yellow philosophy

Basically: Gays are too Homosexual by Anwar Oya

2009-09-26T16:35:00.000-07:00

The reason conservatives want to prevent gays from being married isn't just because of their religion. It's true Deuteronomy specifically says no have sex with the same sex, but this isn't the primary motivation for the hetero-extremists. They don't like gay, because homosexuals are gross. This is an assessment from their perspective. Conservatives don't want their world defiled by gayness, and it's a a fair position.

Homosexuals tend to have an exaggerated sexuality. This is a natural and negative effect of identifying so closely with people for no other reason than they have the same type of sex as you. For a gay person their sexuality is their most prominent feature. Often, once you become aware a person is gay that becomes who they are to you, simply because it's so controversial.

Until gays stabilize their social status, they're going to find it very difficult to acquire their full range of rights. The civil rights movement was a good example of how these things play out. The struggle of African Americans was prolonged only because of how blatant their differences were, and how rigid society was. It was impossible to hide your skin color, and because the differences were tangible and observable they appeared larger and more verifiable.

It's not going to be easy for homosexuals to find a way to separate their identity from their sexuality. I say that because until we separate our perception of homosexuality from individual gay and lesbians as humans, they're stuck in a me vs I, who I am vs how I'm seen, conflict. For now it seems their up shits creek without a paddle, and that's not just a statement about safe sex.

