dontfakethepunk。

Traffic is gone.

2012-05-21T00:50:00.000+10:00

Good. Now I can start blogging again, with the knowledge little to no people will be reading this blog.

So what will this blog be about now?
Personal introspection? Tried that, didn't like it.
Social commentary? Why don't I just recite some nihilist philosophy? You'll be reading the same thing.
So what's left?

The only things that I've been consistently passionate about.
Soccer and music.

See you when the Euros start.

Arsenal Introspection.

2012-02-24T17:25:00.002+11:00

The 4 - 0 loss to AC Milan and 2 - 0 loss to Sunderland means we are out of the running for silverware this season, physical silverware anyway. Though as optimism and a manager’s urge for spirit would have it, ‘fourth place’ is apparently silverware enough for the squad. Timing of le Prof’s comment aside, it is a reality that Arsenal fans would be delusional not to have accepted at the start of the season. Albeit, with a few changes - perhaps back then a top four finish would have been possible; now, all but the fourth spot is available to us. But how significant is this really?

Fourth spot means we claim a chance to compete in the champions league (and the prestige that comes with it), earning us realistically a minimum bonus of €10 million and the chance to attract stars to the club and retain the ones we currently have. Let’s debunk this for a second. According to Wenger in a recent interview, about €35 million is made prior to the starting of each season, whether these are funds that Kroenke demands of Wenger or whether they’re used to pay for expenses, it can be generally agreed upon that fiscally, we are doing a lot better than our Premier League compatriots. In any case, it is said by Stan that we are very much still in a good position financially should we fail to finish in a champions league position.

Like many pop philosophical quotes that are thrown around, the argument that we need a champions league spot in order to attract big players is one that doesn’t seem to hold much water. As much as he is a scumbag, did Luis Suarez not join a club that is failing more than we are to secure a champions league place? Besides, is it really like Wenger to spend big on players? Maybe the recent weeks have sort of planted a seed in Wenger’s mind as to his transfer policies, but such is optimism - the proof of the pudding is in the eating. But running with the idea of optimism, it would seem that right now the only place that would need bolstering is the midfield. But more on that later.

The most alarming (and the most critical) element of securing a champions league place is that it would seem to be motivation for our stars to stay. Arsenal, the clubs where stars are made and sold off at their peak. Truly, the loss of David Dein still hurts today. The same David Dein who convinced our flying Dutchman van Persie to join the squad. Truly, he is the big star that needs to be kept in this squad. The loss of Van Persie shouldn’t be overstated however, nor should it be underplayed. While he is integral to our squad, recent comments by the board allow us to think that they are more confident for the future, or that we are really that desperate to keep him; the will to keep him until the end of his contract rather than sell him should he choose not to renew.

But with the arrogant growing Walcott, the flying Dutchman, Gervinho and the emergence of the Ox, there oughtn’t be any fear in our final third, especially if a quality striker reinforces this squad. The true worry lies in our midfield. A fresh spark at the start of the season, in weeks recent Aaron Ramsey has looked nothing short of a flat battery. While being deployed in that creative zone, he seems to posses enough visionto play there. What he seems to lack in however, is the technical ability - and that’s how the loss of Cesc truly hurts us. Against teams like Sunderland who were more active without the ball, the flaw in Arsenal is really exposed. Teams sitting back, soaking up pressure, and allowing us time on the ball never used to be much of a problem, for we had Cesc Fabregas to pick the lock that was the defence with that killer through ball. Even this season, we have seen the shadow left behind by Cesc in some game winning plays. Note Alex Song against Dortmund, note Alex Song against Everton, note Arshavin against Sunderland. But even so, such occurrences appear to border on anomalies, as good as Alex Song and our little Russian are.

But it is not only the creative nature of our game that Sunderland highlighted, but our midfield dominance. When Sunderland formulated that seemingly airtight defensive master plan against us, they combined sitting back in the final third, with pressing in the midfield. It is here that the loss of Samir Nasri and Fabregas are felt, for with players infamous for being wasteful in possession, we cannot simply be the divine midfield force that we were. In Arteta we have the ability to hold possession under pressure, but the same cannot be said with the likes of Walcott, Ramsey, Rosicky, and Gervinho. And even then, with such pressure in our midfield zone, most of these players cannot physically compete. Of course it would be unreasonable to expect a Joey Barton like presence in the midfield, but could you ever imagine the likes of Patrick Vieira and Gilberto Silva being dominated in the midfield like the current squad?

The return of Jack Wilshere cannot come soon enough. Blooded with a year’s experience in a rotating midfield triangle comprising of Fabregas and Song, he has the defensive discipline in being pro active without the ball. While he doesn’t possess the precision or vision that Cesc did, he does provide a level or two more creativity than Aaron Ramsey does, who quite frankly could use a vacation. And if not Jack Wilshere, dare I hope it? Maybe a transfer? Perhaps Montolivo from Fiorentina? Perhaps a return transfer from Flamini? Perhaps the returning of Alexander Hleb to the club he once called home? Okay the last one would be like pulling Sol Campbell out of retirement, but as it stands, the midfield, where the Arsenal squad once defined itself, appears to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, and with the risk of losing our prized marksman, change cannot come soon enough.

And I love Theo Walcott but it scares me that he’s been in this Arsenal squad for six years. Someone needs to really up their game.

This post intentionally left blank.

2012-01-22T19:35:00.001+11:00

This post intentionally left blank.

Will update tomorrow when I have nothing to do.

I'm not dead.

2012-01-05T05:55:00.002+11:00

I'm in Korea! Yay!
Which means I probably get access to the internet for about half an hour a day and anything more runs into my sleep time. It's nearly 04:00 here, but I can't stand not being able to write so I'll have a post or two up shortly in the rest of the week.

I'm sure by now all (none) of you would have been done reading my philophical essay (garbage - albeit 10/10 garbage) and are probably laughing at me behind my back. I don't mind.

I will have some legitimate pondering up in the next few days though. Holidaying without parents does funny things to the individual will - and what kind of a philosopher would I be if I didn't look back and reflect upon the (scat) shit I've done thus far in Korea? (I'd be quite a shit one.)

Anyway, if you fellow bloggers have some time on your hands, hit up my friend Eddy's blog @ http://smokyham.blogspot.com/. The dude's legit and is genuinely worth reading, something which I can't say for a lot of the blogs I have on my sidebar (not that I don't like looking at pretty pictures of people wearing clothes and shit because that shit gets me going. On that sour but delicious note I'll end this post ..

Until next time, where I will be taking a 'mental health day' and a lot lot poorer.)

L8RS.

The Rest of my Philosophy SAC.

2011-12-16T22:25:00.002+11:00

Utilitarianism - A response from Aristotle.

For Aristotle, in order for one to live the Good Life, one must abide by his idea of the mean. The individual “mean” is what one ought to aim at in all situations. The mean is not what’s contrary to the mean; the mean is not excess, and the mean is not defect. For example, on the subject matter of courage, the mean is the courage, while the excess is rashness and foolhardiness, while the defect is cowardice. Essentially, acting by the mean (and ultimately, virtuously, as far as Aristotle is concerned) is acting in moderation with regard to any subject matter. [1]However, Aristotle admits that following the mean isn’t for everybody. He contends that the achievement of the mean is for the “rare, noble, and laudable”. Aristotle doesn’t fail to provide an alternative though, positing that though the two vices aren’t the mean itself, one should aim at the lesser of two evils, that one should aim to avoid the vice (whether it is defect or excess) that is closest to the mean, and thus being able to get closer to the mean, and ultimately achieve Eudaimonia, or happiness.[2]

Like many other philosophers, Aristotle held his own views about the conceptions of a “Good Life”. The basic Act Utilitarian principles are that one should aim at the greatest possible happiness for the greatest amount of people, through morally righteous actions. When analyzed and compared to Aristotle, many points of agreeance and disagreeance can be made. Firstly, in Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle proposed that the flourishing, or the happiness of the state is more important than that of an individual, so certainly in that sense, Aristotle would agree with utilitarianism. Aristotle also proposed that we should aim at actions which are intrinsically good in themselves, rather than actions whose worth are instrumental to something else. For Aristotle, such actions will bring more “Good” than the latter of the mentioned.[3]Of these actions that are good in themselves, Aristotle believed that such actions included that which is virtuous. Essentially, utilitarianism aims at the greatest total happiness for the greatest amount through virtuous actions. However, for Aristotle, an agent is to be only considered virtuous if the man knows what he is doing, if the man is able to choose what he is doing, if the man is doing them for their intrinsic worth, and if the man is following the “five rights”.[4]

In relation to Utilitarianism, Aristotle’s idea of the mean can apply to living the Good Life, but if only for the reason that utilitarian involves the greatest total amount of happiness for the most people through morally righteous [virtuous, for Aristotle] actions.

Utilitarianism: A response from Friedrich Nietzsche.

