3 Jul

AN UNFREE CHOICE? (TAXIDRIVER) mentally unbalanced.

Toni “Poika” Illi left the office when he was 55 years old. Everybody respected him in the government machinery. But nothing stopped him from leaving there.Nothing compelled him to stay. He didn’t want to be like everyone else. Human nature didn’t coerce to be like an everyman. “Does it generally cause to be?”, I wandered looking at these human beings over there, in their planet Earth.

Illi was sitting in the chair twiddling with his chubby fingers when his thoughts started live their own life.

“It would be easy to use violence, if I wanted to use. To beat, to hit to pieces… But I don’t want to be cruel. A jerk. Yeah. That is! Going bananas,” Toni illi snarls like an urban jungle.

“I could come and smash you like… like a mirror scattering all over the floor. However, I just don’t want. I don’t want to plan… to decide to kill you.

Nothing external to me,demons or madmen, hold back from tearing apart you. No, I don’t acknowledge. I have no inner inhibitions. I just don’t want. Don’t yell. Come on let’s no yelling!

I walk in your home, open the door, throw away a blanket and start strangling. But I said it already. I don’t want.”

Possibilities exist beyond the natural reality. And he has been thinking a while. He is free to go. It is possible him to leave his home. That is, going is a possibility, but it does not appear now in space. It is non-going. Freedom possibilities are in human thoughts. Toni Illi causes them within his own psyche.

ON UNFREE persons

28 Apr

A human but a dogmatic mind

1) A person x is not able to think than in one way.

2) Free act requires possibilities to do otherwise.

3) However, a person x has not a possibility to think that in this one particular way. (Maybe x is brainwashed or a mind of x is political or.)

4) Therefore, x is not free, and x is not a freethinker (from 1, 2 and 3).

(free Mr. Gaddafi´s mind!)

A Personal Problem

24 Apr

A word "a face" and the face

A person x grasps a meaning of the concept “a face”, and grasping it causes an image of a face in the consciousness of x.

But how is that causality possible in the Universe? Further, how does the connection of grasping and a mental image connect with a person’s physical body or its central neural system?


(an image: René Magritte, “The Rape”, 1934)

Is Philosophy Useful? The Second Suggestion

28 Mar

The Death of Socrates: but why?

Philosophizing -> Mental healthy or better reasoning are final causes.

Exercising -> Healthy or look or admiration or sex are final causes. That is, one exercises because of wanting to look good. One believes by exercising one will look good.

According to Socrates virtue is sufficient to happiness meaning to focus on self-development rather than the pursuit of material wealth. Nevertheless, the choice is your personal – problem, a mental problem.
(A program on Socrates – to listen)

Ville: Well, tell me why philosophizing would be useful?

Marjatta: Nobody is home. A man’s question you boy.

V: Thus, what’s it?

M: So where it?

V: That’ is.

M: Tee! What it?

V: So, where it?

M: No, get it!

V: Could it? Wank it?

M: Yes I told it already!

V: So what is it?

M: If nobody is home, then philosophizing is.

And she points a finger at her head at the same time.

A goal as a cause: doing A because of B. B is a goal and doing A is an effect which would lead to the goal B, or so Marjatta believes in, and thus she chooses to do A. However, Marjatta does not grasp why B materializes in her thoughts to the desiring thing.


6 Feb

You meet a tiger.

First, a politician sees a hand and infers from inner feeling “It’s my hand”. He perceives that he points then to himself by his little finger and starts slowly moving it towards his ugly stomach. He sees how his hand is moving. Finally, a politician feels touching within himself.

Seeing a hand or an image in front of a mind

Those are descriptions and thus they are not causal explanations. For example, moving a hand is not the same as interaction of cells inside of his hand. Similarly, seeing a hand in front of one’s eyes is not the same as eyes’ moving due to sexual desire. In brief, we report what appear to us. We do not perceive relations between a hand, light and eyes and their optic nerves.

