Bourgeoisie Whore & Proletariat Scum

A playlist of songs named after your favourite page stabbers, a.k.a. authors. 

Modest Mouse - Bukowski

Ryan Adams - Sylvia Plath

Annie Quick - Hemingway

Over Atlas - Kafka

[James Joyce Interlude]

Born Ruffians - Kurt Vonnegut

Freedom or Death - Virginia Woolf

Gary Burton - Robert Frost

[Cake - Open Book]

I do not particularly like swimming, although as far as summer activities go, it seems that I must involve myself somewhere near or around swimming activities in order to do “the social things”. As such, this is probably the first year in a long time I’ve had to look for… swimwear. I remember being mortified in high school the day swimming started for P.E., not only because of my distaste for my own squishy body, but my general inability to swim well.

However, it is now socially appropriate for me to sit on the edge of the pool or on the beach, under an umbrella, whilst defiantly reading Jules Verne’s Twenty-Thousand Leagues Under The Sea(s) while staying completely dry.

That’s right: I defy you, water. 

The quest for what to “swim” in grows out of the fact that I’ve lost too much weight to fit into my adolescent tankini of the past. And so, I bring to fron the treatise on swimwear aesthetics.

“Hot Philosophers, we have problems too, we’re just like you, except we directly contemplate the rationality by which we deem something aesthetically pleasing.”*

I need the perfect form of a cute swimsuit.**

If Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten were to choose an appropriately cute swimsuit for me this season, he would surely note that I must seek a perfect science of the senses – it can’t be itchy or that weird shade of purple – and that it must exude the ideal of being the younger sister of logic. The totally hot younger sister of logic.

If Immanuel Kant was choosing my swimkini, he would certainly require me to bring a group of my closest associates with me for the process of choosing said wear, for it is only through the similar human truth of “girl, that makes your butt look funny” that I shall know which way to turn. He might also note that as beauty cannot be reduced to a more basic knowledge, I should get one with a nice print and not just a one-tone  fabric.

For Arthur Schopenhauer, he would strictly tell me to “fuck functionability” or politically correct attire and go for something that, though may be butt-wedging and bad for actually swimming in, lets my boobs be as free as the most pure intellect to bounce as they please. He shall tell me to fight the suffering of the summer sun with drop-dead sexy.

*But Salvador Dali would probably tell me that my thighs and stomach look like a rhinoceros dancing, and so it would be best for me to stay inside and paint wobbly clocks all day. 

** Karl Marx would remind me that I do not have the means in my current state to acquire any swimsuit that is not the direct production of my own labour. I would then go back to eating Mr. Noodles, orange juice, and crackers for dinner while the bourgeois have their pool fun.  

On a summer-related note, a reminder of one of the most tolerable musicals we cannot seem to get out of our heads. 

You charming, eloquent… neurotic… bastards. I need to watch a Woody Allen movie.

It is not a rare thing for me to become enthralled with the prose of a writer, particularly if the themes within the work are psychologically realistic, philosophically bound or paradoxically archetypal in nature (one need only look to my love of Russian literature for this). It is no surprise then that after encountering Jorge Luis Borges in my comparative literature class that I found myself reading through several of his short stories. Borges, as a writer does not offer much to a modern reader in that the elements of his tales have permeated the literary developments of the past few decades. The tropes that he uses, specifically that of the questioning of reality are found everywhere: from The Matrix to TRON to Philip K. Dick.

On the contrary to this familiarity is that this does not make the short stories any less pleasurable to read. While reading I found myself often in awe of the craftsmanship that the prose held within it; a sense of the finely honed skill in coercing the reader into a state of passive acceptance only to sunder it all in the final revelations. The sensation in the final words is that of two air planes colliding in mid-air over a suburban 1954 community as debris is forced down by gravity: what was once a marvel of technology capable of lifting man to great heights is now smoldering, what was once coherent and logical is now chaos and shock. It leaves the reader with an inevitable sense of awe, despite the dismantling of the entire premise of the last ten or twelve pages. It is these moments which make Borges much like the science fiction version of Edgar Allan Poe: his parlor trick is making you feel comfortable or safe in the reality he has displayed for you, only to bring about a revelation which invokes the uncanny. In Poe, it is the unreliable narrator and the trust we have in him or her that is violated by the esoteric and the damned – The Imp of the Perverse beginning as an academic essay only to become the thoughts of an established murderer – The Raven’s boiling tension as the narrator treads farther and farther down the psychologically deranged rabbit hole from his comfortable study. It is in this light that Borges is timeless, much like Poe – he is the origin point, the event horizon in which all those other narratives fall into and are drawn towards.

