10 officially unacceptable guy behaviors

1) having a girl.
2) selling drugs.
3) living with mom and dad.
4) lack of motivation.
5) wanting me only for sex.
6) "keep"ing me.
7) poor grades.
8) intellectual apathy.
9) lack of empathy.
10) controlling me.

R-E-S-P-E-C-T (and Friendship)

ARGUMENT IN QUESTION.
P1: “Feelings” are a product of “consciousness” and are thus filtered through the “ego.” (Translation: You yourself actually determine how you feel; external events/circumstances/people do NOT determine feelings. This is most emphasized in Eastern religion/philosophy. Also, various psychological therapies use this premise.)
C: Therefore, one is ultimately in complete control over his or her feelings.

QUESTION.
So, what the fuck does this have to do with respecting anyone? And friends? Yo, hold up, I’m getting there. This is important so read it! Come on this journey with me and learn something.

ANSWER.
Technically, P1 (if everyone’s “feelings” are simply illusory or a mere product of one’s own “ego”) has some SERIOUS ethical implications. Many ethical frameworks are based on avoiding harm. If only physical harm exists (or does it? But that’s something for another day ) then one “ought not” ONLY to perpetuate physical harm. This is a huge problem!

FOR EXAMPLE.
You should totally read this if you don’t understand the ethical implications. Because after reading this, you’ll get it. In that argument, hooking up with your best friend’s boyfriend is totally permissible. Why? Because she is in control of her own feelings and he of his. You aren’t harming anyone at all, within this framework.

QUESTION.
Do I accept that? Or is that just an ethical cop out? A lame excuse to go around fucking with people’s heads because “it doesn’t really work like that anyway?”

ANSWER.
I officially do not accept that. Currently, I ascribe to deontological ethics. That’s just fancy for “duties to” stuff ethics. What I mean by that is that you have particular duties to yourself, your family, your friends, society, etc. Duties, in case you didn’t know, are like obligations. You SHOULD do x = x is a duty. In fact, it’s stronger than “should,” it’s more like “MUST.”

It only makes sense that some duties are more important than others are, at least to me currently. Your duty to your mother, for example, is more compulsory (important) than your duty to a stranger is. I don’t know enough about this pseudo-hierarchy of duties to elaborate further, but the point is that basically some duties could be more important than others are.

MY REAL POINT ABOUT RESPECT. “THE THESIS.”
Your duties to your friends are pretty compulsory. Friends are important in that hierarchy, if such a hierarchy exists!

What does respect mean? I could define my own term, but I’m lazy right now. Dictionary.com’s best-suited definition is “deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment” examples “respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.”

A friend by definition (again stealing from dictionary.com) is “a person attached to another by feelings of affection or personal regard.” Interestingly, the words “respect” and “regard” have very similar connotations; in fact, on thesaurus.com, “respect” and “regard” are synonymous as BOTH nouns and verbs, respectively!

BY VERY DEFINITION it is proper to respect to your friends. I proved it. Unless you disagree with the definitions, you simply must agree with me.

MY ARGUMENT, A SUMMATION, BITCHES.
P1: Respect is “proper acceptance or courtesy.”
P2: Friendship by definition demands respect.
C1: Therefore, one ought to give “proper acceptance or courtesy” (R-E-S-P-E-C-T) to people he or she considers “friends.”

WHAT DOES RESPECT IN FRIENDSHIP ENTAIL?
That is the real question. From my basically flawless deductive argument (yeah what unless you hate my definitions in which case go complain at dictionary.com,) it is OBVIOUS that you should respect your friends. But what does that “proper acceptance or courtesy” even mean?

I know what it doesn’t mean. I’m going to use negation to describe this phenomenon of respect in friendship, which is a fancy way of saying “I don’t know the answer but I sure as hell know what ISN’T the answer” to the title question.

Respect in friendship does NOT mean fucking with your friends emotions in any way.

I repeat for emphasis. Fucking with your friends emotions is WRONG. No matter what!

