy.

Because if you are too an unauthorized philosopher, you will find that some rules just shouldn't be there, you will find that laws and social arrangements have changed trough history for a reason. You start to reason and put logic into the system. You realize the world is freaking collapsing (you will realize later (hopefully) it wasn't). In this stage you shall proceed to question rules, to argue with authority about what you think is useful and what not. You start the revolution and think that you should change the present order of things. Here your principles are rather shady and very likely to tend towards anarchism.

This second step is just what I told you about, you break old conceptions and form new ones. But this is also a dangerous stage, not because you become a rebel, but because you might stay like that. There are some that once reaching this realization, confirm that they have evolved and think they're the epythome of though, that a new society should be forged by their new (pfft) order (or lack) of thinking. And that is the dangerous part, because while it is a step forward, it is not the final one.

If you are lucky enough to learn more of the world and how it works, you also happen to change your way to see the human condition. The most common way is going from divine to infra. (what th hell do I mean?) That we start seeing the human condition as something great, rulers of the world, and then you happen to see human stupidity, and realize we are actually animals. It is actually quite similar to the previous explanation about rules and society. It is all about growing with society's conceptions and then breaking them.

The latter step may lead you to the so called "raging activist who says humans are stupid apes who have done nothing useful or good". And this is a very complex one, because like I explained previously, some people think that is the epythome of all philosophy in the world. But it actually is only a statement against the rules, and that for itself is nothing but being against just to be against. And that is a current (against just to be against) we should always avoid, for there is no logic, common sense or reason to it.

So far we can begin to see there is a pattern in this drill. We have something, we destroy it, and we try to build something different (obviously using remains of the past).

That should be enough to think about today, I promise there will be a continuation so to explain completely all what there is to this.

by I'm the penguin