A Link To A Copy of A PDF Of A Ton Of Borges

I recommend reading: The Library of Babel, The Immortal, The Garden of Forking Paths, The Circular Ruins, Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius – those are the ones I’ve read a few times over, however, I am still not 100% through the entire book so I will update this list as I read.

Enjoy.

As far as movies that are excellent at making the viewer sob inside go, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was divine. Given that I had already read it and not experienced the same quantity of sadness by the end of said text, the movie was either an improvement in emotion or an apt visual portrayal of Safran Foer’s work. As always, I felt a connection with this author’s main character, but also as if the character was able to give me a critique of myself and other like minded individuals to see (and face) our flaws that, although very cinematic, do not pan out so well in the real world.

This brought me to a more general conclusion: when faced with works that I consider “true to the human condition”, whatever that may be, I am filled with a certain type of sadness. And yet, as I acknowledge that I love the piece (be it movie, novel, nature, activity or relationship) and particularly dislike the byproduct (feeling some unhappiness), I cannot a) figure out how to separate the two, or b) figure out why I continually seek these sorts of experiences.

As such, I often get the notion that when I perceive something as extraordinarily pleasing, it must by nature always come with a morbid grey lining. Perhaps in some occasions it is only because I may be reminded that even the best of novels, or the best of people, is ephemeral. Why should I not simply enjoy these things while they are livid instead of dreading the fact that they must one day cease? What could be brushed off as realism is likely a deeply rooted pessimism.

Nevertheless, lately I’ve actually been getting paid for this pessimism, so I’ll continue to squabble in point form.

• If you have ever needed to make a lamp from an orange using simple tools and a limited span of time, which I highly doubt, then you should look no further. 
• If, on the other hand, you have no  taste for oranges or quick lantern devices and are in the mood for the Philosophical Misadventures of one bright New Zealand Philosophy professor, you are only a click away from gratification. 
• But still, you search for a simpler form of calm and peace, and this is quite alright, for we as the human species have found a way to bottle the sound of rain and pair it with random samples of melodies. 

Today, March 31st 2012, we once again experience the phenomena that is Earth Hour. What began in 2007 as a show of climate change action by a motivated cluster of Australian WWF supporters has now spread to more than 100 countries across the globe. Earth Hour may be no more than a symbol of hope to some, but many seek to inspire long lasting climate recognition and commitment – to kickstart a global community dedicated to a sustainable life.

Learn how to get involved in Earth Hour, and give a fraction of tonight to this unique and positive opportunity.

A continuous flow of energy from the sun heats the Earth. Naturally occurring gases in the atmosphere, known as greenhouse gases, trap this heat like a blanket, keeping the Earth at an average of 15 degrees Celsius – warm enough to sustain life. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most significant of these gases. The amount of naturally produced CO2 is almost perfectly balanced by the amount naturally removed through photosynthesis and its dissolution in oceans. However, the overuse of fossil fuels is leading to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, trapping more and more heat and warming the Earth.

As a result, we’re seeing more dramatic weather patterns across the globe. 
The effects of Earth’s changing weather not only causes devastating natural disasters but shrinking of the world’s ice shelves and glaciers due to warming sea water. Because ice acts as a solar reflector, the less ice there is, the less heat the Earth reflects.

If you don’t believe that the weather shift has been occurring, explain the +One Billion dollars of damage that have been caused in the last year by climate alone. Explain why yesterday, near the end of March, I witnessed a snowstorm when the average for this time of year is blustery warm spring. Tell those who will soon experience major droughts – that could end lives – that you simply do not believe anything has changed. 

Something that you can do right now to reduce your addition to climate change is to go vegan [find out here, here, and here]. Animal agriculture is, hands down, the number one contributor to environmental pollution and decay, especially in the form of CO2. Some omnivores like to scoff, “but we eat the cows that produce the methane – we’re fighting climate change, not causing it!”. The truth of the matter is that these cattle are raised in order to become food. Billions are bred each year for slaughter and for dairy. When the demand for cattle in the food industry declines, so does the number of cattle bred – meaning a lower CO2 emission originating from this source.

