Hacking My Brain Off

I'm still on shaky grounds with this book, but couldn't Rewriting the Soul's main themes of

1. Many supposed 'facts' only being being contingently true and

2. 'making up' people through descriptions

be also representative of some of the key elements of prejudice? If humans are all about erroneously categorising and compartmentalising and generalising (like with the child abuse = MPD connection) then we couldn't we just as easily be talking about prejudiced stereotypes that are perpetuated through acting under descriptions? Just as 'child abuse' was not a recognised thing, so too, was racism (hence Heart of Darkness being a totally normal thing for its time. Also, accidentally racist old people).

Then the descriptions attributed to events in the past that are a formative influence on a person's being could quite easily be talking about the symptoms of internalised racism!

There, now where's my Nobel Peace Prize medal?

On a different note, this book's mentioning of semantic contagion of something improbable and (when seen from a completely neutral perspective) quite ridiculous reminded me of the hysteria around the Salem witch trials, and all the arrests in the US in the 80's over satanistic day-care centres. While these seem crazy now, I'm sure someone who was being told about multiple personality disorder for the first time would have many issues with it as well.

Term 1 Essay Reflection

My only real fault is that I'm just too much of a perfectionist. Oh, and all of these other things.

I think my biggest hurdle when I started writing these essays was formulating thesis statements and introductory paragraph sentences. While I've gradually improved at doing this, I still need to put more effort in linking paragraphs together thematically. This will also help eliminate random points that have little relevance to the topic and that I've just crowbarred in to try and sound clever (like my Heart Of Darkness references in my Tempest essay, which didn't really add anything). I need to spend more time before actually writing my essay thinking about the grand scheme of it, and whether an apparent 'overarching' topic/idea I have is strong enough to support an entire essay. Apparently my "insightful arguments" are my strong point, I just need to work at putting every single one of those strong points together in a way that clearly supports my thesis.

Another area that I think needs work is properly expanding on points (for example, Antigone and her supposedly 'ambiguous' morals, as well as her relation to a Knight Of Faith), as well as citing evidence from the text whenever the opportunity arises. So many times I've said a conclusion to a point without properly explaining how I came to it. I can help reduce this by getting other people to read my essay before it's submitted; if they are confused, then the marker probably will be as well.

I seem to always mention the same topics: personal freedom, oppression, power. These topics must come easier to me, so I should probably keep on writing about these whenever I get the chance. My essay's concluding sentences have also been consistently praised. I'm hoping this is not due to an unconscious feeling of relief for having finally finished my essay! Sadly, I cannot make my essay consist of only concluding sentences, which is a shame.

Simply Having an Error and Illusion-filled Christmastime

 Merry Brain-diseases-of-sickly-web-spinners-mas everybody, and a happy New Year! Goodness, this book is making me feel so festive.

Neeche takes a pretty highbrow stance in Twilight of the Idols, saying how many other ‘intellectuals’ are deluded. Yet considering his views on the ‘real world’ are to not over-analyze life and to basically take what you see at sensory face value, they aren’t very intellectual sounding. His version of progress, as shown in How the “True World” Finally Became a Fiction is also to abandon the delusions of celestial or intellectual grandeur that characterize Plato or Christianity. Nieeqcher does not want to elevate humanity or (in the case of Rousseau) necessarily regress it, which also does not seem very intellectual. If you’re going to be an Important Philosopher, at least say something exciting like everyone’s been living in a metaphorical cave!

Nicherr criticizes Socrates, but isn’t he essential doing what Socrates did? questioning values that most would contentedly leave unquestioned. If there is a difference to Socrates’ dialectic and what Neeziche is doing, I’d like to know what it is.

Netichee was also ahead of his time – though maybe not in regards to his views on women.  It seems detrimental when discussing his philosophies to bring up his persistent misogyny, but I wonder why someone who says how “reality shows us a captivating treasury of types” (28) would tar all women with the same brush.