Masopher's Mind

On the question of philosophy I am a pragmatist in the stem of Charles S Pierce, being one that loves learning even if it means getting into arguments about concepts. I believe it is Churchill who said “I’m always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.” I believe in having ideas that can be used, I have seen too many smart people and an exorbitant amount of psychologists with good ideas that never bother putting them to use. If an idea isn’t practical it should be discarded. One might say I love knowledge but only as far as that knowledge is applicable to advancing progress. I do not love it for the sake of loving it. You might recognize this analogy that if knowledge was a woman I would love her because she enhances my life in a practical way not just because she is pretty or sensible, but that she and I can produce…stuff.

In the same thread I am an evolutionary philosopher and psychologist believing in the findings and theories of evolutionary philosophers such as Pierce and evolutionary psychologists similar to Steven Pinker. In psychology I also integrate Jungian Psychology, how Jung melds with Pierce’s pragmatics is with semiology and symbols. Mankind has universal symbols and signs which some might say have evolved slightly since the days of hunting and gathering but only slowly. I am Jungian in the concepts that the signs as we display in what we wear, our dreams, our societal and psychological talismans and bijous tell an keen observer a lot about what is going on below the surface, not just in the mind but more tellingly of what is happening on a subconscious level un beknown even to the mind.

I am also as before, a forensic psychologist, one who studies psychology as it applies to law and law breakers and psychology as it applies to conflict from domestic to international. In that philosophy I follow Aristotelian philosophy as it applies to state and the running of a good state, notably the policing of such. I see states and laws, even language and economy in an organic sense as creations of the mind which itself is organic, thought and the products of thought almost as a secretion. Laws and states too contain core symbols and even behaviors and collective consciousness and subconciousness almost like giant humanoid creature, here you may recognize a touch of Nietzsche’s Ubermench and Hobbes’ Leviathan which are also important philosophical constructs in my thinking.

However therin lies perhaps one of my imposed boundaries of my bespoke philosophical framework. Regarding the creations of thought, including laws, society even cars and the internet as “organic” is a concept that I would never want to get into an argument about because even if I was to win I would be no richer nor granted more access to potential mates and the like. Many philosophers die penniless and very few ever get recognized. From my point of view I know it happens and from someone else’s point of view the human being stops at the end of his nose. Would I be paid to expand on it and were it to be accepted by a vote then perhaps I would think about it.