The contra factual analysis of causality may have a form “If not A, then not B”. Can we then insist: if there won’t be seeing a hand, inferring “It is my hand”, pointing by a finger,starting move a hand, seeing a hand’s moving, then there won’t be feeling touch? A politician sees a hand. However, it does not follow from his seeing he will feel touching soon. He touches his left hand by the fingers of the right hand. That is, he experiences seeing, moving and touching but sees no causality among them. It just seems to him that the hands are over a table appearing round and hard, the walls of a room seems to be yellow, although the surfaces of the walls have no colors, and the form of the hands emerges from the material structures of tiny elements.


1) One perceives deciding to move one’s own hand and moving it

2) They both are effects

3) One misrepresents that deciding causes moving

4) Nevertheless, there are only two effects because

5) Their cause is one and the same subject: a bodily person with faculties of experience and thinking

6) There are two acts which are effects: I decide and I move my hand (from 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

7) These acts have a same but between them there is not a causal connection (from 6, 5, 3)

NOT: One’s deciding -> one’s moving

Two hands in two different places behind two eyes?


a person -> deciding


a person -> moving

(From experience but I’m not sure about the text above. Please explain.)

You have been meeting a tiger.

Is Philosophy Useful?

2 Dec

Matias: “Philosophy! But for what reasons? It’s no use!”

Promoting self-sufficiency, not fame: Diogenes of Sinope

Maria: “I don’t know… It gives a faculty to recognize when a man or a woman is indoctrinated and brainwashed and a prisoner of some world view. A prisoner of science, politics, nature, men or… Or whatever.”

Matias: “Bitch! What on earth is philosophy of any use for anybody? Explain!”

Maria: “The use is such that one grasps that a man or a woman not being able to think nothing but work and money is not free. How is that? By philosophy. Can you?”

Matias: “Can what fucking what?”

Maria: “To reason… Or being able to think something else?”


Maria: “Thanks! Bitch.”

Matias: “Hey come on! That’s not fair.”

Maria: “Philosophy as a way of life… Yeah that is. One educates oneself. It’s the means to the peace of mind. I’m afraid of philosophy as a lifestyle and a culture is disappearing due to the academic philosophers deifying science and matter.”

Matias: “I wanna… No! Wanting drinking is so gooooodd.”

Maria: “Politicos and state moralists like you. They play their game behind the scene being a part of the problem. States make the world in Earth insecure, not philosophers.”

THE CYNICS AND FREE ONESELF FROM CONVENTIONS (A radio discussion about the Cynics, 45 minutes)

On Categories: An Entity Implies a Thing and a Whole

8 Nov

X is one and many

A controversial claim! If Mrs. Jones is a person, how can she be many too? And if a group of politicians consists of many individuals, how can it be one when there are actually five persons? One is not identical with five.

That is a thing or a whole - or the impression of a bike.

Next, metaphysical categories:

A thesis: Two different categories x and y differ in each other absolutely, eg. they are not identical with or similar to.

From a thesis follows

if a category x includes A, a category y doesn’t include A. It seems to me that A is supposed to be a category too. And x is not the same as y.

A question: is a thing in the same category as a whole?

From a question:

No, because they are two different categories. It’s possible there are many things and they form a set. But a thing only is one and the same. In fact, a whole is more abstract than a thing, a contingent thing like a book of Kafka. A set is the most abstract.

How can many books be one substance Book?

A claim 1: A thing inheres in its attributes and its identity remains over change and time.

A claim 2: A whole is its parts, simple parts, but it loses and gains them. So, its identity doesn’t remain over time and change, such as a human body or the nature.

A conclusion: A is a substance and A is not a whole because a substance and a whole is not identical with (from a thesis, a claim 1 and a claim 2).

What Is Violence Against Humanity: A Suggestion

11 Oct

The representatives of every species have natural way to act. So have human beings too, a woman or a man, and vice versa.

For instance, for birds flying is natural. For fish swimming in the water is the natural function. For humans thinking is the practical habit to be active in the natural environment.

If birds’ wings are cut off, their natural instinct is prevented. If a human being is forced not to think like he or she wants to think, his or her natural instinct of being in the world has been destroyed.

