p ^ ~p: that, try as i might, i cannot internalize the intuition that this proposition is non-sense that it is, without argument or qualification, in any and all instances of informational analysis, obviously false , that may be a critical bullet i fail to bite (despite my willingness to be systematically brainwashed to believe otherwise) , it may be my suicide seed to a career in  western analytic philosophy, and may be the seed to aim for something more personally rewarding, may be the seed to treat this tradition as means, a means among means, towards some more substantive end. circumstance is me learning, being embedded in a cultural tradition constructed in antithetical experience to that of my own, being willingly held to intuitions, expectations, standards, values, and ideals not my own, reminding myself  as often as i can that none of it is me, it doesn’t define me, my value in terms of its standards are not my value, my writing and expression of ideas as valued in terms of its standards are not their values, and yet through them, as painstaking and counterintuitive as it can seem at times, is me, and it is me intentionally becoming me


p ^~p , no one is an idiot because demonstrating derivations doesn’t come naturally to them. i’m not an idiot because nothing in classical logic comes naturally  or intuitively to me. or because what i get out of class in terms of educational experience may be significantly different than the intended course learning objectives. i’m not a poor writer because i don’t systematically constrain the expression of ideas to deductive, formal arguments. i’m not lazy because normatively sanctioned critical philosophical discourse on plato and metaphilosophy breeds little by way of  my motivation or imagination. i don’t not get it.  but like most, i care to get only when the getting looks good.


why an analytic program, why jump into the deep end of a pool when one has yet to learn how to swim, what good could possibly come of it?


i was captivated by a recent NPR interview where an american nun, serving in a leadership position among nuns of the catholic church, spoke of the social injustice and inequality nuns face in the hierarchical, patriarchal power structure that characterizes modern catholic religious institutions. when asked why she continues to identify as a catholic in the face of such overwhelming cognitive dissonance and disappointment of the injustices she perceives as being systematically perpetuated by church hierarchy, she asked the interviewer why many americans continue to identify as american though they take issue with similar policies/practices of their representational, governing infrastructure?


i don’t have any moral of the story other than it seems worthwhile to be critical of/ treat as problematic these various aspects of social identity, what is really worth attaching to in terms of an american identity? how different does a nun’s views on social issues and ideology need to become before it’s no longer viable for her to identify herself as a catholic? who makes that call, her or the church? am i a philosopher? do the modern day boundaries on the label matter to me, should they? what of  boundaries of identity qua mere semantic or ideological convention, what of these conventions qua the residual effect of social power distribution through time,  their existence then seems ambiguous , vague, contingent, but that would be p ^ ~p, too


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: