I’m fat.

I currently weigh roughly 325 pounds. I haven’t always been fat. It came on rather suddenly, really. But now that I have all this weight it hurts to be active. It physically hurts. How am I supposed to get active when it kills my lower back to walk more than 100 fucking feet. It’s slowly been getting to me and it’s come to a head tonight. I can’t sleep because I can’t stop thinking about my goddamn weight. I had thoughts of hurting myself for fucks sake. I hate myself and what I have let my body become and it’s so fucking hard to think about but even harder to fix. It’s sending me into a negative spiral. I haven’t felt this shitty about myself in a very very very long time. I don’t even want to have sex anymore.

I hate this. I did this to myself and that just makes it even worse.

Advertisements

Just a thought… A Theory..

I was reading an article today that was talking about baby colic, a condition that causes a baby to cry for no apparent reason. My mother likes to remind me on occasion that I, as a baby, was “colicky”.

I have recently decided that I was raised by a narcissistic mother. Any issues I had suddenly became about her. Now, I don’t mean the whole “my child is depressed and it must be my fault” sort of thing that many parents of depressed children must feel. I’m talking about making every little thing about her. Even the way I present myself to the world was a reflection on her, hence the reason she refused to buy me too many black clothes (to the point where she refused to buy ANY black clothes including a sweatshirt).

So what does this have to do with my being colicky? Well, as a baby get older they cry less as a means of communication. A baby with colic tends too stop its excessive crying around 4 months old. When I was a child, though, my mother tended to invalidate my emotions and not believe I was sad when I would cry or would tell me to get over it and “suck it up, cupcake”.

I never really knew, or thought to find out, what colic was. So when I read this article I realized that some of the issues I had with my mother growing up might have stemmed from this. Having a baby that cries excessively for no reason may lead a parent to think, further down the line, that the child is overreacting or simply crying to get attention. If the parent continues to believe this it could potentially lead to invalidation of their child’s emotions and a rift in the relationship.

Having a nearly 6 hour drive between us now has helped our relationship greatly. Granted I can still only spend so much time around her before she starts to push my buttons.

I don’t expect us to ever really be “close” like I feel a mother and daughter should. I feel like our relationship will resemble her relationship with her own mother……

Oh well.

Wow. It’s been a while…

I’m bored watching my cat eat (making sure the other doesn’t steal her food) so i decided to open up wordpress. Might as well wright eh?

So I have no been with Jon (the mostest amazingest person ever) for a year and almost 4 months now. We have moved in together and have my cat and my mom’s cat (the one that needs to be fattened for the slaughter).

We’ve discussed marriage and our future and our lives together multiple times and i love it. 🙂 We do have our ups and downs but I can’t imagine life without him. He has helped me so much. I’m back in school, my third semester now, my depression is in remission and I’m not living with my dad anymore. Jon is one of the best things to ever happen to me and the single best person to ever come into my life.

Anywho. That is why I have not been on here much. As my life improves my urge to journal decreases. :3

So. Ttyl? lol

SWA #3

Between Descartes, Hume and Kant, there are many ideas floating around.

Descartes is very much into the idea that only thinking things exist. Everything else is a construction of our mind. This does make a little sense to me. I definitely have had dreams that felt so real that I’m still not sure if some of my memories are dreams or not. I remember dreaming about getting into a fight with someone and then being very mad at them the next day at school. It was just so real. I do have a hard time distinguishing which of my memories were dreams and which were real. However, Descartes would argue that maybe, as I sit here typing this, it is a dream. Class yesterday could have been a dream… Who knows? (I very much like his dream argument). He is also the one that coined the famous phrase “I think, therefore, I am”. He says the moment you start doubting your existence, you prove it. Something has to be doubting, and that is the thinking thing. He is most famous for making the distinction between mind and body. They are related, but different. We are our minds inside a body.

Now, Hume is an interesting person. He is the most consistent Empiricist philosopher, but he renders Empiricism impotent. He wanted to draw a distinct line at the limits of the human mind. He claimed that metaphysics is impossible because the human mind cannot possibly grasp such a massive idea. He also made the distinction between ideas and impressions. Essentially, all our ideas are just copies of impressions we have had. Hume says that we can only know things that we can observe. This differs from Descartes in that Descartes says we can only know what we can reason. Hume knows through experience, Descartes knows through reason. He leaves off with saying that cause and effect is not a proper way to knowledge. We cannot know that the 8-ball will move after being struck by the q-ball. We cannot see the physical relation between the cause and the effect, therefore we cannot know future things this way.

Kant now tries to prove that we can in fact know what will happen through cause and effect. We go from particular instances to universal knowledge in this form. He goes on to prove this by discussing synthetic judgments a priori. It is the idea of joining together 2 ideas that necessarily belong together. We use out pure intuitions to relate causes and effects. Those pure intuitions are Time and Space. Kant asserts that time and space are concepts within our own minds. They do not exist outside ourselves.

This brings me to my own judgement to be placed upon these men. I decree that Kant has done the finest job of making his case. I mostly say this because we do rely on cause and effect to know things. I know that once the clouds move out of the way, the sun will be shining brighter on me. Also, I have always believed that the idea of time is created within our own minds. I view time the same way that we talking about viewing colors. Does everyone have the same perception of time? I don’t know. I can only know my own perception. (Minutes and seconds weren’t even a thing until trains needed them for timely operation).