Nietzsche holds that throughout the ages, all philosophers have attempted to furnish a rational ground for morality, they have been trying to depress the emotions, trying to dull them. Nietzsche posits that moralities should be taken as a given, that they are the products of circumstances inside various societies, and should be seen as such. Nietzsche also holds that moralities are not immutable and not universal, meaning that moralities everywhere aren’t cut in stone, they are flexible, and are susceptible to change, and even then, such moralities may not apply to certain societies, because morality is a product of a particular society[5]. What this means is that while morality may apply and serve a function to a society at one point in time, there will come a stage where said morality will be subjected to outlive its purpose in society. Moralities in this state will be found to be more detrimental to the society than constructive. As a result of all of this, one can begin to fathom the problem Nietzsche has with utilitarianism.

Among many things, Nietzsche described Utilitarianism as naïve and boneheaded. This in itself already sets up any reader to get a general idea of what Friedrich Nietzsche thinks of Utilitarianism. A quintessential aspect of utilitarianism is the notion that everyone being influenced by utilitarianism must be treated equally. In response to this, Nietzsche claims that this unequivocal rule put forth by utilitarianism is nothing more than what he would consider “herd morality”.[6]For Nietzsche, herd morality is that which is for the weak, for the many, for the sheep[7]. Like in Christianity[8], Nietzsche holds Utilitarianism to the same standard, claiming that they are both “tools for the sheep”, and reduces everyone to the “lowest common denominator”. Nietzsche was highly against this as this caused a repression for the few, for the superior, to accommodate for those who are weak, for the many sheep.

It can be possibly inferred then, that Nietzsche would criticize utilitarianism for the idea that it aims to keep the majority in a state of contentment, in a state of happiness. As a result of this, the herd, or those affected at the very least, lose what Nietzsche refers to as the will to power, or the “strong and dangerous drives”. Nietzsche believes that without these “strong and dangerous drives”, there cannot be any human progress, as the herd is stuck in their delusion of happiness; the herd is restrained into being “mediocre”.

Utilitarianism - Personal Response.

Each individual has their own personal maxims on what encompasses the good life.

The idea of utilitarianism does not happen to breach this guideline. It is entirely up to an individual whether to use utilitarianism as an ideal in which to aim at the Good Life; that is to say, that if one believed that the pursuit of happiness for the greatest amount of people through morally righteous actions will lead to a Good Life, then so be it. However, practically, there is a problem that arises here. The term “morally righteous actions” is nothing but a mere arbitrary statement, what is morally righteous for one, may be considered immoral, or even amoral to another person. This is an entirely different debate in itself though, but in all essence, to claim to act under morally righteous actions is to claim to act under arbitrary ruling. This causes a problem, because while the guideline proposes (and encourages) that the maxims be unique, utilitarianism holds that each individual’s reason for aiming at The Good Life should be the same, as they are all worth the same [impartiality].

As a point of reference, this also coincides with Aristotle’s theories when one is aiming for the Good Life, as Aristotle believes there are many virtues that are in themselves intrinsic and of noble worth, like courage and honesty (provided they aim at the mean). As a result of this, utilitarianism can work in the Aristotelian sense because acting by morally righteous actions are all “good” in themselves, for the greatest amount of people to achieve the greatest total happiness.

So long as the belief can be logically attained by means of deduction and not by means of values, the belief can lead to an attainment of a good life.

In this sense, utilitarianism fails because in dealing with utilitarianism and, more specifically, moral issues, one can only aim to understand them from a subjective level rather than an objective level. This means that ultimately, all justifications for “morally righteous actions” are based on value, rather than truth. This is, perhaps, where I feel that utilitarianism fails the hardest in application for living the Good Life. That one lives one’s life according to a set of value judgments, judgments which may potentially be as far away from the logical truth as possible, and how can one really call living a life of lies a “Good Life”?

There are only two states of the good life, one that is a good life, and one that isn’t a good life.
This is because “the good life” is purely subjective, and it would be fallacious to argue that one’s life is better than another, because the standards are not the same.

It is possible for utilitarianism to coincide with this ideal, because utilitarianism is only a means to live a life, a means to the end that is ultimately, The Good Life. Utilitarianism also coincides with this ideal, because utilitarianism aims to be impartial, so that one’s happiness isn’t worth more than another man’s happiness, and that no man gains priority to attain happiness. However, utilitarianism only aims to maximize happiness for the maximum number of people, and this does not imply that all men will experience the same levels of happiness. Consequentially, this ideal fits as levels of happiness cannot be compared because each individual is an individual, and their happiness cannot be compared, because their standards would be different.

For instance, say the maximum happiness obtainable for two men, called x and y are 80 and 70 arbitrary units respectively. Given that the two men are different, and have different standards, it would be fallacious to say that man x has more happiness than man y (from this information only anyway). This is because man x may have a personal happiness meter that goes up to 160, whilst man y’s happiness meter only goes up to 70, and thus man y could be completely happy, while man x is only half happy. However, even this is not enough, and this may be completely wrong because the numbers measuring happiness for man x and man y are only as correct as man x and man y allow them to be. This is because the amount is purely arbitrary, and it would be fallacious to even conduct this thought experiment because each man has different terms and conditions for measurement of happiness (each man’s happiness is arbitrary to that man, and that man alone).

The good life is an activity, not an achievement in the material sense. One does not own a good life like a possession, one lives a good life.

Utilitarianism can co exist with this ideal, for utilitarianism is, as mentioned before, simply a means in which one can achieve a Good Life. Utilitarianism is certainly not “The Good Life”, nor can utilitarianism be owned by somebody like a possession, it is simply a method in which the “Good Life” may be achieved and prospered.

In achievement of the Good Life, an individual cannot interfere with the achievement of the Good Life for another. Such activities will not lead one to the good life.

This is the other flawed area with utilitarianism in terms of living “The Good Life”. Utilitarianism involves maximizing happiness for the “greatest amount of people”. This conflicts with the above ideal, as the above ideal implies that one should not interfere with the attainment of an arbitrary good life of another person. Acting in a utilitarian sense means acting in a way that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people. Yet, to do so, one must first understand everyone’s sense of happiness. More problems arise out of this, as then the question of priority comes up, and in order to attain an individual happiness, one must obviously perform different actions; an action that makes one person happy, may very well have the opposite effect on another.

Conclusion
I find that utilitarianism is a practical ideal to look up to in pursuit of the Good Life. However, utilitarianism is flawed in that it is only based on arbitrary views, and that utilitarianism is only a product of value judgments/statements, rather than truth/factual statements. But even when a seemingly convincing argument is put forth by John Stuart Mill supporting the legitimacy of utilitarianism as an ideal, it seems that we are skeptical still, as we question further, in an attempt to try and find a rational solution for something [The Good Life] that may not be humanly possibly at all.

Furthermore, it must not be ruled out that Utilitarianism isn’t a manual on how to live a Good Life, utilitarianism is “not a simplistic moral principle to be mechanically applied, it is a long term social project”. This means that utilitarianism cannot be applied to everyone as an idea to be used like a method, due to the arbitrariness of everybody. But it is a long term social project, that so long as everyone acts in a way that maximizes the greatest total happiness, it is also possible that everyone at the same time develops a flourishing of happiness. It, however, works the other way as well, as it may also be completely possible that living a life of utilitarianism will not necessarily lead one to living the Good Life.

It is also certainly difficult to argue a logical case for utilitarianism without resorting to the value judgments. A logical case for a contemporary idea on how one should live the Good Life is important as it is simply logical. As a result of the logic, one can confirm that what they are following is the truth, and nothing more. This is opposed to subjective views. One cannot argue with logic and truth and reasoning like one would with subjective views, with biased opinions. As a result of this, it is indeed very questionable whether utilitarianism even leads to a Good Life. Because then the question arises, can one actually deduce logically and not morally, that happiness is the means in which to live the good life?

Case Study: Heroes.

The Superhero Reflection.

When one gives mention to a “superhero”, there are only two thoughts that initially come to mind. The first being Marvel comics, and the second, complementary so, being DC comics. And I think it’s funny, because I’m feeling as if I have a very limited knowledge of superheroes, am I forgetting some ancient superheroes? But they’re all the same aren’t they? Their drives, their back story, their inevitable need to follow the utilitarian principle of saving the lives of the innocent, their need to uphold justice to prevent injustice.

But what defines a superhero, in the contemporary context?

In the past decade, contemporary society has been littered with examples of superheroes. Not just through typical comic books, but the coverage spread through different mediums. In the past decade, contemporary society has seen such examples of superheroes most prevalently through the mediums of television and film. However, it is very important at this stage to define what a superhero is.

For the sake of this piece, a superhero is defined as those who are “possessing "extraordinary or superhuman powers" and dedicated to protecting the public.” As such, examples then of superheroes are; the friendly neighborhood Spiderman, the entire mutant cast of X-Men, and the cast of the Watchmen comics. At this stage in time, I would like to state with full confidence that all superheroes require superpowers. One requires a superhuman power, rather than an excess of a human ability, to be considered something “super”. This eliminates conceptions of superheroes such as the Batman/The Dark Knight as a superhero, as he lacks anything beyond that of a human. Batman is simply, a vigilante with glorious amounts of wealth. It is also quintessential, that for a person to be called a superhero, he/she must actually be a “hero”, in the sense that he/she must be defined by exceptional nobility.