Peace doesn’t mean silence inside of mouths and lack of contradictions in human relationship. Peace in society doesn’t collapse when people criticizes a leading bloc and claims our real life is not what news, movies and authorities tell us and when people disagree with and rebel. In brief, to prevent one’s thinking is violence, not peace. What one sees is not always true

But is to protect one’s thinking peaceful then? Let’s think it together, my friend:

1. If one must protect peace, it is not violence (Protection: why not violent act? I don’t know… this is problematic. It’s to prevent that harmony doesn’t change but continues. But not violence?)
2. If two parties or persons have a quarrel, peace has disappeared (from experience)
3. If peace disappears, one must protect peace (Peace is better than war; self-evident)
4. They start fighting
5. Peace disappears (from 2 and 4)
6. One must protect peace (from 3 and 5)

7. So, the protection of peace is not violence (from 1 and 6)

Freedom of speech occurs AND doesn’t occur in China – logically true?

But the protection of peace by violence is violence (the logic of despotism!)

Fragments of Philosophy: Is There Ethical Absolute?

15 Sep

Most people think themselves in situations as agents but not as objects of acts of someone else. Many thinks also that everyone’s own moral beliefs are right and that different cultures’ moral beliefs about the same act are as right. Thus, my moral beliefs are true for me and your beliefs are true for you. May be moral facts are different on which we are talking.

Does mental illness strengthen? (The ill Nietzsche, 1899)

Let’s considering next Friedrich Nietzsche’s claim on “On the Genealogy of Morals”: “According to slave morality, therefore, the ‘evil person’ arouses fear; according master morality, it is precisely the ‘good person’ who arouses and wishes to arouse fear, whilst the ‘bad man’ is felt to be contemptible.” Although you would disagree with Nietzsche, you must acknowledge he’s right, if you are an ethical Relativist or Subjectivist.

Oh no! You shout: “It’s morally right to cut one’s hand if one writes something bad about people and its loving ruler!” But, but, but! You must accept your hand also cut, if a group is treated roughly by some culture. It’s not fair to exclude yourself. Put yourself too in a group!

An ethical absolute may be the following one: Persons are always both agents and objects. When considering goodness or badness of acts, put yourself also in the situation of victims.

If you claim that cultural relativism is true, you must accept what other culture do to you because from their perspective it is right to treat you cruelly although you blame it wrong. In general, when somebody says to be a Relativist, it means only “I do whatever I want to do”. Listen, for example, to Socialists or Economists – or to the radio.

Responsibility 2: Kids deserve better

14 Aug

There aren't blocs within children's minds.

Kids and their actions are, in partly, their guardians’ responsibility. Kids must be educated as autonomous and critical citizens who are capable to reason their own ends, not politicos’ or guardians’ ends. That’s because responsibility entails freedom, which means non-determined acts and autonomy from the external causes in the material world. So, kids deserve to become better thinkers – not better soldiers free to die for nothingness.

To form own ends requires freedom from actual desires and impulses. But kids are dependent on guardians’ choices. That’s why children can’t be morally accountable for their acts to norms of the society. Their parents are…

It’s said that kids mirror a society. That claim may be true. So, does school shooting mirror a society and adults? Actions, that is, mirror ourselves: we are in our actions, our internal essence is visible in our own actions. We are responsible for our kids actions, if Kids mirror a society, adult’s conduct and their parents’ world view. ?Absolute school leaving?

If the responsible action is the action expressing self-adopted ends and being free from previous physical contacts, which forces one to act, kids can’t be fully responsible for their acts, harmful or fruitful. Adults decide for kids what they do next. However, girls and boys are agents who cause their own actions. So agent-causality would be the act without determining previous causes before an effect: kid’s actions which determining causes are actors themselves.

Fragments of Philosophy: A Little Idea about Freedom

4 Jul

If a person has been freed from conceptual thinking, then is he or she free? May be you don’t grasp the question.

The economy gives ready-made answers what to do, it has, then, released people from thinking. Has the economy made them free citizens, socialist and market economy? Don’t you grasp the question?

No, it hasn’t. They’re not free because she or he was freed from thinking*.

