Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Philosophising philosophy AKA the loss/laws of thought
The Matrix essays contains philosophy. Are we overdoing it? I might ask. One does not theorise about anything unless the thing itself prods and alludes to philosophy explicitly. The Matrix prompts theory. What the heck, coming from Tim Burton, should I theorise about Mars Attacks? Or was it just meant to be what it is: a meaningless self-parody.
Just as in any other art, the object, once it leaves the hands of the creator, becomes its own entity, is open to interpretation, intended, or unintended. A two-year-old drawing a box and Picasso drawing exactly the same box does not mean the same for an art consumer. Picasso might intend inner meanings to the �box� a two-year-old does not. But as the object of art leaves its creator, does the intention of the creator matter at all? Is it just the intention of the receiver of the work of art: the audience that matters?
Just as it is in our nature to observe logic, it is in our nature to disregard logic, or to put it in more respectable terms: to seek philosophy. Why we chose to do so for certain things while rubbishing others is entirely determined by preference, taste, loyalty or stake holding, because after all logic has no role in this.
Maybe that is why the best are also the worst. The most moronic person leads the world, while the most spiritual and intelligent are villains. Ignorance might be bliss, but is �knowing all� akin to �knowing nothing at all�?
Ha ha ha ha ha! I have successfully or unsuccessfully tried to instigate my own koan. For a brief moment in time I became the Creator of thought; at the same time sounding utterly confusing became the Destroyer of thought.
That�s the beauty of philosophy and that�s the banality of philosophy. (Or is it? This itself being a philosophical thought,...)
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.