Superheroes and Utilitarianism/Happiness.

Superheroes, generally speaking, use their superpowers to serve the general public with regard to safety issues, and with regard to social protection issues. With this in mind, it would be a fair assumption to make that superheroes act In order to serve the greatest number of people; his/her city (or even the World, at some stages). In saving the citizens, a superhero manages to not only rid the saved place of danger, but the superhero potentially saves all of the lives of the people residing in the, now saved, town. As a result of this, would it not be fair to say that the superhero has extended the life span of the saved citizens? And consequentially, this extended lifespan can lead to two more things: happiness (arguably), and a potential to fulfill a “good life”.

In this sense, it can be argued that a superhero who fulfills his role in saving the citizens of a city acts in a utilitarian manner, as the superhero can either save cities with two things kept in mind: “the greatest happiness principle”, or potentially: the negative utilitarian principle. And, taking a page out from Immanuel Kant, I do believe that while the superhero is in possession of his/her power, he/she must perform his/her duty to utilize his/her powers in order to save the citizens when it is required. It is the superheroes’ duty. However, while the superhero saving the city may bring upon the happiness for the majority of the people saved, one falls trap to the fault mentioned earlier before with regard to utilitarianism: Who is to say that saving the day will make the superhero happy?

What proof is there that the superhero’s happiness is in direct correlation of the happiness acquired by the saved citizens? That is to say: what proof is there that a superhero gets a proverbial kick out of saving lives?

Nietzsche on the Superhero From an Aristotelian Stance & The Ubermensch.

Certainly, the idea of the superhero is one that exists only in imagination and in fictional movies, but the concepts are still applicable for something (albeit, something that may not exactly be realistic) that perhaps humanity can aim for as an end, either morally (or amorally) and evolutionary. However, in recognition of what a superhero is, with regard to his intentions and the nature of his actions, his drives, one can certainly discern that Friedrich Nietzsche holds views that may be in opposition to what the general superhero stands for.

One of the key focuses of Nietzsche in attainment of the good Life is the need to go beyond society and beyond morality, as he posits in Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche’s idea of the “Superman” or the “Ubermensch” is the person who lives at a standard that is outside of what is typically coined “Good and Evil” by society[9]. Perhaps for Nietzsche, the average superhero means next to nothing because the average superhero fails to understand self overcoming, and while he provides physical safety for his citizens, the superhero is bound by society’s sense of morality; for, if the superhero did not agree with the morality posited by society, how can the superhero even begin to comprehend the reasons behind his apparently noble actions?

From an Aristotelian sense, the superhero should be classified as beyond human, should he not? Generally speaking, superheroes possess powers that are beyond that of humans. Aristotle posits that in order for one to achieve the Good Life [Eudaimonia], an individual must exercise his/her unique function. A superhero has something, has a power that is inherently beyond humans. As a result of this, a superhero’s function cannot be to reason, because to reason is the unique function reserved for humans. However, the superhero does have the superpower. This superpower is unique to the superhero, and to no other organism on the face of the Earth, based on the correspondence theory of truth, which bases knowledge on what has been perceivable so far in reality. As a result of this, we can develop that the superheroes unique function is to use his/her superpower, and according to Aristotle, to use it well. Generally speaking, this means that in order for a superhero to achieve a Good Life, the superhero must use his/her power to help as many people as he can. But in order to help as much people as he can, the superhero must rely on society to tell him what is helpful, what is good (so he can promote it) and what is bad (so he can avoid it and prevent it, remedy it). In this sense, this is where a Nietzsche may have problems with the superhero.

As a result of this, what would Nietzsche say about the Superhero under an Aristotelian context? Certainly then, the superhero, ironically, is very unlike the idea of the Ubermensch posited by Friedrich Nietzsche. For Nietzsche’s Ubermensch is one who “forgoes transient pleasure, exercises creative power, lives at a level of experience beyond standards of good and evil, and is the goal of human evolution”. Perhaps out of those four criterions, the superhero may only achieve transient pleasure, exercises creative power, and is very arguably, the goal of human evolution[10]. However, the superhero does inherently fail to go beyond the standards of Good and Evil, as the superhero can only apply societal standards of good and evil to carry out his function. In order for the superhero to exercise his function well, he must help his society, and this cannot be done on the superheroes’ terms in the event that what the superhero perceives as good may cause more damage and detriment to society than what society thinks of Good and Evil.

For Nietzsche, perhaps the superhero has the means in order to achieve an Ubermensch status, but due to their inherent lack of self-overcoming and their enslavement to the society that they are being held to save. However, perhaps for Aristotle, it is possible for a superhero to achieve “the Good Life” so long as he exercises his function well. For Aristotle, one who exercises his function well is one who is able to choose the mean, and one who manages to choose the mean can achieve Eudaimonia/The Good Life.

The modern day general superhero certainly applies some utilitarian perspectives when acting out, that we can be sure of. However, the big question is still yet to be answered.

The big question that asks, “What is the Good Life?”; this big question that seems, hitherto, to only be a myth, an ideal as false as Kevin Rudd’s Prime Ministerial campaign. There is no question by now that it is very likely superheroes function under the utilitarian principles, but whether this leads to a Good Life for anybody, or even happiness for anybody, is yet to be answered through logical deduction.

Happiness and The Good Life.

Final Reflection: Happiness and The Good Life, a logical improbability.

Previously in this report, in this document, it has been touched on before that in order for one to live the Good Life, one must follow an individual set of rules that are devoid of any subjectivity. In this particular document, I attempted to use happiness as an example of a subject matter that one can follow as an ideal to lead up to the Good Life. But apparently, it is much more difficult than I had initially anticipated to develop a strictly logical argument linking happiness and the Good Life. Perhaps in hindsight, it was ridiculous to even suppose such a thing would be possible. But I will not dismiss it that quickly; I still hold that it is possible to develop a maxim for a good life that can be argued through strict logic without falling victim to moral value statements. However, I think I may have failed in the aspect that I tried to find a logical link between two subject matters that impose nothing but arbitrary views. Perhaps I was a bit too ambitious in my pursuit of logic, perhaps, as noted by Aristotle; I should have just stuck to being as correct as I possibly can, rather than trying to argue more than the subject matter allowed me too. In a mathematical context, I feel as if I’m trying to find solutions to equations whose discriminant is less than zero. Except in the case of mathematics, that would be unequivocally impossible, because equations whose discriminants are less than zero cannot possibly have any solutions for the given unknown term.

Some failed attempts.

P1. The Good Life is the life that an individual would like to live.
P2. Happiness is defined as the state of well being characterized by emotions ranging from contentment to intense joy.
UP1. Satisfaction is a form of contentment.
Con. One cannot attain the Good Life without happiness in some way, shape, or form.

This has failed, simply because it has not properly addressed happiness in leading up to the Good Life, but rather, it has gone the other way and addressed The Good Life and how it may cause happiness. This is also faulted for the reason that it is based on a moral value statement, and not a logical statement.

P1. Everything can be made better by adding happiness.
P2. Happiness cannot be made better by adding happiness.
Con. Happiness is an end upon itself, and we ought to aim for it.

This argument is faulted because it also fails to address happiness in relation to the Good Life. Also, one can just as easily conclude by saying that happiness is and end upon itself, and therefore we must avoid it! This is as a result of the subjective nature of the argument put forth.

The obvious real problem I’ve found in trying to link happiness to the Good Life logically is that I’m doubtful whether I will ever succumb to a logical argument where a reader will find that he will be inclined to believe that happiness is related to the Good Life. It is at this moment, at these erroneous slices of drivel, that I realize that perhaps it may be a logical improbability to claim that happiness can lead to a good life indefinitely.

Conclusion: The Good Life.

In this report, I have endeavored to find some possible (maybe impossible) meaning in what it means to live the Good Life. But I arrive, regrettably, at the conclusion that The Good Life is not some human construct that can be carried out without any means of thought. How does one even begin to wonder how the Good Life can be achieved, or how can one even begin to judge what a Good Life is, when the Good Life is evidently, something that exists only in the eye of the beholder. Even then however, it is very questionable as to whether one really believes if one is in a state of living the Good Life? Does someone just know, or is there a tell tale sign that allows them to accept their life as “The Good Life”?

The idea of utilitarianism in many forms was analysed in depth to see if it could be a tool in order to attain a maximal happiness, which would perhaps lead to a Good Life. Utilitarianism was then put under the microscope from an Aristotelian perspective, and then a criticism by Nietzsche. The findings on utilitarianism have been conformational in the sense that it certainly seems like a practical way to achieve happiness, but it really does fail to address the idea that happiness may lead to the good life in the logical sense. But nonetheless, it is certainly an idea that promotes wellness and goodness in that happiness breeds wellness and goodness.

A case study was then issued into a contemporary idea that utilizes such a philosophical tradition: the superhero. The superhero is defined as one who would have powers beyond humanity, and through Aristotle’s mean, a superhero acting justly with his powers for society is able to achieve the Good Life, as he is utilizing his function well, and is thus able to choose his mean. This idea was challenged against Nietzsche’s idea of the Superman/Ubermensch. Theoretically speaking, Nietzsche would have seen a superhero as nothing short of a slave, snared by the morality of his society at the given time, due to the hero’s lack of will to power, and due to the hero’s lack of going “beyond good and evil”; qualities possessed by the Ubermensch.