*WARNING: Don’t be upset if you grasp the text above.

Fragments of Philosophy: Responsibility 1

25 May

Responsibility exists as a general abstract idea although one can’t see it: one grasps it. Reasoning persons become under the idea of responsibility when acting without brainwashing and pressure of threat, that is, acting and reasoning as the autonomous minds.

It’s a fact we distinguish responsible from irresponsible people, like wise from ignorant. But if the word “responsibility” is nothing but a subjective belief and one’s belief is true for him, then everybody is as responsible as someone else. So each person’s private beliefs would be true: what things seem to each person to be like, that is also what they really are like. For example, Mr. Jones sees a car but Mr. Smith hallucinates and seems to see a pink elephant. Their impressions about the reality would be equally true.

But then nobody can distinguish responsible persons from irresponsible ones. That claim would not correspond with the visible fact: people have objective properties. We know that somebody is smart and that somebody is stupid. So knowledge is not relative.

We don’t see Mrs. Perry is responsible: she hasn’t “being responsible” as the visible quality such as color red and form tight are.

The electric lights means the urbanized areas. Human beings go towards lights. They believe to find happiness there. Who faces the consequences?

Do lights symbolize freedom? They will be turned off by the Almighty.

When asking “Who is responsible for that mess?”, we want to know the guilty, someone who is the first cause in an institution. They who command can’t shift the act on someone else. The chain of causes ends in managers.

We are all morally responsible to the future human race, according to Bertrand Russell: last essay “1967” by Bertrand Russell. Read and think!

Fragments of Philosophy: The Condition of Free Society

29 Apr

A society without public criticism is not worth anything.

Public criticism means ability to evaluate independently the thought repeated by majority. Repeating means “only one choice open”.

One can be liberated but is not free from the liberator. Liberty Leading the People by Delacroix. 1830 Louvre.

The embraced is not free to choose. He or she is programmed to repeat. It is: repeating single truth. Thus the brainwashed can’t criticize publicly.

Generally speaking, if the masses are embraced one doctrine, then …

Fragments of Philosophy: Human’s Security Not State’s Security

9 Apr

Hey come on! A state’s most important goal is not to guarantee its military security by armed forces in the system of sovereign powers. So, in the present global world, balance of Great Powers is not the essence of international relations of nations. More exactly, say libertarian, there are only individuals and societies, not states, nations and fatherlands which are just ideas within French, Russian and Chinese nationalists’ minds.

Negotiation is the main institution between leadears not countries. UN Climate Summit live in 2009. (David Karp/AP)

Yes but that doesn’t prove the claim that states’ main goal is not the military security.

I’m sorry. Very sorry. I mean… I mean that now economical well-fare is the main goal for most political leaders. The central problem for them is not a war and the use of force, like it or not. Pure anarchy doesn’t prevail in the world because peoples have peaceful contacts across borders and because global context, like international law and United Nations, sets moral judgments for states’ behavior. In this context of global norms the use of force is not automatic reaction. They have also hostile contacts across borders! Likewise, any government can’t control the real transnational world in the web (please, be critical because this is the pages of Caucasus rebels in Chechnya.)

Please let me give an example. Effects of nuclear weapons are so horrible when using at WWII that any national leader don’t really want to use them at real conflicts. They are too costly. Nuclear weapons forces to cooperate, such as US and Russia must cooperate – or…

I must remind you, dear friend, that negotiation is the most important institution in the world politics. It has always been. So, nuclear weapons entail negotiations and peaceful interactions in global community rather than very danger interventions. Humanitarian issues and human security has become, then, more important than security of states after Cold War. Thus, the picture of pure anarchy is insufficient for evaluating the transnational global society.

That is, everybody in the globe are affected by nuclear weapons, financial crises, the climate change and the organized crime and nobody can protect against these phenomena by weapons only. Not even Great Powers!

Only if every individuals, including artists, writers and philosophers, have protection in a society, people’s security exists. There are many societies in which a man and a woman are not in safe. Therefore, some governments doesn’t protect the people’s security by claiming that they secure state’s harmony and order by the use of violence towards some citizens and minorities.

