The Art of Manliness website done a project in ‘09 that invited its readers to work, each day of June, on a task aimed at making them better men. Admittedly, I’m a little late. However, I’ve decided to mirror this project. Hopefully, in a month, I’ll be a better man for it.
If you want to be involved, send me a DM. Having someone to hold you accountable and discuss each task not only increase success rates, but makes for a more enjoyable experience over all. :)
It be nice if we were all a little nicer. Read this article to figure out how. Even if you don’t intend on being nice, knowing how will make it easier to avoid accidentally being nice, so read it regardless. It is somewhat novice-intermediate level niceness though, so if you are Mormon or Buddhist, I’m sure you can skip it. For the rest of us, it should elucidate some faux pas we overlooked. For similar reading, try cracked’s article on avoiding hate.
This was a niceness reminder by your nice friend
Marge Simpson is a Type Nine on the Enneagram. Concluding one is full of rage is humorous because rage is something you feel, not deduce. Yet for a nine at average to unhealthy levels, relying on reason to deduce that you are angry is often the only means to know as numbing prevents it surfacing. Intentional? I don’t know. Humorous on more than one level? Yes.
It still ended up looking so gosh darn long. Work on brevity, Shane!
Alain De Botton’s Atheism 2.0, extolled in this Ted talk, suggests that the rituals found in religion aren’t creed-dependant. The idea that important ideas should be repeated constantly I find particularly interesting. As I was forming Tabland, I found only three holidays plausible. My birthday was named Founder’s Day, the 1st of July is Independence Day and the 8th of January is Emperor Norton Day, which I felt all micro-nations should honour in the interest of solidarity.
How to celebrate these days however, is not self-evident. The ambiguity caused me to stumble upon a rather perplexing thought: If the Tabanese are a rationalist people, why would we ritualise our past? Why not just entrust it to the individual? How can radically free people idolise civic nationalism? My answer was a combination of Hobbes and Bottom’s ideas.
When I first created the Tabanese State, the state of the 1st Republic, I depicted it as corporate person. Without realising it, I endorsed an Hobbesian state. Ignorant of his teachings, I couldn’t have known about his stance on religion, namely that it should be kept under the heel of the sovereign. In an Leninist fashion, the state could seize control of culture, democratically shaping and fostering an explicit culture. I am aware of the fear of totalitarianism but I find the occult scientism of the modern state far more oppressive. As part of this would be the State’s understanding of time.
So as it stands, I entertain the idea of building a moral character. This character would be a composite of the values the Tabanese ought to hold dear. The State then would endorse these ideals and fix the calendar so the nation will be directed to consider what it means to be a Tabanese citizen. These mechanisms then will aid the people of Tabland in understanding themselves and remaining constantly vigilante against a moral laxity.
As evidence of the effectiveness of this, and proof that it need not be oppressive, I offer this post’s inspirational source: Søren Kierkegaard 200th birthday. I didn’t remember his birth, Google did. But in reminding me of him, I remembered his teachings briefly. I would like to think his ideas ought to be remembered; certainly he offers more to the world than YOLO. Therefore, Tabland shall embed it’s calendar with the nations ideals so the citizens shall not forget them.
-reaffirming his values and acting like a Time Lord
(This is shorter than normal, I know. I’m trying to be more concise to match the expectations of the modern internet audience. Let me know if you are yay or nay.)
The strangest man of the 21st century, reading the works of the strangest man of the 20th century.
I remember there is actually a podcast where Karl is asked what he thinks of the quote ‘If a lion could talk, we would not understand him’, and he actually quite intuitively understands Wittgenstein’s point that to imagine a language is to imagine a way of life. In his own unusual way which somehow involves discussions of how fish should have more rights than us,of course.
But Ricky assumes he’s an idiot. :( (in relation to his understanding…)
And now we know why Wittgenstein never felt it a useful exercise to make himself more succinctly understood. *shakes head*
A scientist may declare
that Love itself isn’t real
Just a series of chemical exchanges
is all that we should feel.
Abstracts devoid of measurement,
it could never be accessed.
Whether verified or falsified,
There is no fricken’ test.
But a Platonist would disagree:
'That position there is bollox.
If you want to find the form of Love,
one need only use the logos.’
An appeal to my ratio,
that would seem to do the trick.
But a flaw in love emerges
out of a platonic Socratic.
This ideal of Love would be grand
were it not so far away.
As mere knowledge of the lovely
has yet to make my day.
The true object of my affection,
that which I hold most dear,
is not a faint reflection,
of what otherwise should be clear.
For the subject I have fallen for,
love emanates from thee.
But then I also do the loving,
so some interplay is key.
Our inquest then turns
where intentional egos
are explored with zealous glee.
This philosophical school
is something of a steeple,
and from lofty heights has declared:
'Hell is other People'.
So why would we expose love
to such a negative creed?
Is there nothing else we may try,
are we so desperately in need?
Not at all, don’t fret,
relax and take heart.
Not every phenomenologist
is as dreary as Sartre.
Although Noel did prove
Husserl cannot know love’s grace,
I think I’m onto something here
So please let me state my case:
Love is inter-personal,
Distinctive agents have autonomy
but the union’s incorruptible.
It has some functionality
in so far as it is nourishing
And Aristotle did believe
Love enabled flourishing.
I suppose I don’t know
why it is we are in sync
but accept a suspension of disbelief
for the clear and the distinct.
To accept what I know but can’t explain,
to the sceptic this is a crime!
But I know the only good question is:
Will you be my Valentine?