Initially, I had thought that happiness would lead to the Good Life, but this came across much more difficult to argue for, strictly speaking with regard to logic. If I am able to conclude anything, it is this: that the Good Life is arbitrary, and each person will have varying ideas of the Good Life. As a result of this, it would be unreasonable to try and assume a logical argument, as opposed to a moral based argument, because one cannot assume precision in an idea that lacks any means of potential precision. Like Aristotle suggests, and this is no different, it would be unreasonable for a mathematician to provide a probable answer, and it would be just as unreasonable for a moral philosopher to be expected to argue with more precision than the subject allows for. In this case, it is the Good Life which is the subject that is lacking in any means of arguable precision. And thus the Good Life stands, as an ideal still, as an arbitrary view, a potentially false view to look up to as an ideal. While there many ideas out there that may support one to achieve the Good Life, it is very questionable whether they can actually lead to the Good Life or not.

Tony Nguyen

[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 1. Haileybury Philosophy Text

[2] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 9. Haileybury Philosophy Text

[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I Chapter 7. Haileybury Philosophy Text

[4] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book II Chapter 6. Haileybury Philosophy Text

[5] Nietzsche, F Beyond Good and Evil. Aphorism: 186 Haileybury Philosophy Text.

[6] Jackson, R Teach Yourself Nietzsche. London: Bookpoint Publishing, 2008. Pg 61 - 63.

[7] Nietzsche, F Beyond Good and Evil. Aphorism: 201 Haileybury Philosophy Text.

[8] Nietzsche, F Beyond Good and Evil. Aphorism: 189 Haileybury Philosophy Text

[9] Victorian Association for Philosophy in Schools Website. http://www.vaps.vic.edu.au/vceresource/nietzschevceresource2008.doc

[10] Victorian Association for Philosophy in Schools Website. http://www.vaps.vic.edu.au/vceresource/nietzschevceresource2008.doc

Assorted Musings.

2011-12-15T02:45:00.000+11:00

Ah, two in the morning. The hour where blogging seems to make the most sense to me. The prime hour where my creativity isn't stemmed by my often restrictive sense of reasoning, but my imagination still has one leg caught in the window - and without the presence of Ryan Shawcross/Martin Taylor, escape seems impossible.

Yesterday my mum underwent an operation to remove some cancerous cells from a part of her body which I was not told. It's a detail I wasn't informed about, but in the grand scheme of things, it was a detail where I'm not sure would have had any relevance to me - yet oddly I feel guilty for not attempting to see if it would have a weight. Anyway, the most important details revealed to me were the fact that the fine doctors at the Angliss Hospital caught the cells early before they could spread and the operation was a complete success. Huzzahs all round.

Unbeknownst to me was the location of the hospital, and perhaps only half of you Melbournites reading this blog will only know where the Angliss Hospital is, all tucked away neatly in Ferntree Gully. With about two and a half hours of waiting time before the operation and two hours after the operation, I was afforded an opportunity to get a lay of the land, and it was an opportunity I didn't think twice before taking. Reminiscent of the endeavours of Wilson's Promontory in year nine, the casual hour long hike over some of the deceivingly large mountains allowed me some breathing space, allowed me a visual demonstration of the grandeur of mother nature. The environmentalists are wrong, there's simply no way humans can ever lay waste and destruction to such a thing of awe, of such incomprehensible timelessness. It only seemed more apparent as I took in my environment that humans will come and go; but mother nature will forever remain a constant, will forever adapt to the new parasites living on its surface. The view was breathtaking beyond words.

Excitement is building. Little children will be looking at their calendars, counting down the days, giddy with excitement until it’s that night and they can barely sleep. Tossing and turning all night long, their little pyjamas all crumpled up and no matter how much they close their eyes and squeeze them shut they just can’t.
Eventually sleep will take them and the next morning they’ll rush down the stairs and log onto NewsNow to see if Arsenal have signed anyone. Yes, it’s the opening of the transfer window. - Arseblogger.

Ah yes, the all but infuriating transfer windows for Arsenal fans. Though given my current circumstances, it's probably not the Transfer Window that's causing my counting down of the days until that night and I can barely sleep. Rather, it's the mere fact that tomorrow marks the day year 12 scores are released and I may be subjected to a life of child slave labor back in the motherland for not being able to reap the fruits of my study exhaustive labor (and my blogging, it's mostly the blogging). I have no regrets.

But the transfer window. Perhaps more dire than the last season, Le Prof will be having to do a lot of spending this window. With Santos injured during a midweek against Olympiakos, Arsenal are without all four of their full backs. It is then most likely the case that Vermalen will fill in for Santos on the left and we will be treated to the defensive stylings of Mertescielny - opening up a position for Djourou to fill in at right back. More daunting than this is the prospects of having a clumsy frenchman by the name of Squillaci sitting on our bench, ready to sabotage (with his partners in crime Djourou and Almunia) any chances we have of securing a Champions league place.

In spite of such a macabre prospect, it is very unlikely that Arsenal will see a new full back come the end of January. Do not forget that we do have the potentially great center half Ignasi Miquel, or if things get too bad and Arsene does not wish to play Squillaci, Song can fill in at center back, pushing Kozzer to the right. Sure enough, when he played center back, Song did possess the willingness to tackle, the strength, and the fearlessness that trumps Koscielny's, so he'll be a great fit with our BFG.

Unusually for Arsenal, most of the transfer activity will be focused on strengthening out attacking line up. Losing Chamakh (is that really a loss?) and Gervinho (and his forehead) to the African Nations Cup in January, Arsene will be looking for replacements - however, it would indeed be a lie on my behalf to claim that this is the biggest motivator for buying a striker. But more on this later.

Over the recent weeks, I've found it rather astounding how many players Arsenal have been linked to for the January transfer window. Gotze, Podolski, Kalou, Granero, Gourcuff, M'Vila, Abdellaoue, Grosskreutz, Hazard, all encouraging signings, and I'm willing to bet one of these players will end up wearing the Red and White come the business end of the season. Because it's more than the January period and refreshment of legs on the line for the Gunners, but the fact that a January signing to bolster the squad that can really entice our in form Van Persie into extending his arguably last major contract for his footballing career. The presence of an advanced midfielder/winger in the form of Gotze/Hazard can really do wonders for our midfield and attack following the loss of Gervinho to the African Nations cup. It will also mean that our tricky little Russian Arshavin will stay benched (and I feel Arshavin only has such a role in our squad - as an impact sub). But if we can keep the big names at Arsenal, Robin will have more of an incentive to stay. It is certainly vital that we maintain a squad that is, at the minimum, able to obtain a Champions league place. There is of course the fact that we must consider that Van Persie's already made up his mind and wants to leave Arsenal, in which case, we will need a striker to replace him, perhaps in the form of Podolski, perhaps in the form of Kalou - in any case, it is obvious that Chamakh and Ju Young Park are not yet fit to fill the boots.
Wenger will have to buy a striker at the very least during this transfer window.

The coming of the transfer window also brings with it the return of Jack Wilshere, Ryo Miyaichi and Bacary Sagna, and given their presence in our team this season, they'll feel like new signings in themselves. While the return of the latter two speak for themselves, I'm finding it interesting to see how Wenger implements Wilshere back into the squad. Personally, I feel that as a technical midfielder who mainly provides the cohesion for our attacks to occur, our organized aesthetic simplicity, Arteta must remain fit and in the squad. With Alex Song demonstrating in weeks prior that he has an attacking edge up his sleeve (see his weave around three defenders against Borussia Dortmund and that KILLER assist to Van Persie's strike against the Toffees), it must be Ramsey who sees the bench to accommodate for Wilshere. Unless his return coincides with the departure of Gervinho and Wenger plays a 4-4-2 diamond with Wilshere as a Trequartista behind main striker van Persie and wide forward Walcott (who can switch flanks). Thus allowing the midfield trio of Song, Arteta and Ramsey to continue flourishing, and allowing Jack to play where he plays best, in the "Cesc" role. Such a formation wouldn't allow much in the way of width, something that is only heightened by our lack of any fully fit center halves. But at the same time, such a formation allows for midfield domination, which is again heightened by the ability of players like Alex Song and Mikel Arteta to retain possession and play short, clean, simple passes. Very interesting prospects indeed.

But I escape my point, and it is a point that I cannot iterate more: when you have a player who has scored 34 goals in 33 games for the calendar year of 2011, you do what you can to keep him. If the man wants to have a threesome with John Terry and his mate's wife then so be it, you let him.

It's politics bitch.

Anyway, this weekend marks our league game against Manchester City, the toughest test the Arsenal team will face for a long time to come, but with a fully fledged squad, I'm anticipating an exciting match. More so, I'm anticipating wave after wave of "Samir you're a cunt - you're a cunt! Samir you're a cunt! Na na na na na na na na na!"

Long live the Empire of the Guns!

