K is for Knowledge and metaphorical chocolate

And we're back on track! Here's K for Knowledge (which was supposed to go up on 11th December, with L for LolKants as today's post, oops). Despite all the confusion I do feel I have adhered to the reality, if not the principle of advent calendars: y'know, opening the wrong door on the wrong day, forgetting about it for a few days and then gorging on tiny little chocolates. So, enjoy the metaphorical chocolate!

This one doesn't require a huge amount of philosophical knowledge, but for those of you who are interested (hi mum and dad!) you may be interested to know the definitions of the terms in question here. A posteriori is another term for empirical, a posteriori knowledge is that which requires experience to justify it, e.g we know from experience that water boils at 100 degrees centigrade, but only after we've tested our hypotheses. A priori knowledge is knowledge which doesn't require external justification, either because it is innate, or already contained in the terms in question . The famous example is the phrase 'all bachelors are unmarried' which is true by definition. Maths can also be said to a priori in the same sense (although that is more controversial).

If what Being is saying is true though, we have a problem, most famously elucidated by David Hume:  it seems that facts can either be a priori, known beforehand and somehow necessary, (what Hume calls 'relations of ideas'), or empirical a posteriori facts known in experience ('matters of fact'). The problem is that there's no a priori reason why empirical facts should be related, or should continue to be related. We might find the next time that we boil water that there is an unknown variable which alters the boiling point. It is not logically necessary that water boils at 100 degrees C.

Kant of course, tried to bridge this fork by claiming that we also have synthetic a priori knowledge, that our perception (which requires external stimulus) is already internally structured and therefore contains a priori categories (I.e, in order to say that we 'perceive' something we have to presuppose a priori structures of space and time and causality etc). But that's a whole other  kettle of very complicated fish. Let's just look at Tim shaking his booty!

Tomorrow, M is for Marcuse!

Becca x

Being & Tim Advent Calendar!

So, remember when I was talking about plans, rumblings, shadows in the east? Here's the first installment of what I was talking about, a Being & Tim Alphabetical Advent Calender of sorts, charting the highs and lows of philosophy in alphabetical order. (The advent calendar is an idea I got from one of my current favourite comedians, John Finnemore, who did a one-a-day project in a similar vein last year. This year he's mainly writing Cabin Pressure Series 4, which i am happy about ) I think it's probably a very good way to inject some life into my blog while also building up a sense of inordinate excitement and anticipation for the inevitable disappointment that will be Christmas Day. Which is half the fun right?

Anyway, aphorisms, what are they about?! sheesh...
See you tomorrow! Becca x

Introducing....

Here's a sneak peek at a new project I am working on: it's the Founder of Modern Philosophy SOCKRATES! (Made from pipe cleaners, a sock and googley eyes, as you might be able to guess!)

I'm going to make some videos with him, once I've made the set and side-kick (Plate-O obviously), and worked out what he should sound like...any ideas anyone?

Becca xx

Being & Tim's Holiday Snaps: Day 1

I've finally got round to drawing some B&T for my one-a-day-project: this is a picture from Being & Tim's holiday in Greece...

Here is what Wikipedia says about Plato's Cave and what it means:

''Socrates describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are not constitutive of reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners'' 

That is to say: it's not a real cave.

For those of you who are interested, I am still doing my one-a-day drawing project, but have moved it to another blog, cos Being & Tim were getting jealous. You can find it at www.rasdyer.blogspot.com, and I'll update it every couple of days (my new year's resolution said nothing about scanning everyday! But I will do my best)

Another pic from Being & Tim's holiday tomorrow,

becca xx 

Being does not belong to man

Simone Weil says that 'being does not belong to man' on page 33 of Gravity & Grace, the most famous of her works. Wikipedia says:

'It is difficult to speak conclusively of Weil's theology, since it exists only in the form of scattered aphorisms in her notebooks, and in a handful of letters. Neither of these formats provides a very direct path to understanding or evaluating her beliefs<sup>' 


and I'm inclined to believe it, not because it's right but because I'm exhausted by a weekend of gigging and making nettle ale! 
Thanks to Nicole Holgate for the reference, her blog is here, and she does a cool zine entitled 'What Would Nietzsche Do?'
She would say that it's more about zombies than Nietzsche, but I think the important themes are all there: existential angst,
sceptical self-reflexivity, moustaches....

