|memo to all philosophers
i think therefore i am
has been changed to
we are therefore i am
18 Oct 08
Rated 8 (5.3) by 2 users.
Active (2): 2
Inactive (3): 2, 6, 8, 8
(define the words in this poem)
(1 user considers this poem a favorite)
Add A Comment:
memo to all stoners: cogito ergo zoom.
Yet another law school denies your application for acceptance! :)
i lo phospher
us at a loss for
words for the chamfer
glow ever transfer
real philosophy is the negation of 'opinion' -- that's why people never get 'philosophy' right when they slam it. they should slam themselves slamming -- and that of course is no fun.
this memo/aphorism is fun filosophy, like fortune cookie wisdom. philosophy is the thing that made you notice, not the things you thought.
cognito ergo zoom! HAHAHAHA! Good one.
Sorry to laugh on your comment area, poet. I cannot agree with your conclusion and I am wishing there were a real poem here to read.
i am not surprised you dont get it
therefore i am has been
changed to we are
therefore i am
here, we get poetry and not lamer, and this is lamer. issa gets it fine -- it's you that's bummed that your standup comic routine didn't get a laugh or sad-clown tears. if you want hugs post this on a beginners site or myspace.
can you give us your thoughts on the election? or george lakoff? or pig semen?
pig semen has been known to cause down syndrome
i can give you an opinion on 'philosopher' and on how this word seems to be used in this light verse or aphorism. but, i can't read your mind, unknown, and you're too articulate to really make me think that you'd be able to read my opinion anyway. so inarticulate, in fact, that i don't know if you're the author of this piece or just someone offended enough to blurt out some protest.
'we are, therefore i am' is a simple sociable thing you'd maybe hear around drunk conservatives and nationalists or acid-stoned hippies realizing that words were tricks and you can play with them. poetry is where you brick those tricks into something more than tricky words, and this one doesn't even want to go in that direction at all.
Actually, "I think therefore I am" is not clearly the accurate translation. "I am thinking, therefore I exist" is a more accurate portrayal of what Descartes was trying to express.
You seem to be making some kind of argument in l3 against solipsism and/or egotism. In other words, the self's existence is not based upon its own actions or something internal to them the way Descartes suggests with cogito ergo sum, but rather that it is created through the opinions/observations/minds of others- external to ourselves. This could be read either to be saying something about nature vs. nurture (that we are predominantly created through the latter rather than the former). It can also be read to be an argument against solipsism, in that it turns the tables on solipsism (the belief that it's possible nothing exists except ourselves, and that we have created everything and everyone- they are a figment of our imagination/creation). Finally, it can be taken as a moral argument: we ought to be more considerate of others rather than selfish-beings, because there are other people out there.
While all of this can potentially be read into the poem, it does not make the poem particularly unique or interesting. Certainly it can incite many thoughts as starting ground; however I don't find the ambiguity or brevity of this piece to be warranted given how simplistically it is written. The lack of detail- rather than opening doors, in some ways closes them, because this piece could be taken too many directions, but gives little other than a footstep toward each possibility, without covering any real territory in one direction.
I think if you want the critics here to "get" your point, you'll need to do a little more than post 3 oblique, vaguely written lines. If they were the same length but concise- gave more direction, it'd have been fine- but this poem doesn't do that. Help us take that step through the door you want to guide us through- even if that door is the one of obscurity- because it's not clear here what you're really trying to do, it could instead be passed off as laziness or poor writing skills.
A good poem perhaps enacts philosophy instead of trying to tell it?
what though, inuki, about the nature of philosophic inquiry, and how that's an ongoing process -- you've read the meditations. a poem, even an verslet like this one, is never a truth image out of reasoning, it's a truth image out of rhetorical possibility. the collection of rhetorical moves in the meditations add up to a view of an account of truth seeking, but they're not poetry. this one, this piece, fails as aphorism -- it relates to no viable means of judging its own worth -- no common sense determination -- but simply says something as a 'motto', an emblem. seeing it this way, it's simply overworded. it doesn't matter if it says the right thing or not. we're bothered at this abuse of 'philosophy' -- i don't like how the word is cheapened into some flaky 'it's only thinking', but this thing wasn't meant, i think to be more than smug and the author probably didn't know how to write this out in any other way but as 'poetry'. he doesn't know what 'poetry' is either.