I'll update more on life in the next post.

Life Update.

2011-12-12T01:16:00.001+11:00

Hey all.

... damn, I thought I had something to post, but now it's gone! Not dissimilar like those times where you're like GONNA SNEEZE, GONNA SNEEZE, GONNA SNEEZE, GONNA SNEEZE, GONNA SNEEZE, FUCK.

Yep - lost the post, or my will to make it readable, so I'm just going to do it in bullet points.

- I don't even know where the fuck to start talking about my life, so much shit has happened. There was graduation + valedictory, finalization of exams, Adelaide!, my 18th birthday party, my friends 18th birthday party. I suppose since hardly any of you know me in real life it won't make a difference if I talk about aforementioned as if they happened yesterday.

- I'm buying a new turntable tomorrow and I'm really fucking excited.

- My dad might be buying a new amp tomorrow which means I get to keep his old one.

- I'm heading to Korea soon!

- That's probably it, I'll make a detailed post about my life tomorrow/the day after.

- Barcelona > Real Madrid, although I'd like to see an El Clasico in the rain.

- Up the Gunners.

2011 - Music in Review

2011-12-10T20:20:00.001+11:00

Nah, just my favorite ten albums from the year of twenty eleven, in order.

10). Asobi Seksu - Fluorescence

Genre: Shoegaze.

Noteworthy tracks: My Baby, Leave the Drummer Out There, Counterglow.

Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?zk1d8og2d1t1ddm

9). Lykke Li - Wounded Rhymes

Genre: Indie-pop.
Noteworthy tracks: I Follow Rivers, Unrequited Love, Sadness is a Blessing.
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?qrzcwpw6dds714x

8). Zomby - Dedication.

Genre: Post-dubstep/Grime?
Noteworthy tracks: Things Fall Apart, Digital Rain, Florence.
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?l954ddw6wcpue59

7). Kanye West & Jay-Z - Watch The Throne

Genre: Hip-Hop.
Noteworthy Tracks: No Church in the Wild, That's My Bitch, Murder to Excellence
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?70mpootae7oidvy

6). Adele - 21

Genre: ~~White people problems.~~ Soul, Pop.
Noteworthy Tracks: Rolling in the Deep, Turning Tables, Set Fire To The Rain.
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?6dd28gg7q5v61qa

5). Naoko Terai - Limelight

Genre: Jazz
Noteworthy Tracks: Chaconne, Love Theme From The Godfather, Sing, Sing, Sing.
Download Link: Trying to find one, but ask me and I'll happily upload it for you all.

4). Bon Iver - Bon Iver

Genre: Indie-folk.
Noteworthy Tracks: Perth, Michicant, Calgary.
Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?fb9m76y5rr5rcmx

3). Coeur De Pirate - Blonde

Genre: French Indie-pop
Noteworthy Tracks: Golden Baby, Les Amours Dévouées, Cap Diamant.
Download link: http://www.filestube.com/804z24AkjkR0RDElMTgUKB/Coeur-de-Pirate-Blonde-Deluxe-Limited-Edition-2011.html (Not sure if legit, will upload album if requested).

2). Mister Heavenly - Out of Love

Genre: Indie-Rock (Doom-wop?)
Noteworthy Tracks: Bronx Sniper, Mister Heavenly, Pineapple Girl.
Download Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?gdkae7qegn2l53i

1). Supercell - Today is a Beautiful Day

Genre: Japanese Pop. (Bet y'all didn't see this coming.)

Noteworthy Tracks: Story You Do Not Know, Hero, The Stars are Twinkling on a Night Like This.

Download link: http://www.mediafire.com/?kwsh8eqkqceazp2

As I finished this, I realized an honorable mention should probably go to El Camino from the Black Keys.

Honorable mentions also go to:
The Weeknd - House of Balloons.
Rustie - City Star
Gil Scott-Heron and Jamie XX - We're New Here
M83 - Hurry Up, We're Dreaming
SBTRKT - SBTRKT
BNJMN - Black Square.
Designer Drugs - Hardcore/Softcore
The Toxic Avenger - ANGST
Toro Y Moi - Underneath The Pine
Travis Barker - Give The Drummer Some

Empire of the Guns! (Everton Preview)

2011-12-10T16:52:00.001+11:00

Tonight's game with Everton truly marks our 125th anniversary game.
Facing an Everton side that have won two out of their last three games on the trot, Wenger will surely take extra care to maintain Arsenal's eight game undefeated streak ahead of this momentous day.

With Andre Santos out indefinitely following the Olympiakos game (where he really should have been in England with the rest of the lads - come on Arsene, playing our only fit left back in a game that we didn't need to win?), it is anticipated that his replacement will be our prolific goalscoring defender Thomas Vermalen, who does have experience at the full back role. This may mean that fans may yet again see the center back pairing of Laurent Koscielny and our Big Fuckin' German Per Mertesacker, with Johann Djourou filling in at right back.

The other alternative to this is allowing the young Ignasi Miquel to start at left back, with the rest of the back four as expected. Regardless, Szczesny will be expected to start in goals, and following injuries to both our backup goalkeepers in Lukasz Fabianski and Vito Mannone midweek, Almunia has been gifted a place on the Arsenal bench. The rest of the squad will be as expected.

Starting XI: Szczesny, Vermalen, Mertesacker, Koscielny Djourou, Song, Arteta, Ramsey, Gervinho, Walcott, Van Persie.

Bench: Almunia, Miquel, Squillaci, Frimpong, Benayoun, Arshavin, Chamakh.

The Gunners need a win in order to stay in contention for a Champions League place next season - so come on you Gunners!

For anyone interested in streaming the match live, or any other matches for that matter, feel free to visit this link.

(Also dicks on you Manchester United/City!!)

I'm not dead, a post about Plato and my shoes.

2011-12-09T21:43:00.001+11:00

I'm alive, and well!
(For the coming week at least - as the 16th of December either marks the day I crash and burn furiously in the mouth of a volcano somewhere, for such a punishment is surely more preferable to the beatings from a set of Asian parents, or I rejoice in light of the fact that my efforts and toil for the past thirteen, although only the last two really count, years place me in a position where I can (un)gracefully declare superiority over majority of the human race. I'm joking of course - I already know that I'm better than most of the human race, dohoho.)

Morbid chat aside, today - the 9th of December - marks the conclusion of a somewhat significant chapter in my life. Those who know me in real life - who am I kidding, no one I know in real life still reads this blog, probably - will know that since I've been able to buy what I want to wear (thank you mother and father for undertaking such a Herculean task for the former fourteen years of my life), I've committed my feet to the Vans company. To clarify, ever since nearly four years ago, outside of school/formal occasions, my feet have known no shoe but that which came from Vans.

#Firstworldproblems? I don't give a shit, this is a pretty big deal for me. Plato, in his allegory of the cave, imagines a man shackled in a way that his whole life is lived chained facing the back wall of a cave. Behind him, a fire that runs continuously, and behind that still, a screen which separates the real world and world of the shackled. These shackled only see and know the world through the shadows of the real world, projected by the flame onto the back of the wall. This is their reality, as they know it. One day however, a cunning and malicious deceiver picks the locks to the shackles, thus freeing one of the shackled, allowing him to explore a world that is not his own. He turns around, and witnesses the fire that fuels his reality. He touches it, and he is burned and overwhelmed. Still, he notices the curtain separating the fabric of his reality from a realm unimaginable to him - he tears it open and, like a man staring into the sun for the first time, he cannot help but avert his gaze to what he is witnessing. His eyes, how they deceive him! His mind, how it races beyond him! His soul, how it is cursed with anxiety!

Thus, like the released man in Plato's Cave, so too released - are my feet from the Vans that were the only reality they ever knew. A life beyond Vans, seems to elude me, but now it is a possibility, now that I have found the nerve and guile to free myself from their spellbinding good looks and shackles, and the price, I don't think I can afford to invest that much money in shoes for the sake of collection/buying shoes on a whim anymore. But alas, it is true, today, the 9th of December - marks the day that I allow myself to extend my shoe collection beyond that of Vans. While I still remain very much in favor of wearing Vans, the exclusivity simply cannot last.

That Shit Kray.

Utilitarianism - Jeremy Bentham.

2011-11-10T15:29:00.000+11:00

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher born on the 15^th of February 1748 and passed away on the 6^th of June 1832. Amongst Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham was an influential figure in many other social issues at the time, as he concerned himself with politics, animal rights, and helped develop ideas such as welfarism (the view that the morally significant consequences are impacts on human welfare), and panopticon (an idea which allows observers to observe subjects without the subjects’ awareness that they are being watched)[1]. Perhaps more notably, Jeremy Bentham is also famous for being the teacher of the moral philosopher: John Stuart Mill. [2]

Jeremy Bentham’s aim was to have a code of law ruled by utilitarianism. Bentham is, perhaps, perhaps most well known in his contribution to utilitarianism is in his theory of pleasure and pain “weights”[3]. Jeremy Bentham developed an idea known as felicific calculus. Felicific Calculus is a law developed by Jeremy Bentham that produces a degree of pleasure attained based on the amount of pain or pleasure from the corresponding action[4]. As a result of this, Jeremy Bentham contended that one can measure the amount of morality given in any act, based on the amount of pleasure it produces. According to Bentham, this is measured by seven factors: intensity, duration, certainty/uncertainty, propinquity/remoteness, fecundity, purity, and extent. According to Bentham, this was achieved through simple mathematics, which the pleasures would be weighed up for one party, and then the pain, and if the pleasure exceeded the pain, it would be considered moral, and likewise if the action produced an overall pain than it did pleasure.