Equality, Liberty and Justice

2008-11-06T20:50:00.000-08:00

The debate of which should prevail between Liberty and Equality is the largest issue facing the advancement of western civilization today. Society struggles to define which is more important, and to what extent one can be reconciled with the other. There has yet to be an agreement on to what point freedoms should be sacrificed to create a safe and equal society, or even that they should be sacrificed at all to begin with. This single issue, whether or not it is apparent to all people, is the largest obstacle in our attempt to reach the next level of our development. The point at which an individual finds balance between Liberty and Equality is called Justice. If they perceive the scale tipping to either side, in the form of what they see as too much restriction of liberties or the unequal distribution of human value among persons, then they see also injustice. Therein lies the problem. A multitude of voices are all crying for justice, and though they all shout the same word, few have the same definition for it. When one man says this is justice and another says another thing is justice; from this the two can only come to the conclusion that the contradiction arises from one or the other of them being incorrect, when in fact there is no black and white. This confusion and frustration has been the source of years of intellectual, philosophical, and political battles all of which have reached the same, seemingly insurmountable obstacle, a lack of universal agreement. Two partakers in this struggle for definition and understanding of the problem are Isaiah Berlin and Robert Nozick.
Isaiah Berlin put the dilemma in very simple terms. He said, “If you have maximum liberty, then the strong can destroy the weak, and if you have absolute equality, you cannot have absolute liberty, because you have to coerce the powerful... if they are not to devour the poor and meek... Total liberty can be dreadful, total equality can be equally frightful.” In this quote Berlin is using very many definitions and principles. Firstly by his use of maximum liberty we have to assume he means complete freedom for all individuals without compulsion from law or government. With complete freedom any person could do anything, steal, work, read, kill, etc, whenever he had the resources to do so; this is anarchy. By Berlin's use of absolute equality he is referring to a state where the government controls our lives so complete that no one is allowed to use physical or material power to become “greater” or have any control over another citizen. This is the basic idea behind communism. After understanding what he meant by “maximum liberty” and “absolute equality”, it is easy to see how he came to the conclusion that the two were in stark contradiction. There is no way, if “maximum liberty” is given, to stop one man who being more powerful than another, wishes to destroy or take from him. Berlin causes such circumstances “dreadful”, but he called the idea of “absolute equality... equally frightful”. The only way to institute universal equality is to strip all humans of the bulk of liberties, reducing their existence to a slavery, their masters being their own society.
If a more focused and objective look is taken at this quote from Berlin some other assumptions that provide the foundation for his statements can be identified. The first is that government is a necessary element in a society, and he also seems to be infer it is the only means by which equality can be reached. This is not surprising of course, that is the purpose of government, it was created to be a force of equality. This touches on the point of the second assumption and begs a serious question, what is equality. By definition in Berlin's quote it is purely materialistic. He says if the powerful can devour the poor and meek then they are not equal. That means that our equality by this definition is reliant on a materialistic, physical, and tangible essence. Berlin's definition of equality seems to be conditional one, in that it says two people are only equal if neither one of them violates the material essence, the body or the possessions, of the other. The third assumption is asks us another question. What is liberty? In his quote Berlin is also taking materialists view of liberty. Of course he would have to for it to be on the same plane with his views of equality, otherwise their might be no contradiction at all. He says that if we have “maximum” liberty it is then that the “strong can destroy the weak”. From this it can be understood that “maximum liberty” is the same as having the physical freedom to do whatever it is that we can do within our power. From this in depth analysis we learn that Berlin is operating on a physical plane.
Robert Nozick is one of the many great thinkers and philosophers to try and tackle the problem of Equality versus Liberty. Nozick believed that Liberty was a much larger issue than Equality. He believed that justice meant that everyone should have complete liberty, up to the point where they were not violating the natural rights of other people. He believed that the government, the force of equality, should only exist to theses rights, if they attempted to do anymore, he said that they were violating their position. A large portion of Nozick's work dealt with the distribution and protection of one's property. His entitlement theory said, “People are entitle to the property they have acquired legitimately, and they are entitled to dispose of it in any way they want as long as this does not infringe on the rights of others”. He did not think that anyone should be compelled by the government to give anything to disadvantaged people. He said that even though such a system would create equalities, assumingly the same sort Berlin referred to, it was the only system that provided real justice.
Nozick's theories met Berlin's quote with perfect agreement. He attempted to maximize the liberties of an individual but then realized that he could not completely ignore equality without “dreadful” consequences. A large reason for the agreement was that the two had very similar definitions for the words they were using. They also both operated under the same aforementioned assumptions. They both viewed this dilemma as a purely materialistic one. The main proposition of Berlin's quote was that a society could not have complete Equality and Liberty at the same time, and to have them individual would be less than desirable. Nozick understood this as well. He maximized liberty as much as he could, but then realized that after a certain point if all people had maximum liberty it would start to have more of a negative affect than a positive one. The liberty of one might begin to be affected by the liberty of another, and it is at that point Nozick decided to cut off liberty thereby instituting a small amount of governmental equality in the form of liberty protection.
At the point where the liberty of one begins to affect another one could say that that is no longer a positive progression of liberty, and that would be cause enough to claim that there is an inconsistency between Nozick and Berlin. That point must be further explored. If the liberty of one person is cut off before it reaches the point where it is violating the liberty of another than that other person is in effect having his own liberty protected and therefore increased. With Nozick's theories a person is having his freedom to do what he wants with his property and his body protected by the minimalist government. In this way the equality is actually serving to increase liberty. One could say that maximum liberty has been reached and at the same time we have also been able to institute some form of equality. If this is true then Nozick has found a way to undermine the principle set forth by Berlin in his quote. This perspective however is flawed. We are overlooking one major violation of liberty. The powerful person has had his action of destroying or harming the weaker person impeded, and as we know from Berlin “maximum liberty” means that one is not stopped from committing any action. So it has been proved that Nozick's theory does not violate Berlin's quote. He has only been able to institute equality by limiting the freedoms, the liberty, of all of the people.
Until our society has found a way to overcome the problem of liberty versus equality we will have many more people like Robert Nozick trying to find some happy medium between the two. The question must be asked though, will we ever reach that point, will we ever have justice if we keep our current definitions of the two words? The two words are contradictory by nature. To be perfect liberty stands for the same things equality must eradicate if it wants to be perfect. The contention of the two may very well stem from the fact that they are both materialistic principles. If we could find a definition of liberty and freedom that didn't rely on our physical world, or a definition of equality that was free from the same shackles we might finally be able to rest. We are more than physical entities and we are equal and free regardless of our physical characteristics, possession, or positions.

Capitalism and Socialism

2008-10-29T23:45:00.000-07:00

It is only after one has swung from capitalism to socialism and again back to capitalism that he has matured enough to begin searching for an ideal systen of economic distribution and government.

I think, therfore I am: Descartes Rehashed

2008-07-04T09:32:00.000-07:00

In the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes coined the phrase "Cogito, ergo sum", I think therefore I am. The statement was a conclusion to a process in which he decided he must find what truths he could trust. Descartes was religious, and believed that there was both a good god and and an evil one. He believed that he could not trust any of his senses because if the evil god did in fact exist, it would constantly attempt to deceive him. So after eliminating all things that he could not know for sure were not a delusion he was left with the idea that since he was thinking he must exist at least as a thinking thing. It would be interesting to see what thoughts he would have had if he hadn't made the assumption that gods existed.

Part of the problem with his wide ranging distrust, was how then to use the truth of self-awareness to be able to interact with an external world. An external world that could all easily be a delusion.