Mr. Chavez: People consists of individuals.

To my mind, political leaders should protect humans not ideas of states. By means of the armies nobody solved problems of human life but created them. And war and violence against civilians and nations are nowadays more morally unthinkable than during colonial policy or in Machiavelli’s time.

So is the world moving beyond the anarchy of the sovereign state system.

Fragments of Philosophy: on Anarchy in World Politics

14 Mar

He's not a world's leader. (beloved?)

The concept “anarchy”, strictly speaking, means the absence of governments and rulers. But in international relations between countries “anarchy” doesn’t mean total chaos, like a warfare, because there is a relative order in the global system of states. That is, the order appears usually in the political world due to balance of power between governments.

After cold war period, in the world stage there are not only states as actors but also other players: multinational corporations, like Nokia and Shell, human rights movements, like Amnesty International, terrorist groups, the organized crime, OECD etc.

He's not a world's leader. (beloved?)

But the structure of world politics is an anarchic system of states meaning that 1) there is no higher government over countries and 2) it’s a self-help system.

“Anarchy in world politics” could be defined also, like a famous Philosopher Thomas Hobbes did, as a war of all against all. That is, there’s not higher ruler to enforce order. A good example about that kind of situation would be a town without a sheriff in the Old West or Somalia at present time. That means nobody has a monopoly to keep in order in the town and different clans and groups fight against each other in Somalia without the powerful government.

So, because there is not international police enforcing sanctions against lawbreakers, or governments and political leaders, world politics is a self-help system.Then no one has a monopoly to use force in international relations. As a result, especially Great Powers China, US, Russia and European countries, the governments don’t trust each other and they feel suspicion. In domestic politics, however, police and courts by the government’s power can pass sanctions to individual lawbreakers and prevent their freedom to act. (Georgia-Russia conflict is a good example. Look at a link, please!)

Finally, althought political leaders and peoples have their right to self-determination, there is always possibility to intervene in other sovereign state’s political system by the armed forces. It happens due to anarchic system of states: look at Georgia, Iraq and Afghanistan! So there are exceptions to the rule: one should not intervene in the affairs of another country.
(That is, many have tried to rule Afghanistan with a rod of iron but…)

Fragments of Philosophy: Doors or Their Function

25 Feb

Houses without doors are not good buildings. We aren’t able to go in or come out. So we can conclude: if buildings appear to us, there are also doors. Home without a door is not very functional, would say Le Corbusier. And that’s true!, I shout back.

But is the function of doors to function as passages? I claim that it’s not.

From outside one goes in but if looking from inside the house, one comes in. In the same way, one goes out from inside the house but one comes out from the house to out fo doors in which a spy is waiting.

We are strangers. Sometimes guests. Often relatives of someone. We can’t go in whenever we want because doors don’t open to us. Most of doors are closed. Someone else decides when the front doors will open. Try to enter to other territories, public buildings, people’s homes, stores and shops, shopping malls, bar and clubs, and you will see that I’m right. Doors are controlled. By doors you and they control.

They who control the door go and come freely. They lock up it. They are safe inside. They order who comes in. And we are not warmly welcomed.

But is there any security from the rest of the World? No, the West is too the Rest and an individual is not safe inside “the West”. A society’s values, ideas and words squeeze forcibly inside. Inside. To the individual Mind. You can’t lock up the Mind’s door. It is always open. To other who is working on Your consciousness.

That is, in a society, when going to work, people lock up the home door. They don’t want that somebody goes in. Their intention is keeping threats outside. We are not threat. But they don’t believe us. We’re outsiders.

Yet there are people who can’t walk out. They are locked inside behind many doors. Inmates, insanes without hopes. You are able to come out if they dare to let you free. If they decide so. Before opening the door, it stays locked. You and they are safe. Furthermore we are locking ourselves behind the doors. We don’t walk out from here to there – to the new life from the ugly past. They and you eat us! The outcast, honey.

Locked out. Liked. Liked as locked out. A locked Mind outside other Mind. (City of Turku)