However, in Bentham’s theory, we find ourselves at a dilemma. What is to happen in the case of hypothetical events such as Schadenfreude? What is to happen in events where the society finds immense pleasure from the pain of another? Is the pain of the single individual (or party) to be allowed to continue as it normally would, due to the overall pleasure it produces for the majority?

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/panopticon

[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu/bentham/

[3] Philosophy ½ Notes 2009: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham.

[4] http://www.utilitarianism.com/felicalc.htm

Utilitarianism - John Stuart Mill.

2011-10-28T01:47:00.002+11:00

John Stuart Mill was a British philosopher born on the 20^th May 1806 and passed away on the 8^thMay 1873. John Stuart Mill was born into the Utilitarian project proposed by Jeremy Bentham, though as time expired, John Stuart Mill’s ideas diverged from those of his original teacher.[1]John Stuart Mill, however, began his adulthood writing articles for radical newspapers, writing for things such as world suffering, women’s rights and freedom, family life, and economic and legal ideas amongst many things. When he wasn’t writing however, John Stuart Mill was editing work for his father and Jeremy Bentham, whose principle he adopted: “we ought to act so as to bring about the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

John Stuart Mill’s take on utilitarianism was heavily influenced by his father and by his mentor: Jeremy Bentham. John Stuart Mill is perhaps most notably famous for, aside from the greatest amount of total happiness for the greatest number of people, his principles of adding qualitative values onto different pleasures. John Stuart Mill held that pleasures were able to be classified into states of being higher, and states of being lower. He contended that the higher pleasures were pleasures were those of the intellectual and moral variety, whereas the lower pleasures were those that were more physical. For John Stuart Mill[2], this was defined arbitrarily to an individual. However, in this sense, John Stuart Mill can be misinterpreted as an elitist, because John Stuart Mill puts forth that people who tend toward simple pleasures, or lower pleasures, were uneducated in the higher forms of art, and as a result, do not get a say in the matter. However, John Stuart Mill advocated education[3], and saw the intrinsic worth in education, rather than in the educated, which could lead to a swing in the Government, which in turn, can direct the society in a way that Aristotle may deem “collective Eudaimonia”.

Mill is criticized for two things in his arguments for utilitarianism. Firstly, Mill is, maybe correctly so, criticized for falling under a naturalistic fallacy, that his argument is dependent on value judgments and value statements, that John Stuart Mill is implying an “ought” from an “is”. However, Mill feels as if that he is legitimately making this judgment call[4], that due to our nature to accept basic judgments, it is only natural that we as humans must seek pleasure, and as a result, John Stuart Mill claims that it would be “ unreasonable to suggest that anything else could be morally demanded of us” as humans. How convenient.

Mill also seems to fall under the criticism of schadenfreude[5] (to obtain pleasure from the suffering of another), and such other hypothetical type question. For the question, hypothetically speaking is raised, if one is really being a nuisance to society, and it brings pleasure to the whole of society to witness misfortunes of the man in question, what is to be done with him? Does aiming at the greatest total happiness for the largest amount of people still apply? Where is the line drawn, if any?

[1] McCabe, H On Liberty An introduction. Philosophy Now Issue 76, Nov/Dec 2009.

[2] Philosophy ½ Notes 2009: Ethics, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill

[3] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MorUti

[4] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MorUti

[5] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/schadenfreude

Utilitarianism and the Good Life.

2011-10-22T20:02:00.000+11:00

Utilitarianism is the philosophical concept that defines “good” as “whatever brings about the greatest total happiness”, developed in fruition across the 19^thcentury. Specifically however, utilitarianism involves the greatest amount of good produced by the most morally righteous actions. There are many things that must be considered in the analysis of utilitarianism when put into context of living a “Good Life”. In application of utilitarianism to the Good Life, the definition is altered, to something along the lines of ‘a life which is a result of morally righteous actions which bring about the greatest happiness for everyone’.

However, many problems arise in the discussion of utilitarianism in relation to the Good Life. Like a science experiment, there are many ways to achieve the end, and there are many variables and guidelines to consider. For example, one can achieve a utilitarian end by means of Consequentialism. Consequentialism is the theory that states that a motive behind “a morally righteous action” is irrelevant, and only the consequence of the action is important[1]. So, for example, say a man walks into a bar with intention of killing thirteen people, but instead happens to shoot all of the life threatening cancerous cells inside the gun-wounded victims, out, saving their lives, and leaving very little damage behind. A consequentialist would say that the gunman has done the morally right thing; he’s saved their lives, to a point of course.

Utilitarianism isn’t without its guidelines either; it has its constant variables, scientifically speaking. For instance, utilitarianism cannot be possible without the acceptance that it is not partial to any party, and that it’s a neutral subject[2]. As a result of this, no one’s happiness is worth more than another, and such happiness cannot be selective of individuals, because then partiality arises and utilitarianism cannot work. This however, does not only apply to the end result [being the greatest total happiness achieved for the most people]. On top of this, the motives behind the morally righteous actions (which result in the greatest total happiness achieved for the greatest amount of people), are all essentially worth the same in order to keep the impartiality balance.

A factor that must be considered when applying utilitarianism as a means to living the Good Life is the form that utilitarianism takes. This is because there are many forms of utilitarianism, and while utilitarianism generally aims at achieving the greatest total amount of happiness for the greatest number of people through morally righteous actions, there are some varying subsets of utilitarianism that may contradict this ideal. For example, there is a form of utilitarianism known as rule utilitarianism. While the same principle of “aiming for the greatest total … righteous decisions”, still applies, rule utilitarianism differs from utilitarianism in that, rule utilitarianism involves an unconditional principle that must be met above the pursuit for the greatest total happiness for the most people. For example, a teacher could easily, give everyone in the class 100% on every test and maximize happiness everywhere, but a rule would contradict this in that a teacher has a teaching guideline to stick to, which prevents this from happening[3].

Another example of a different example of utilitarianism that must be put into consideration in the discussion of the subject matter of the Good Life is negative utilitarianism. Whole act utilitarianism puts forth the notion that one should aim for the greatest total happiness for the greatest number of people (through morally righteous actions), negative utilitarianism suggests that one should aim to reduce sadness to a minimum for the greatest number of people.[4]There is a very obvious problem when these two are compared in that the ideas will inevitably contradict each other. For example, is it really better for two people out of fifty to be happy, whilst the other forty eight are unhappy as opposed to having fifty people in a state of unhappiness, but at the same time, not in a state of sadness? Consequentially the question is raised, which doctrine is the one that should be followed in pursuit of the Good Life?

However, the question is eventually asked, “How does utilitarianism (or more specifically, the “greatest happiness principle”) help one to achieve the good life? Utilitarianism generally relies on the greatest total happiness for the greatest number of people principle. This means that if everyone in any given society acts in a utilitarian manner, then everyone who is on the receiving end of a utilitarian act will gain happiness from the action. However, personally, the concept that “Utilitarianism is not a simplistic moral principle to be mechanically applied, it is a long term social project”[5] holds some elements of truth, because utilitarianism is a long term social project, and it was designed for a more widespread audience than it was for individual use. Utilitarianism cannot be mechanically applied to everyone, because everyone would have different standards on what the Good Life is. Furthermore, it is very well possible that acting in a way that maximizes happiness for the greatest number of people possible may not necessarily make the individual happy; as there is nothing to suggest that making others happy will make oneself happy. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest at all that one can achieve the Good Life through the attainment of happiness.

[1] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

[3] Philosophy ½ Notes: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Negative/Act/Rule.

[4] Philosophy ½ Notes: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Negative/Act/Rule.

[5] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill/#MorUti

But what is The Good Life?

2011-10-20T00:55:00.003+11:00

I present the following ideas of the Good Life, with a semi-Aristotelian basis. Humans are able to rationalize. This is what separates humans from other animals and forms of life. As a result of this, other animals and forms of life are unable to achieve their own personal “Good life” through reasoning, because they lack the skills to reason, in the way humans do. It is because humans are able to reason, that humans are able to discuss such ideas, like the Good Life. Without reasoning, and without thinking in general, how are humans supposed to grasp the idea of “The Good Life”? Is it therefore fair to assume that in the pursuit to acquire the Good Life, one must use his/her ability to reason, to rationalize?

Unlike envisioning a new color, or a new animal (that is not a hybrid of animals perceivable to humans), The Good Life, is a concept that humans are able to grasp (to an extent). Reductio Ad Absurdum aside, it is entirely possible for the human consciousness to build an idea of what the Goof Life is, and to live out these ideas, in pursuit of an individual “Good Life” that will vary from person to person.