This is a demanding practice. It’s EMPATHY bitches. Empathy, you remember, being able to feel what others feel or “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes.” Empathy is a conscious effort. And it can be difficult!

CONCLUSION.
Because of the principle of deontological hierarchy I have proposed (i.e. duty to mother > duty to friends > duty to strangers >…duties to others,) friends deserve the utmost respect. Respect or regard, whatever you want to call it, it’s fucking empathy.

Step one is to figure out who your friends are, what they care about, and how they think. You owe that to them as friends. I’m not writing another proof using definitions (because that shit is boring but it’s groundwork for any sort of conclusion duhhh,) but it’s pretty intuitive (obvious.)

Step two is to influence your friends positively. Act and speak in a manner that will make your friends happy, not sad. If you feel like you must do something contrary to (bad for) a friend’s emotional health, then at the very least talk to the friend in question about it before doing so!

IF THE FIRST P1 IS TRUE.
Even if your friends ARE in complete control of their feelings (which even the Eastern philosopher would say that most people are in fact not at that level of practice,) doing or saying things that will probably hurt friends emotionally will make it MORE DIFFICULT for them to control their emotions!

IF THE FIRST P1 IS FALSE.
If your friends are NOT in complete control of their feelings, doing or saying things that will probably hurt friends emotionally will make your friends sad/angry/afraid/ashamed/insertwhatevernegativeemotionhere.

IF PEOPLE TOOK THIS SIMPLE AND LOGICAL ADVICE, THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE. DEUCES.

a drunk afternoon in manhattan, a sign?

walking through manhattan, i receive a lot of...compliments, i suppose. on wednesday, one guy in particular actually got more than a polite "hello" from me. he said that he liked "my look," which i didn't give any thought at all to until he said "i'm a student, philosopher, and poet" when i asked what he did.

we decided to get a bottle of wine and talk. already buzzed from a $3 glass of wine i drank at a japanese restaurant on 30something street, i didn't drink very much more. he drank a lot.

what began as a civil and intellectual discussion gradually progressed into a hellish violation of personal space and my dignity. a hand on my shoulder moved downward slightly with each respective caress until it was basically planted on my ass.

clearly, by this point i am annoyed. grudgingly, i allow him to walk me to port authority. outside of port authority, he wouldn't let me try to catch the third bus i was already late for. he begged me to stay, embraced me, wouldn't let me go, and started grabbing my ass. if you know me at all, it is very rare for me to yell. i screamed at him "GET YOUR HANDS. OFF MY ASS." people began staring. i told him that i didn't want him to come with me, and that i was leaving.

i wrenched myself away from his grip and sped into port authority, looking behind me as i walked in fear of being followed. confident that i was in fact not being followed, i relaxed enough to get my ticket from the ticketing window. i turned away from the window with my ticket, about to walk to my gate, and i saw him.

he walked over, still belligerent, asking to escort me to my gate. i say fine, but am at this point rather afraid. the woman at the ticketing window had told me to get on a bus at 3:55. we walked to the gate, and he would not leave. finally, i get on the bus, only to hear to my dismay that the bus i needed would not be arriving until 4:15.

when i got off the "wrong" bus, he was finally gone. and he didn't come back!

so stressed from the previous events and hungover from all the wine i drank, i fell asleep on the right bus almost as soon as it arrived. i woke up slightly late, meaning that i missed my stop by a few blocks. i got off the bus only to encounter my neighbor struggling with grocery bags while she walked. i helped her with her groceries, and ended up safe and sound at home.

interpretations:
1) i have been wondering lately about the place of philosophy in my life. i think philosophy in excess can be detrimental, particularly to the spiritual part of me. this affirms my concerns about philosophy and my resolve to keep philosophy and spirituality in their right places.
2) the world is full of scammers. i need to stop being such an innocent little sheep in a world full of big bad wolves, or i'm going to get myself in real trouble one day.
3) that "wrong" bus, quite possibly, saved my livelihood. "wrong" is in quotation marks because the ticketing lady giving me an incorrect bus time and me getting on that bus were karmically determined. i am so thankful for that.
4) my falling asleep on the bus and needing to go out of my way because of it was also karmically determined. i am thankful to have had the opportunity to help a neighbor.