Even though I myself am not contributing directly to the number one cause of carbon emissions, I still feel as if I partake in this listless and unmotivated attitude of my fellow individuals. In order to spark an understanding of how the current generation is dealing with the mass of issues that seem to unload onto the world each day, such as climate change, check out ReGENERATION: A documentary film, narrated by Ryan Gosling, written/dir. by Phillip Montgomery, about the culture of apathy,

Featuring the wonderful Noam Chomsky.

(P.S. If you plan to have a party this year for Earth Hour, check out my EarthDrinks post from last year’s events. Stock up on some good smelling candles, plan something great, and get others involved!)

Today started off rather terribly, I must say. I felt like I was going to vomit, and I looked like a hipster trying to don the nautical look – but when one feels as if chunks of nothingness are going to spew from their face, you do not really have the time to be picky about which cultural fad you resemble.

In Food…

My dinner has consisted of tomato instant noodle bowls and orange juice for the last few days, throw in a quick vegan pizza this week.  However, as I never got to go on an “Irish food craze” during St. Patrick’s Day due to essays galore, I’ll be trying out these Vegan Irish Cream Blondies sometime over the weekend, hopefully. What drew them to me first was Proletariat Scum mistaking them for cheesecake. Sometimes I think he must have a food filter in his brain which selectively views cheesecake at all times. And ice cream cake. And carrot cupcakes. Generally imagine a cake augment a la Deus Ex. 

Green Energy Needs You…

A recent article over at Climate&Capitalism explains that though green energy could possibly overgrow the size of the fossil fuel industry, which looks like a big success for environmentalists… simply put, and many may have already guessed, green energy like wind and solar isn’t currently replacing fossil fuels, it’s simply additive – we’re introducing these new and innovative means of energy without phasing out the old ones. Imagine the world’s energy sources as a rich white girl’s shoe closet: sure, she may have bought a number of ‘rice paper keds’ that donate 50% of the proceeds to starving children, but her alligator skin unpaid labor pumps shipped halfway across the globe are still lurking behind that Christmas present you gave her three years ago (which she’s never opened). The question stands: how do we cure ourselves of our whory hoarding habits? The article suggests that there is a great need for political and social action.

Score One For Coffee, But…

The new “Life Altering Mobile Espresso” – so talking on the phone impairs your driving, as does driving while tired, but apparently making an espresso gets an O.K. for cars. Pause for a second to realize: the market for this product is those who are ‘too busy’ to take a moment to brew the fastest form of coffee available aside from instant. Making espresso takes less than 5 minutes at home. But today’s society needs it faster. 

“Just plug the espresso machine into the 12V cigarette lighter, add water and a E.S.E. coffee pod of your choice. Then press the button, wait for the 3 beeps and the espresso is ready!”

The upside? Well, at least you won’t have to drive while impaired by sleepiness. And it’s “classy as fuck”, as described by TheDailyWhat (I’ll admit, I was too excited).  So what could be the downside?

Instant brewers like Keurig and Tassimo, and this new god-like creation, all use “pods” or “cups” are not: recyclable, compostable, and compared to just brewing coffee, you’d be doing a huge disservice to the Earth. Just one brew a day from the thousands who use these devices could, and will, be a major component of a landfill near you.

Today in Disappointing Racist Literary News…

State officials cited the book as containing “critical race theory,” a violation under a provision that prohibits lessons “promoting racial resentment.”

Arizona is up to whatever fuckery they’ve been promoting once again – this time, it’s banning seemingly harmless novels from schools on the basis that some of the characters – shocker – just aren’t fully white. Regardless of whether or not these novels represent racial struggle or speak of cultural diversity, saying they’re just airing on the “safe” side. There’s nothing safe about racism, Arizona. 

And to end, a Random Fact To Ponder…

Pink light does not exist. A beam of white light is made from all the colours of the spectrum. But, if you’ll take a moment to examine a colour spectrum… pink, magenta, fuchsia and the like are nowhere to be found. As an “extraspectral” colour, pink really isn’t a normal colour at all – it is simply a white light without the colour green.

But, try to convince someone that “pink isn’t a real colour” today. They’ll stare at you as if you’re an alien. Who apparently hates pink.

I will be mainly discussing these three methods of “disobedience” (uprising, protest, demonstration, etc.) in the context of veganism. Too often is the term “militant vegan” applied to those by omnivores (or even vegetarians) who simply do not agree with some of the core beliefs of the vegan movement. I’m going to identify the problems with this label and attempt to clarify them.