The Good Life is defined; in the Aristotelian sense, as “a term for the life that one would like to live, or for happiness, associated (as eudaimonia) with the work of Aristotle and his teaching on ethics.” [1]

I propose a guide to living the good life, a guide that encompasses what I believe are the essentials to living a good life.

1. Each individual has their own personal maxims on what encompasses the good life.

2. So long the belief can be logically attained by means of deduction and not values that the belief can lead to a succession of a good life. That is to say, that the belief must be a factual statement, as opposed to a value statement. Only then can the beliefs lead to living a “good life”.
For example:

P1. The good life is defined as a “philosophical term for the life that one would like to live”.
P2. People declared medically dead lack the ability to want, or to live for that matter.
Con. One cannot achieve the good life while one is dead.

This is opposed to a value statement, for example;

P1. There are many poor people in the world.
P2. The wealthy nations have the financial means to end world poverty.
Con. Therefore, the wealthy nations should end world poverty.

3. As a result of this, it is indeed difficult to find a maxim that will actually lead one to a good life.

4. Following these maxims will ultimately lead to a good life.

5. There are only two states of the good life, one that is a good life, and one that isn’t a good life.
This is because “the good life” is purely subjective, and it would be fallacious to argue that one’s life is better than another, because the standards are not the same.

6. The good life is an activity, not an achievement in the material sense. One does not own a good life, one lives a good life.

7. In achievement of the Good Life, an individual cannot interfere with the achievement of the Good Life for another. Such activities will not lead one to the good life.

[1] In Nicomachaen Ethics Book II, Aristotle reaches the conclusion that he who performs his function well can choose his mean, and consequentially, may live out the Good Life [Eudaimonia] as an activity.

The First Reflection.

2011-10-20T00:54:00.003+11:00

I find it difficult to talk about the Good Life, let alone discuss my arbitrary views on it. Similarly put forth by Aristotle[1], I’m feeling a reluctance to discuss such a worldly applicable matter due to a lack of worldly experience, and a lack of life experience. I’m not just saying that out of sheer respect for the philosopher, or for any other people who have lived twice the length that I have, but I feel it is the truth. Looking at it from a biological perspective, when one begins to conduct an experiment, there are many things that must be taken into consideration. There must be an acknowledgment of the variables, and there must be a sample size of a sufficient amount to yield results that make the original hypothesis plausible and agreeable. Likewise, having only lived sixteen years, about 8 of which are able to be recalled, I feel as if such a sample size lacks the sufficiency to allow for any credible reading material.

The Good Life, evidently, is an individual subject matter. One may be wealthy, healthy, but unhappy on the inside, masking it with different shades of joviality. Someone who is worse off would look at him and say, “now that is a good life!”. But an outsider doesn’t see all, an outsider doesn’t see everything, sometimes the individual doesn’t see everything, but that is what makes us only human, and nothing more. The unhappy man thinks to himself in the meantime, “what life is this, this is not a good life. I have money, I have my health, but I am alone in a loveless marriage, I own a company that profits off victims of society. I feel dirty.” Of course, this is purely hypothetical, but it brings out an important aspect that must be considered in the discussion of the “Good Life”; the good life is not a universal standard; the good life is purely arbitrary and subjective.

[1] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics Book I. Haileybury Philosophy Text pg 3 - 4.

Graduation.

2011-10-17T23:56:00.002+11:00

Imminent. Seven days from now.

And I'm not sure if I'm ready.

Ready for what?

Ready to let go, ready to tie off friendships and start a new life without the people I've hated and loved for the past six years - the people who've turned me into who I am today.

Cut the shit, you don't care about half the people who you'll never get to see again. It'll just be that awkward facebook conversation where you arrange to grab coffee, and then you never do, or you do and you hate them. Fuck you're talking like your life's over, you've your best years ahead of you.

You can't say that. You couldn't possibly understand how I've changed because some of these people. And I can't do it alone.

You just don't want to. But neither do I.

Exactly, so what now?

You fucking work your balls off to get that Monash interview. That's what now.

Unpopular Opinion #1.

2011-10-15T22:59:00.003+11:00

My friend once told me that there’s a difference between acting homophobic and being homophobic. And I never thought about it that way before, but I guess she’s right. You can choose not to act homophobic, but some are just homophobic through circumstance (genotypes/phenotypes and environment).

For the most part, if you hate all homophobic people then you’re a fucking idiot - there’s no possible argument you could make to warrant such discrimination. All this shit on tumblr - “if you’re a homophobe then unfollow me right now” - get the fuck out of my face with that bullshit. Just the arrogance to ignorantly marginalize a whole group of people who can truthfully be dichotomized.

If you hate homophobic people then fuck you I don’t want to know you. I don’t give a shit if you call me out for “oh you’re just doing what they’re doing”. No it’s different, I’m denouncing myself from people who hate on homophobic people because they’re filthy bigots. There’s no fucking gene that codes for hating on homophobic people, it’s just a case of trend following and herd morality.

Introduction.

2011-10-14T23:53:00.000+11:00

The notion of The Good Life has been a question that has been plaguing philosophers since its dawn. What is it? How does one achieve it? Does such a thing exist? Is it universal? Does it matter? This report will attempt to seek out some sort of explanation for the Good Life, and in the process answering some questions such as: what is it? How may one achieve it? This report will attempt to answer such questions by drawing upon personal reflection, knowledge of a key philosophical constructs (in Utilitarianism), an example of utilitarianism in the Superhero, and general background knowledge of other philosophers who had their own ideas on how to live The Good Life and perhaps on how they would respond to Utilitarianism. Finally, this report will be concluded by a personal perspective on the Good Life, and whether it is achievable or not.

Utilitarianism is a philosophical construct most famous for its positing of the “greatest happiness principle”.[1]The greatest happiness principle states that one should aim for the greatest happiness possible for the most amounts of people. However, utilitarianism has varied over time, and as a result, there are many schools of thought beyond the greatest happiness principle with regard to how one should act for the greater good, for the greater amount of people. Such examples include: negative utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and consequentialism. Consequentialism is the idea that only the outcome matters with regard to moral decisions, and not the motive. Rule utilitarianism is essentially act utilitarianism, but rule utilitarianism acts under an unequivocal law that must be followed. Negative utilitarianism seeks to try and minimize sadness, rather than try to maximize happiness[2].

This report will also discuss some philosophical theories put forth by Aristotle and Friedrich Nietzsche. On the Aristotelian front, Aristotle will be sized up against the idea of utilitarianism, and his idea of the mean will be analysed and compared against with respect to utilitarianism. Most of the information provided from Aristotle is derived from Nicomachean Ethics Books 1 and 2. This report will also investigate what Nietzsche believes to be the Good Life briefly, before going into depth on why he holds utilitarians to be “boneheaded”.

A contemporary example of the utilitarian ideal will then be analysed, in the form of a discussion about the modern day superhero, and how he/she has incorporated utilitarian ethics into his/her work. This idea of the superhero then will be put in an Aristotelian view with regard to the mean and achieving Eudaimonia, and then by comparing the modern day superhero to Nietzsche’s Ubermensch.

Ultimately however, the function of this report is to discuss with personal reflection on whether or not happiness can lead to the Good Life, whether it may be morally through arbitrary deduction, or whether one can logically support whether Happiness can lead to the Good Life.

[1] Hruschka, J. The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory, Utilitas, 3: pg 165-77.

[2] Philosophy ½ Notes: Ethics, Utilitarianism, Negative/Act/Rule.

Abstract.

2011-10-14T23:52:00.002+11:00

This report investigates the nature of the Good Life, to see what it is, to see whether it is more than anything abstract. This is achieved by putting under the microscope a series of philosophical traditions and concepts (utilitarianism and happiness respectively), comparing the concepts against more modern philosophical views (Nietzsche and the idea of the “Overman/Superman”), and putting the concepts and traditions into a contemporary aspect (superheroes and if they can achieve a Good Life), in the attempt to make some sense out of “the Good Life”. It is also questioned to see if the Good Life can be argued for (through happiness among other things) through only strict logistics, without the reliance of moral value statements to interfere. This report finds that it is difficult to even argue logically (thus truthfully) whether happiness (or maybe anything, aside from being alive) can lead to the Good Life. This report, consequentially, finds that the Good Life must be arbitrary, and it could be suggested that the Good Life may be achievable by following a set of life rules, but on the other hand, the Good Life may be a little absurd[1].

Philosophy Unit 3: Area of Study 3: SAC 3: The Good Life.

2011-10-14T23:51:00.000+11:00

I'll be updating this every day for the next week or two.
Comment button is there for a reason, criticize at will.

So life.

2011-10-14T23:48:00.002+11:00

It's been long put off - but it's always better late than never isn't it?

To the people commenting on my posts, I would like to extend my gratitude - truth be told, it makes me smile that somehow I'm not just rambling to empty space. Not that it should ever matter; right? I mean it's not like there's any - oh hell, I've said this so many times it's lost all meaning.