So there we have it. Kant is the philosopher to beat all philosophers! Case closed. The end. School’s out. No more class. Bye now.

SWA #2

This one is regarding the differences between Aristotle and Plato and their metaphysics.

Essentially, they believe the opposite of one another. Though Aristotle was a student of Plato’s, he disagreed with Plato’s basis of which everything exists. Plato says that the only real things are the “Forms”. Meaning the essence of things, like “The Form of Beauty” or “beauty itself” (Plato, The Republic, pp. 507b), are the building blocks of reality, without which, there would be nothing. If there were no beauty in the world or universe, the form of beauty would still exist. All beautiful things have in common the form or essence of beauty. Aristotle, on the other hand, would say there is only the form of beauty because there are beautiful things in the world/universe. If everything considered beautiful were to cease to exist, so would beauty itself.

I would say the key difference between the two philosophies is that Aristotle believes that individuals are the building blocks of reality and the basis of which all things are, whereas Plato believes the building blocks are the “Forms” or ideas that allow the individual to exist.

Personally, I agree the most with Aristotle. I have a very materialistic mind set regarding existence and the basis of reality. If I can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it, then it must be real. I have a hard time believing that beauty or justice would still exist if all things beautiful or just ceased to exist. In front of me, I have this laptop that I am using to record my ideas. Behind this laptop is my dad’s laptop, and my boyfriend is using his laptop. They are all laptops. How do I know that they are all laptops? They are all made if similar material: plastic, metal, electronic parts. They all have a screen attached to a keyboard, all have the same English letters in the same QWERTY style. “Of things themselves some are [said of]* a subject, and are never present in a subject” (Aristotle, Categories, Part 2). My laptop, and these other laptops are considered a type of computer, they relate to the “said of/not present in” category because you cannot have a laptop with the existence of the computer. Take the “computer” out and all I have is plastic and metal and electrical parts all piled together. If all laptops and computers and the like were to suddenly vanish or be destroyed, I’m sorry Plato, but the “essence of computer itself” would no longer exist. If the human race were wiped out, then somehow restarted from scratch, how do we know they would follow the exact same path that we did?

I feel like this ideal flows into my belief in a god or gods. That last question “how do we know?” is what always gets me. I feel something had to have started the process of the universe. You cannot get something from nothing. But whether or not there is eternal salvation or damnation of sorts, how do we know? My personal belief is we cannot know until we experience it for ourselves. I suppose then I feel knowledge is essentially a posteriori (at least in regards to God and religious stuffs).

I understand I got slightly derailed right there, however the last class we talked about these things and they always fascinate me.

So there you have it. Aristotle > Plato.

*Aristotle uses the term “predicable of”, however I don’t like big fancy words, and I understand “said of” better so I’m using it.

SWA#1

I believe that an introduction to philosophy course should be required. It broadens the students’ horizons and develops the necessary critical thinking skills that drive us toward more successful lives. Not only that, but it also has lead to the advancements of knowledge and societies in the past. Without philosophy, we would not have many of our modern sciences. Mathematics, psychology, astronomy: they all started as a form of philosophy. Only when we get a definite, irrefutable answer to our philosophical questions do we create a new science. Therefore, in order to advance our knowledge as a society we must ponder the questions brought forth by philosophical minds. Now, that’s not to say that we should only ponder things we feel may be answered. Every question is worth exploring, no matter the chances of answers. My favorite quote from the two readings was one from Plato’s The Apology. Socrates is speaking to the court about his reasoning for examining the citizens, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato, The Apology, 38). It is so simple, yet so profound. Why go through life ignorant of yourself and your surroundings? Without the critical thinking skills and expansion of our way of thinking, we cannot hope to develop as a society. Furthermore, the skills we learn in philosophy, and the questions we bring up, can be applied in other courses during a student’s academic career. I am taking a Sociology class along side this one that is examining deviant behavior. I have found many of the philosophical terms and ideals carrying over into this class. I feel that phrase “Ignorance is bliss” is very misleading. The word “bliss” makes it sound so happy. But where do you get joy from not knowing? Maybe it’s just me, but I think if I were not allowed or able to question things or learn things, I wouldn’t be too happy. I correlate the word ignorance with, really, idiotic or not having any knowledge of anything. I, personally, get a sense of wonder at the contemplation of life, the universe, and everything (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy reference). I often find myself sitting and trying to imagine what nothing looks like. By that I mean “nothingness”. The absence of anything, light, matter, sound, color. I find that I cannot really know what nothingness is like because I have never experienced it. Maybe, in that sense, we can’t really “know” anything without having experienced it for our selves….. A posteriori for the win!!! So, in summary I suppose, philosophy should be required for any and all higher education degrees. Without it, how do we know that we know what we know, you know?

Intro to Philosophy

Hi stalkers! I’m back!

I am now making what I hope will be my final attempt to reenter the world of higher education. I am taking a philosophy class that is requiring my to do a few short writing assignments. Our instructor gave us the option to post them via blog.

Seeing as I having been on here in too long and I am most comfortable writing in the form, I accepted that challenge!!!

So you will be seeing some smarty-pants philosophical posts from me a now and then for a while. I hope you enjoy. 🙂

TTYL

PS: The entries will be aptly titled SWA#_ (_ being the number of the assignment)

PPS: That PS was mostly for my instructor.