There are three main types of disobedience against societal values, the law, companies, and so on. Let’s look at it like this: the civil vegan movement, militant veganism, and revolutionary veganism. The term “revolutionary” may inspire people, and you may have emotional connections to the idea of a “revolution”, but try to disconnect yourselves from that for a moment to examine these definitions.

> A catch all for civil disobedience: It is not permissible to break the law. This position has been taken up by Plato, for example, in his Crito. A civil vegan organizes protests and demos, makes sure they have the legal pass to be there, and generally will need consent before they continue to express their message. There is nothing particularly law-breaking about informing people on animal cruelty, and so even the “pushy” vegan who expresses their views without obstruction of your rights is a civil vegan, not a militant one. Someone who holds you against your will, detains or obstructs you (like physically stopping you on the street despite your distress) does not fit under the “civil” label. A civil vegan asks first, but is completely allowed to stand their ground when being attacked, verbally or physically. When they have the OK (legal permission), they are allowed to stand on a corner and hold a sign, they are allowed to shout their message even. Violence is not allowed.

The goal of civil veganism is to eliminate an unjust law or practice. They do so by mainly educating and persuading. This is what I believe most vegans do already through civil protest.

> A catch all for militant disobedience: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with breaking the law. This position has been held by anarchists, but also by Thoreau and by Martin Luther King, Jr. The militant vegan must see if their adherence to the law brings more positives than negatives, but the law is generally irrelevant. If there is some moral or visibly practical good with obstructing an individual, with violent protests or illegal movement, then the militant vegan will do so. A militant vegan move does not always have to be violent, though: look at the flour-bombing of Kim Kardashian as a “fur hag”. We can identify this as illegal mainly because the woman most likely intruded on a private event, not because there is anything illegal about covering someone with flour. It was, however, against K.K.’s consent. Militant does not mean violent, but it does uphold a movement above the “desires” or “preferences” of those who are harming the movement – in this case, a militant vegan does not care whether or not they upset the omnivore, so long as the message is conveyed to the individual. This is often involving symbolism, because although a flour-bombing, graffiti-mark, or pie in the face does not achieve anything directly for their cause, it gets the eye of the media and of citizens.

The goal of militant veganism is actually similar to civil veganism: to eliminate an unjust law or practice. However, the “method” is by preventing an individual or group from behaving in this ‘unjust’ way. For example, a militant vegan would stop someone from buying a fur coat through more intrusive means, but not necessarily through violent means – forming a chain in front of a store or an area is not violent.

In my personal experience, there are many civil vegans who are mistaken for militant vegans – I’ve never done anything intrusive and symbolic, nothing violent, and generally haven’t broken many laws in order to get a message out.

You should not use the word “militant” just because you don’t agree with someone or don’t understand what they’re talking about. It’s not a meaningless term – to put it in terms of a familiar phrase: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

> Revolutionary summary: Even just laws may be disobeyed in order to achieve a goal.Revolutions are often associated with violence, but it is not always so – take Gandhi for example. However, a revolutionary vegan always needs utmost justification to break a just law. Why revolutionary veganism is similar to militant veganism: Laws may be broken if they are justified in doing so. Where they differ: a militant vegan will not break a just law. Some people who are mistaken for militant vegans are indeed revolutionary vegans.

Personal note: I do not often agree with breaking a just law, but I can imagine scenarios where many people would agree it could be necessary. We shall leave this for now, questions and comments welcome.

The goal of revolutionary veganism is different from the former examples of disobedience: to destroy or obstruct (or more positively, change) the very structure which allows for these unjust laws or actions to exist. +: It’s much more direct and does not allow for unjust actions to slip through the bars or be painted in a “light” view (a revolutionary vegan does not advocate “humane” meat, or “welfare” actions, ever – doing so co-opts the revolutionary’s ideals). -: It is a long-term plan which is very hard to achieve without support, and as shown by current revolutionary movements, may break down into a number of non-united movements. The revolutionary vegan, unlike some other revolutionaries, has a clear goal (more so in my opinion).

Some things to ponder about whether or not violence or obtrusion has any place in veganism, both in specific cases and on a whole:

- To what extent are the goals of advocates shared by the community?
- How likely is it that violent disobedience is better able to bring about change than (non-violent or less) alternatives?
- To what extent will disobedience have negative consequences?
- To what extent will disobedience have positive consequences?