I guess I really haven't taken the time out to think about things recently, life has just been so eventful, while leaving me no memories. I've not come to some existential epiphany, I've yet to change my life dramatically, so I guess there's not much to talk about on the intellectual front. I did score 92 on the UMAT, which is a test required for students aiming to study medicine undergrad in university. That was very cool, I'm not going to lie - be proud of me. In other news, I did clean my room, thinking that a fresh environment would help me study better, it kind of did, but that's probably something no one wants to hear about either. For those of you who do, I'll be posting regular photo updates of my life on my tumblog (http://nosubterfugehere.tumblr.com/). Feel free to call me a hipster faggot, or a regular faggot.

High school officially ends for me in about a week (that's seven working days), and it's a topic that I really want to avoid, only because I'm not exactly sure how to convey my feeling towards the subject matter. Being one of those guys who comes to terms with things the minute before they happen or a solid amount of time after they happen, I've probably a lot of mixed feelings about leaving year 12. I wasn't the most spectacularly popular person in high school - let's face it, I'm a bit of a loser - but I've fit snugly into some groups and have had the privilege of meeting some pretty spectacular people. Depending on what I do for the next month, it may be the last time I ever get to see some of those people - for a few reasons. I might

move interstate to begin tertiary education
be thrown head first into the mouth of a volcano for getting a shit ATAR
be disowned by my fine Asian parents for "dishonra famry oo sun u no very goot y u so fucking suk? y u no like dat jimmy/daniel boy?"

My Asian accent is a lot better in real life - I promise.

On the other hand, luck may fancy me and I might be able to continue living in Melbourne, which would be fine too (so fucking fine). Regrettably, I'm a pretty terrible human being, and just so I can justify this, I'm going to get off my chest things that I'm more comfortable saying here than in real life, for whatever reason.

Mr Gotz - I apologize for that satirical post I made earlier this year, it turns out you do actually have a sense of humor (one that I can fucks with) and you're a pretty terrific bloke.
John Michael - I regret secretly despising you for the first semester of our chemistry class. Being me, it took me a year to understand how you felt about the quality of our class.
Vivek Akula - You scare the fucking shit out of me.
Anjan Kornepati - You're not the arrogant shithead everyone pays you out to be, but it's still funny.
Kevin Tao - Do you use like, bowling ball polish on your hair?
Tony Dai - Will you see this? I doubt it.

Okay I'll make some more later, there's more to come. Not sure when though, could be in a few days. In the mean time, I'll be posting my 10,000 word essay that I did for philosophy last year - for lack of any real originality.

Until then readers, stay fucking cool.

My Life/Lunch.

2011-10-05T01:08:00.000+11:00

I had the fucking most stupid lunch today. It was a pizza wrap. You know, I was all like, aw shit, this sounds awesome. But it turns out to be a pizza with the toppings on one half and the other dough wrapped over - then cooked. After being cooked that shit was cut in two and then rolled up and jammed up this cardboard cone and you were meant to eat it like a goddamn snow cone or something. Shit was so stupid. I mean wraps are awesome and pizza is awesome, so it was stupid to try combine them.

More to come today.

Arsenal vs. Blackburn.

2011-09-18T00:55:00.002+10:00

So after reading weblogs like gunnerblog, arseblog, and arsenalist, I'm going to initiate myself into this whole Arsenal blogging business. Not that it will be any good in comparison to that of the aforementioned blogs, but everyone starts somewhere, right?

While this post may seem a little untimely following the much needed victory at the Emirates - nonetheless there were many things to be said about the self destruction that occurred last week at Ewood park. Fortunately, a week has given me enough time to really deliberate what needed - and what didn't need to be said. . As a whole, I don't think the 4 - 3 loss meant that huge a deal - because let's face it, Arsenal were bound to give up some easy games due to defensive frailties, and while I'm not saying that this is not something that requires dire attention, I'm just saying that any supporters who think that the Gunners will go the whole season without dropping points to some rather mid/low tier teams are delirious. Though having said this, this was really a game that ought to have been won.

The look on Koscielny's face following that own goal speaks volumes about the performance of our squad today. And while he was one of the main contributing factors that led to our demise, let's not be too quick to dismiss our best center back last season. Given the circumstances, I still think Kozzer made the wrong decision out of two horrific options. He could have tried to intercept the shot, which he did, resulting in Blackburn's crucial lead, or he could have dodged the pull back from Yakubu, which would have effectively left another Blackburn striker with a shot at an empty net from about 3 yards out. Performance wise, however, there is a general consensus with a lot of the Arsenal journalists that Koscielny will fluorish well next to Per Mertesacker - two defenders whose different defending styles complement each other. Koscielny with respect to his more "reactive" and "instinctual" approach, as opposed to Per, who is more organized with greater awareness.

Andre Santos looked secure at the left back position, and had some nice link up play with Arshavin, whose performance thus far this season has, arguably, been one of the best in the squad. It would be nice if Wenger were to allow that partnership to flourish into something more dangerous, not dissimilar to the revered and feared Malouda/Cole combination that demolished every backline in the 09/10 season for Chelsea - though perhaps to a less lethal extent. Of course the only obvious problem with this idea is the fact that Arshavin is already slack defensively, and it was a little unsettling to witness A. Santos so close to their six yard box frequently - exposing the entire left flank. Across the other side of the pitch, Sagna appeared to play as solid as he normally does, but was subbed off following a knock for the declining Djourou, whose chances for a first team place seem to almost rival that of Squillaci - and that's saying something.

Fortunately, our midfield shows signs of promise, with new signing Mikel Arteta demonstrating how well he suits the red and white jersey, in a display of style and accuracy - passing like any Gunner should. Song, apart from that poorly dealt with corner, still appears to be a strong first line of defence for our backline, and even with the return of Wilshere, it would be hard to imagine Wenger sporting a midfield of Ramsey, Arteta, and Wilshere - disregarding Arsenal's need for a holding midfielder. I can only imagine that following the return of Wilshere, who underwent surgery yesterday, during the next transfer window will mean that Ramsey gets the bench.

My biggest concern coming out of the game with Blackburn was the performance of our Ivorian Gervinho. While he was supposed to be the answer to the departure of $amir, I feel as if his passing game isn't up to snuff, and that was something we will pay for in coming games. Yes, we did buy him because we wanted a player who held the ball rather than pass it off when the opportunity arose, but Gervinho's selfish play was rather cringeworthy. He could have passed it to Arshavin to set up a goal, he could have set up Van Persie who had an empty net to shoot at - he rather chose to take on two - three defenders, and didn't even force a save from the keeper. Perhaps he needs a few more games to settle (but given his performances earlier in the season and against Udinese this seems highly unlikely), or perhaps the chemistry isn't there yet, but Gervinho's individual skill at this stage seems to be hampered by his ineffectual passing game and a rather sizable ego - let's not forget the man came from a Ligue 1 winning side to a team which, before yesterday, faced the prospects of the relegation zone. I could be less critical of Gervinho, but yesterday's performance proved to be a testament to this legitimate concern. Only time will tell.

Fielding a similar side to the one that seemed to shatter like glass under a small amount of pressure, it was encouraging to see some strong performances from the likes of Kieren Gibbs, Mikel Arteta, Aaron Ramsey, Alex Song, and Theo Walcott.

Special mention however goes to Van Persie who netted his 99th and 100th premier league goal for Arsenal, photo courtesy of Gunnerblog.com

Trivia.

2011-09-10T23:50:00.001+10:00

My first and favorite Studio Ghibli film - Spirited Away - was first seen with a Chinese dub. The only anime I had seen then in completion was Cardcaptors and Zoids. I’ll never forget it, the subtitles were pretty messed up as well, “uncles and grandfathers” everywhere. Of course the whole world created was the most fantastical I’d have ever witnessed (perhaps only surpassed by Final Fantasy the Ninth), so I went along with it. My mother’d come home from work, I from school, and she handed me this white cd with Spirited Away written rather hastily in orange highlighter. I normally didn’t watch what my mother gave me, especially since she’d given me Reservoir Dogs a few months prior; needless to say, it wasn’t a film perfect for the malleable eyes of a ten year old. But it was still bright out, and even for a mind capable of formulating the most dark and twisted of nightmares, a source of light proved to surpass any level of fear I might dream up. Thus I gathered what courage I had been able to scavenge and played the movie in my room - is anyone ever comfortable being observed while immersing themselves into another universe? Spirited Away, or as it had been subtitled “The Witch Lady” proved to be the most treasures of the little possessions I owned. The movie may have been jumpy, the dubbing may have sounded like the works of grouchy women, the subtitles may have been a grammatical failure, but simply for the visuals and storytelling, there was no way I could not hold the film in high regard. Accompanying the work of imagination was a score composed by Joe Hisaishi - and there are no words, or I am experience a limit on a vernacular front, to describe the way he orchestrates a soundtrack to act as a Bonnie to Clyde, an ebony to an ivory. Actually, now that I think about it, I do remember Japanese being an option at the time for audio, but the language seemed so foreign, so I opted for familiarity I guess. Watching the film again for the first time in almost a decade, I feel overwhelmed with nostalgia. Oh, if I took better care of my DVDs.

Today in one photo :3.

2011-08-22T00:44:00.001+10:00