appropriate sexual behavior

i spend all this time thinking about appropriate sexual behavior. this is NOT a prescription for everyone. this is merely a thought process.

i figured out what, for me, constitutes appropriate sexual behavior.

an equal exchange of energy. that's all. i like kant's deontology, and within that framework i have a duty not to harm myself and others. any form of sexual behavior in which the exchange of energy is unequal harms at least one of the two parties.

theoretically of course the idea of harm perpetuated by an unequal exchange of sexual energy works perfectly. whether you'd like to accept that P1) harm occurs, P2) harm is detrimental, and P3) you do not wish to cause detriment is up to you. i can say, however, from personal experience, that at the very least the first two premises of my argument are sound. P3) is really the premise you must accept in order to infer to C). C) is that you clearly ought not to engage in sexual conduct in which the exchange of energy is somehow unequal.

now the always-pending question: what does this insight mean for my life? it means that i am definitely going to stop hooking up with one person. it also means that there is only one person i wish to continue hooking up with. finally, it means that a recent decision i made was the correct decision.

Sexual Asceticism = Monogamy?

i propose that sexual asceticism is monogamy.

i mean sure, asceticism pertains to abstaining from bodily pleasures. but is it really realistic to deny a human entirely of something that is good for his or her nature? i'm pretty much combining aristotle and buddha right now, and i think that's awesome, btw.

the eightfold path prohibits "sexual misconduct." so vague: what the fuck does that even mean? the Third of Thich Nath Hanh's Five Mindfulness Trainings is as follows: "Aware of the suffering caused by sexual misconduct, I am committed to cultivate responsibility and learn ways to protect the safety and integrity of individuals, couples, families, and society. I am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment. To preserve the happiness of myself and others, I am determined to respect my commitments and the commitments of others. I will do everything in my power to protect children from sexual abuse and to prevent couples and families from being broken by sexual misconduct."

particularly i am interested in the sentence "i am determined not to engage in sexual relations without love and a long-term commitment." sounds like monogamy to me!

does that make monogamy sexual asceticism? for me, at least, yes. complete human abstinence from sexual activity is absurd, as it does not suit human nature. therefore, the most appropriate form of sexual asceticism is monogamy.

Motivation (a poem)

waxing and mostly
waning motivation
excess?
moderation?
or, dare i say it?
abstinence?
constant chaos
possessing philosophical profundity
but resilient real-world regrets
tracking every transgression
encouraging further self-loathing
myopic mania
mixed with multiple medications
as the prescription for
a perpetually problematic psyche
is,
finally,
fruitless

About a Paulo Coelho Status Update

"We don't need to explain our love. We only need to show it." - Paulo Coehlo

my first reaction to this, as a philosopher, was NO WE NEED TO DEFINE/DESCRIBE/EXPLAIN EVERYTHING. plus i'm just argumentative. plus there's something relevant going on in my life.

after some meditation on the topic, though, i changed my mind.

i wanted someone to explain the nature of our relationship. okay, so he loves me to some extent. as a friend, whatever not that i would really know since he hasn't explained it to me? i asked him about it, and he answered in riddles that explain nothing/everything as usual (by everything i mean not love but literally EVERYTHING.)

but then i realized something. he shows it. he is my friend, and he is a new but good friend. he has never been anything but nice to me. and the love he shows positively correlates with the explanation of that love: he is my friend. the other confusing actions involved are not actually a show of love. those are, and i'm hypothesizing, probably a mere reaction to visceral desires.

SO. i'm basically done with subjectivity now. let's move to an objective application of this particular scenario to the macrocosm.

if this can be applied as a general principle, then all relationships suddenly make so much sense. if someone doesn't show you love, then don't waste your energy on loving that person.

if someone shows you the love of friendship, then love that person as a friend. if someone shows you the love of family, then love that person as a family member. if someone shows you the love of true intimacy, then love that person intimately. ETC.