What if however, we abandoned the idea of an external world. If it were to exist, it would not matter to us any way. It is beyond our conception. An external world would have to be one completely separate from ourselves, and could only be viewed with a new relativity that is entirely beyond our grasp. Before I continue let me explain why I said "a new relativity" as opposed to objectivity. If we were ever true to the definition of objectivity, we would mean to look at all events with complete indifference, because there is nothing that has meaning unless related to something else. The closest simulation to complete objectivity would be to imagine yourself as completely transparent and weightless, starring out into a vast white void, where distance and time have no meaning. You might want to say that everything wouldn't look white, and there would still be mountains and cold weather, but if when you looked at green there were no other colors or you to relate it to would it's "color" matter. If when you were up on a mountain and could not relate it to what it's like to be down in a valley would it's height matter, if when cold you had no idea of what being warm or hot was like would the weathe matter. The answer to all of these is no. We only have words like high, low, cold, hot, far, close, red, green, to relate things to each other. Complete objectivity would not allow us to consider our past experiences while experiencing new ones. Everything would exist alone.

The only reason I went to such lengths to attempt to show you what objectivity really is, is because even if it were somehow attainable by humans, it would be something that we should all avoid. Now back to the external world. If we were all to see the external world, it would have to be through a single new relativity shared by all, we could not retain of our own judgments, or reasonings because that would change the way we defined the world, making it once again "our" world instead of the world. Thereby failing to see a world that, yes we still existed in, but was not part of or unique to ourselves.

My point is that for us,there is no external world, and there is no cause to seek it. We have all defined our world in our own way. Enumerable factors have made up the way we've all compiled our knowledge and experience into our own worlds. Factors as apparent as height drastically affect the way we view everything. If you were two inches shorter the whole world would therefore be larger to you, not to mention your interaction with others would be changed in ways that are to subtle and numerous to imagine. Think how much more other factors, such as culture, childhood experiences, genetic makeup, and every experience we've ever had, affect the way we come to view our worlds.

We do not need to strive for an external world, and it does not exist for us, because our thoughts, our reasoning, our memories, everything that quite frankly makes us who we are cannot exist in it. I say again, it is outside of us. I assume Descartes was wary of proceeding in a world of delusions because then, it could change or end at any moment, but isn't that the inherent truth of our lives. At any moment we can be thrust around by natural disasters or terrorist attacks, or even my an angry boss or an unfaithful spouse or lover, not only that at any moment we could die and it would all end.

I believe Descartes most popular saying can be expanded to "I think, therefore my world is", beyond that there is nothing as of yet to be known.

I know many people will be appalled that I would even dare attempt to rehash the thinking of a great philosopher, but I'm just thinking.

Busola Laditan

Cafe Press Shirts

2008-06-30T23:24:00.001-07:00

Aesthetic has released one of their designs for sale at http://www.cafepress.com/aestheticsts. The release features more art by Kathy Jo Braceland. The new design Duet displays Aesthetics commitment to making shirts worth wearing.

Duet

Life as Coffee

2008-06-19T14:50:00.000-07:00

A group of alumni, highly established in their careers, got together to visit their old university Professor.

Conversation soon turned into complaints about stress in work and life.

Offering his guests coffee, the Prof. went to the kitchen and returned with a large pot of coffee and an assortment of cups:
porcelain, plastic, glass, some plain-looking and some expensive and exquisite, telling them
to help themselves to hot coffee.

When all the students had a cup of coffee in hand, the Prof. said "If you noticed, all the nice-looking, expensive cups were taken up, leaving behind the plain and cheap ones. While it is but normal for you to want only the best for yourselves, that is the source of your problems and stress. That all of you really wanted was coffee, not the cup, but you consciously went for the better cups and are eyeing each other's cups."

"Now, if Life is coffee, then the jobs, money and position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold and contain Life, but the quality of Life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."

From AmazingPosts.com

The Pamphlet - Writers

2008-06-19T00:00:00.000-07:00

The pamphlet is starting back up again, and they're looking for news writers, opinion wirtiers, political and opinion cartoonists, new video bloggers, and the works if you think you've got the talent them know.

Email them at pamphletmail@gmail.com

Musec Review: Naomi Elizabeth

2008-06-12T22:19:00.000-07:00

Musec review just posted a new review on Naomi Elizabeth.

Kathy Jo Braceland

2008-06-12T18:52:00.000-07:00

Aesthetic T-Shirts will be producing shirts with designs from artist Kathy Jo Braceland. Braceland 's art covers many disparate genres, so there is no telling what the shirts come out looking like. In addition to using art directly from Braceland's gallery, Aesthetic's designers are creating some new designs based on some of the pieces.

Aesthetic plans to release the shirts this July. We don't know too much about what they look like yet but we know that these two images are being considered by the designers.

"drifting in space"

"moonlight in manhattan"

To see more art by Kathy Jo Braceland, visit her website at www.k-jostudio.com.

What this is...

2008-06-12T04:15:00.000-07:00

This blog is for updates on any of yellow philosophy's projects, and for info on yellow philosophy itself. The other blogs are listed on the side. If you have any thoughts, questions, or ideas about anything send us a message.