- Ok Go always breaks your favourite toys. 

- Robotic killing machines are apparently “humane” alternatives.

- In other news, lazer spewing deathbots now appropriate for child care positions.

- Venice is sinking. 

- Blunt news is good.

- People in Hungary burn money to fuel a furnace. 

- Not clarifying that this money is out of circulation now makes you imagine Hungarians as moustache twirling billionaires.

- I’m still not reading the Hunger Games.

Ivan the Terrible was the Tsar of Russia for most of the 16th Century. In I think 1581, he caught his daughter-in-law wearing ‘immodest clothing in front of everyone’ and struck her. She was apparently pregnant and she may or may not have had a miscarriage because of it.

Ivan’s son and the girl’s husband, also named Ivan after his father, hears about it and gets into a really heated argument with his father that ends with Ivan the Terrible taking a swing at his son with his pointed staff. It’s said that he immediately fell down and kissed his son’s face, pressing his hands against his left temple to try to stop the bleeding. He famously screamed “May I be damned! I’ve killed my son! I’ve killed my son!” His son briefly regained consciousness and his last words were “I die as a devoted son and most humble servant.”

Ivan the Terrible and his Son Ivan, 1885

Okay, so not the worst.

I am stuck in a loop. I remind myself to blog here more often, I go online, I waste time on other sites, and then I get off the internet and think “Why don’t I blog more often?”. Repeat. Lather, rinse. So now it is time to party like it’s New Years Eve again and make a resolution, and no, it will not be “cut back on the vegan corn dogs”. As necessary as that resolution is, it can wait until 2013.

And if you’ve been around since the beginning, you know how often I feebly make this same resolution every.. oh, month or so.

So, what’s new?

- I have a FAQ now, mostly to do with the questions I’ve answered elsewhere on veganism and philosophy. It’s incomplete, but I’m slowly adding to it.

- I write books now. Books are cool (you probably already knew this).

- You can now get your personal writing analyzed by the ATOS book level, basically meaning “how pedantic is your vocabulary” is now a rating to be proud of.

- World Water Day just passed, if you didn’t know – Previous Water Days focused on “Water For Cities” and “Women and Water”. This year’s focus was about “eating lower on the food chain”. A.K.A? Going vegan.

- In relevant news, I follow and blab about Discovery Earth News a lot lately.

- Tea Tree Oil Facial Scrubs are divine.

- Hibernating Bears Have Mutant Healing. 

- I found it unreasonably hard to stick to a raw diet because a) I’m lazy and b) someone keeps eating my bags of salad. Maybe once summer comes and my income goes up, I can start trying again. Although I also think it may have to do with the fact that I’d never really want to tell anyone I was a raw vegan. I’m vegan for environmental and ethical reasons, and being raw is solely a health reason – it makes me feel sort of indulgent.

- If you plan on time travelling any time soon, keep this in your pocket. 

I’m very nervous to show my work to others, which is will probably become a greater flaw as I continue writing. However, I thought it would be best to post a snippet of my currently unnamed fiction work here that I’ve just begun to tinker away with again. It sat back-burner to my non-fiction work, which seems to be heading in a decent direction, so long as I keep a steady pace.

Unnamed Work, First half of Chapter I.

[Written by BW, though luckily it is not good enough for anyone to steal it as their own words]

Arbitrary, ancient, melancholy: the phrases which could not be divided or removed from his sleep deprived mind as Arthur’s glance drifted towards the stony innards of the West Alchester Hall. If anyone could possibly imagine a gray slab more morose than these walls, or conjure a pattern more disappointing than found on this opulent but damp checkered carpet… it simply could not be done, especially at such an early time in the morning. It seemed agreeable, as it had on most early days that spat heavy rains onto the minuscule people among him in the world, that a negative demeanour was appropriate for the weather. Not simply appropriate – it was his duty as the sole, insignificant speck of a human being to cower in pathetic moodiness at the hands and whims of nature. Professors, he rationed, were supposed to have some sort of quirk or edge to them in order to make the lectures more tolerable – he thought back to his first days as a timid student at Banestrom University, recalling fondly the enthusiasm of one English professor towards the ‘subtle and enthralling socio-sexual imagery’ in a poem which he could not find the time to care less about. The early, more courtly English was not his strong suit. In any case, his personal quirk would have to be somewhere between lust for knowledge and sarcastically mocking the pseudo-intellectual elite. Which would, in the eyes of his students, make he himself the (at least partially pseudo-) thing he mocked.