"and in the end, the love you take, is equal to the love you make." i'm all about the equal exchange of energy in relationships, in case you didn't notice. if that exchange isn't fair and equal, it will even out karmically at some point anyway.

My Metaphysical Framework

I believe, at this point in time, in panentheism. God exists, but God exists in everything and everything exists in God. Existence itself is God. I see divinity everywhere, particularly in live creatures and nature. I suppose, though, that as man-made goods have existence, God must be in them too. Why?

There's this awesome proof for God's existence, one of the first I ever learned, in which God supplies the existence that existing things must receive. It goes something like this:
P1. All existing things are caused by some other existing thing.
P2. In order to break an infinite metaphysical regress, there must be some uncaused existing thing that supplies the existence that caused existing things must receive.
C. God is uncaused existence itself.

I came to panentheism because I have wondered since I learned that proof as a freshman how the uncaused God could supply existence without somehow imparting divinity to caused existence.

There are other, non-philosophical reasons why I believe in panentheism, but I will save those for a post about my theological framework. There is no place for subjective personal beliefs in metaphysics.

"Love is a Parallax"

I thought I'd start off with a Sylvia Plath poem I found today. Btw: "parallax is a displacement or difference in the apparent position of an object viewed along two different lines of sight, and is measured by the angle or semi-angle of inclination between those two lines."

"Perspective betrays with its dichotomy:
train tracks always meet, not here, but only
in the impossible mind's eye;
horizons beat a retreat as we embark
on sophist seas to overtake that mark
where wave pretends to drench real sky.'

'Well then, if we agree, it is not odd
that one man's devil is another's god
or that the solar spectrum is
a multitude of shaded grays; suspense
on the quicksands of ambivalence
is our life's whole nemesis.

So we could rave on, darling, you and I,
until the stars tick out a lullaby
about each cosmic pro and con;
nothing changes, for all the blazing of
our drastic jargon, but clock hands that move
implacably from twelve to one.

We raise our arguments like sitting ducks
to knock them down with logic or with luck
and contradict ourselves for fun;
the waitress holds our coats and we put on
the raw wind like a scarf; love is a faun
who insists his playmates run.

Now you, my intellectual leprechaun,
would have me swallow the entire sun
like an enormous oyster, down
the ocean in one gulp: you say a mark
of comet hara-kiri through the dark
should inflame the sleeping town.

So kiss: the drunks upon the curb and dames
in dubious doorways forget their monday names,
caper with candles in their heads;
the leaves applaud, and santa claus flies in
scattering candy from a zeppelin,
playing his prodigal charades.

The moon leans down to took; the tilting fish
in the rare river wink and laugh; we lavish
blessings right and left and cry
hello, and then hello again in deaf
churchyard ears until the starlit stiff
graves all carol in reply.

Now kiss again: till our strict father leans
to call for curtain on our thousand scenes;
brazen actors mock at him,
multiply pink harlequins and sing
in gay ventriloquy from wing to wing
while footlights flare and houselights dim.

Tell now, we taunq where black or white begins
and separate the flutes from violins:
the algebra of absolutes
explodes in a kaleidoscope of shapes
that jar, while each polemic jackanapes
joins his enemies' recruits.

The paradox is that 'the play's the thing':
though prima donna pouts and critic stings,
there burns throughout the line of words,
the cultivated act, a fierce brief fusion
which dreamers call real, and realists, illusion:
an insight like the flight of birds:

Arrows that lacerate the sky, while knowing
the secret of their ecstasy's in going;
some day, moving, one will drop,
and, dropping, die, to trace a wound that heals
only to reopen as flesh congeals:
cycling phoenix never stops.

So we shall walk barefoot on walnut shells
of withered worlds, and stamp out puny hells
and heavens till the spirits squeak
surrender: to build our bed as high as jack's
bold beanstalk; lie and love till sharp scythe hacks
away our rationed days and weeks.

Then jet the blue tent topple, stars rain down,
and god or void appall us till we drown
in our own tears: today we start
to pay the piper with each breath, yet love
knows not of death nor calculus above
the simple sum of heart plus heart."