I'm more for the Solopsistic/Pantheism approach to reality selection, i.e., I am the centre of the Universe and so is everyone/thing else -- kinda like the theory of Love which has no opposite --
love is a sphere which has its centre everywhere,
and its circumference nowhere;
longing is the compass,
always pointing there
Lifting the veil... the seeker of Truth, the Poet, sees it all as Beauty eventually, the good the bad and the ugly, all have a part to play -- even our DNA assigns a hormone to attraction, so are we free to choose? Why do we average our looks over millions of years, to only evolve in but a few. Monoculture, is that not an Oxymoron? Wildness is the creative, the mutation is Natures goal -- in Quantum Field Theory the observer is always intimately connected to the experiment thus changing it. Which means that each of our experiences will vary.
for me philosophy isn't an accurate model of a truth but an accurate account of truth seeking. it's not wisdom that's in the thought, it's accurate observation of how we thought, how we came up with our 'wisdom'. a poem isn't a model of rational reality, it's a construction of a playhouse for the play of 'being'. descartes burnt his butt down coming up with this simple statement. using the simple statement as a character in a play of wise sayings is artful, but not a vaccination against foolish. indeed, it's foolishly wonderful to get lost in a poem's wording and not worry about seeming foolish.
and pray tell gecko is there any human activity etc that we cannot get lost in to your satisfaction ?
here, i like writing activity. i don't care how you do it when you're on the basketball court.
anyway, i'm the only one gave this a ten, and that's maybe all the author wants from us.
aspiring -- from stars we come to stars we shall return, this ancient ache of longing urging us to burn, to shine on 'n on from inside out, where illumination is a fire without any doubt
i dont care for 10s
my intentions are not privy to you
keep talking psychic eventually you ll be right
don't get uptight. this is a writer's workshop not an ashram. this one got writ for shit and got writ back on it. it wasn't smart, wasn't well constructed. it might have been the truth of zen, but it didn't work as writing.
relax zen master
just because my eyes are closed does not mean i am meditating
it's not about how your butt is placed so smugly on the ground, it's how you write about it. this is a writers workshop with critical in its title. here, i don't care if you have a nice day or not unless you had it in writing. if you want instant authentication, go shoot some hoops.
better, though would be to try to write a better version of this as a short story -- the aphorism just comes off like inability to give anything good to the reader.
i dont care for authentication
but i do love wasting your time
the emblematic 'I am' is actually a moving matrix of possibilities in Quantum Field Theory -- the blind spot of Philosophy and most learned methods of reality selection is the malleable nature of you and me and all that is -- the constant is a moving target -- we are malleable and magical 'cause of the co-operative way 'change' works -- change the way you look at yourself and you change who you are becoming -- Gecko's intuitive 'cogito ergo zoom' approaches that idea that change, inside out, is the only real constant -- zoom zoom
you're not wasting my time, because you're allowing me to think about these things and see them as realities in my head. poetry is about connections, and you want to disconnect us from our trivialities and get us on the right path. nothing wrong there. but, you do understand that your title implies a philosophical dictum -- a wisdom laid on philosophers like mayonnaise. and maybe you don't see that i'm saying you don't know what philosophy is, cause of the way you're wording this. like to say that the we should really be writing about you and not our own private thinking spaces, cause you're so healthy sort of -- except for the paranoia -- and that's a nice memo to the staff. but, we're not writing for you or about you, as philosophers, we're writing out only what we can truthfully know. now, if you're a marxist and want to do a socialist trip on us: 'there is no more individual', then why not post this in a political forum, where you'd get a small and bitter dialog going, only slightly abused by global warming input and 'big foot is real'. here, you are whatever you're read as, cause we're only writers: we're not propagandists for 'why worry be happy' or 'vote for joe'.
you sound like a scared republican
acknowledge the power of we
you sound like an adolescent pseudo liberal.
I like the concept. Some people need another to feel complete. That's what i get out of it anyway.
o lol political mental masturbation whoops