I've also been working on another blog, for my illustration work. It's not going to be half as fun as Being & Tim.

'Til Thursday,

becca xo</sup>

Simone Weil STRIKES again!

Here's ANOTHER joke gleaned from the writings of Simone Weil featuring Nothingness, Being's binary opposite, who you may remember from  here and here. It's funny cos they're binary opposites!

Anyway, as always i'm in a permanent rush. I'll post some news tomorrow, with a little cartoon that my friend Kevin drew of Being and Nothingness (he kinda came up with him, so he deserves some credit!)

'Til tomorrow!

becca xo

Well, you asked for it...

we

So, the votes from the poll are in, and Karl Marx and Simone Weil are the winners! (Although it was a pretty close thing as you can see.) To celebrate here's a Simone Weil 'joke', of which i have no idea about the reference. My friend Stuart is doing his phD on Forgiveness and he sent this joke to me once in a text message. Perhaps if you put a nice comment on the blog he will recall the reference for us. No pressure Stu!

Anyway, Simone Weil, despite being one of my favourite philosophers, doesn't exactly 'brim' with comic potential: in fact she's up there with Adorno as one of the most austere philosophers I've ever read. If you're unfamiliar with her work then check out these quotes for starters. Could be a good 'straight man' though? Custard pie in the face routine perhaps? All ideas on a Stamped Addressed Email to rasdyer@gmail.com please....

However Mark Steel has recently opened my eyes to all the comic potential available from Marx: he sure was a colourful character! So expect lots of cartoons based on this video very soon! (I'm sort of in love with Mark Steel now)

Also, despite my attempt at garnishing your opinion about the direction of Being & Tim, I'm still a Nietzschean and therefore don't really believe in democracy! Should I have mentioned that before hand?!

See you soon suckers!! ;-)

becca xo

another one that needs very little explanation due to its exceptional silliness.... no time to chat i'm afraid, just off to play a gig with another band i is in. I play the glockenspiel!

have a good weekend! becca xo

Sometimes....

I have to be quick today, but here's a little cartoon that I did with Jimmy the ukulele wielding maniac from the other day. It's based on that old quotation often attributed to Sigmund Freud, but no one really knows who first said it, it appears. If you don't get the reference, you're just going to have to ask your mum this time... ;-)

See you Monday,

becca xo

Alvin, Simon and Theodor W. Adorno

i only just realised how long it's been since i put up a post: sorry about that, it's partly cos i've been busy, partly because I've  been doing this cartoon in COLOUR which always takes ages...

The idea of this cartoon began with changing Alvin, Simon and Theodor (the chipmunks) into Alvin, Simon and Fyodor Dostoyevsky: but it ends up working better with neo-Marxist thinker Theodor W.Adorno, not only because he does look a little like a chipmunk, but also because you can change the words of the Chipmunk's classic Alvin's Harmonica to incorporate a reference to Adorno's co-author Max Horkheimer, AND a quotation from Adorno's Minima Moralia!:                 
                                                                   

  'Every visit to the cinema, despite the utmost watchfulness, leaves me dumber and worse than before. Sociability itself is a participant in injustice, insofar as it pretends we can still talk with each other in a frozen world, and the flippant, chummy word contributes to the perpetuation of silence, insofar as the concessions to those being addressed debase the latter once more as speakers.' S. 5             

                                                        Statements like these often do just seem a bit opposed to common-sense, but i think his idea is actually pretty interesting, although my understanding of his work is not very deep. The  general idea seems to be that our language originated under different economic conditions, and the objects it referred to then, no longer exist under the economic conditions of capitalism. Most importantly, when we attempt to identify the 'free subject' described by our language, we cannot point to a real example of such a subject. Capitalism, as an economic totality, already structures our choices, so we cannot make a choice that is totally free. Either we work to pay the rent or we go and live in a squat and risk continual eviction, but we stand in relation to capitalism, not outside it.

The idea that we can't escape a legal or economic system but that we always stand in relation to it is a common one: what is interesting for Adorno is that this is a problem rooted in language. As such, we can't truthfully even describe an alternative: this is why Adorno sees the 'chummy word' as participating in injustice. Our language itself separates us from each other, because it does not really refer to the world we experience, or the person we are attempting to address.

So he would probably hate the chipmunks... oops.

beccaxo

Species Being