~

Dripping tree branches rustled under the murky  gray skies, stretched apart by singular rays of sunlight. Parking half way across campus was never the best option, but always the laziest. There was also something refreshing about strolling across the quiet asphalt, a wakening of the eyes and ears, but not the heart. The heart rarely woke for work, or little else. A dripping overcoat, and the echoes of the drip method coffee machine made long before the commute – pervasive themes, they exist to the senses as pervasive themes. He knows this. Life, to Arthur J. Barnes, is comprised almost entirely of interwoven thematic devices, and if one merely analyzed these seemingly coincidental occurrences… then and only then could a decent life be lived. Perhaps. No, definitely perhaps. The trust in thematic existence relies partially… fully… mostly on the somewhat undying trust in said existence.

 ~

Maybe it was just time for more coffee. All else – beauty or innocence or craft of the universe – was merely a means of providing the human species with this upmost gem of purpose. Analyzing. If the observation of the surrounding world and its abounding, reproducing, reproducing, reproducing population was not meant to be, if we are not meant to seek the psycho-analytic beauty, he thought… someone should inform Woody Allen that he has made a beautifully grave mistake with his time on Earth.

Arthur believed heavily in his own ramblings of tangent ‘epiphanies’ – as did his students who found allure in more post-modern works. It occurred to him daily that rambling did not mean idleness, it meant mental productivity which would later sort itself out in one’s sleep.

 ~

This focus on the thematic pinnacle of all that ever is, or was, aided in dismissing the small trivialities of the common-place excess of social interactions. His argyle sweater boasted five more pounds of gut, cat hair clung to his black trousers, and the scent of intolerably dark coffee oozed from his fingernails – all, he reminded himself in glum confidence, insignificant, besides the point, meaningless on their own. Their symbolic nature as a representation of his position as a newly crowned English professor, however, clearly outweighed their subsequent lack of composure or professionalism. It is not like the department could fire him for adopting a cat… which then continued to roll in all of his clean laundry for months to come. An astute student would be enriched by his thematic… podginess, his five o-clock shadow, and the various pieces of lint clinging to his shirt. It provided a service, he felt, to the next Bukowski of our age.

 ~

Arthur removed that thought from his mind. As pleasant as it is to re-read Post Office on a Sunday afternoon, our future generations would benefit from never having another man similar to the ‘charm’ that is – was –  Charles B.

As I round off Chad Harbach’s The Art of Fielding, I come to share what I found to be the highlights of the novel. Spoilers ahoy.

It might have sounded silly, but Affenlight loved the way Owen always picked these same two mugs and even, presumably, went so far as to rinse them in the sink when they were dirty. Such consistency suggested, or seemed to suggest, that Owen found their afternoons worth repeating, even down to the smallest detail. This was the dreamy, paradisaical side of domestic ritual: when all the days were possessed of the minutiae precisely  because you wanted them to be.

God, the stuff you filled your head with, no matter how hard you tried. It wasn’t exactly Milton; it wasn’t even Chuck D. Really, he should make them switch the jukebox at Bartleby’s from hip-hop to poetry. Then you could drop in your dollar, punch up 10-08, “When I have fears that I may cease to be,” and soak up some Keats while you drank your beer.

“Thoreau’s journals”, Owen said. ” ‘When a philosopher wants high ceilings, he goes outside’. He doesn’t buy an oversize house that requires massive amounts of dwindling resources to heat in the winter…”

After feeling absolutely, downright saddened by the death of a character – perhaps for the first time legitimately – I picked up Ernest Hemingway’s A Moveable Feast. 

After writing a story I was always empty and both sad and happy, as though I had made love, and I was sure this was a very good story although I would not know truly how good until I read it over the next day.

I would stand and look out over the roofs of Paris and think, “Do not worry. You have always written before and you will write now. All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know.”

I’ve also gotten into the habit of creating small, simple text images for these silly things.

No subject is terrible if the story is true, if the prose is clean and honest, and if it affirms courage and grace under pressure.

- Hemingway 

The effects of aquatic agriculture take their toll most notably as the number one producer of the total BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) emissions, which inhibits the ability for a biologically diverse environment[1]. When paired with the simple yet common act of overfishing (defined as “to fish a body of water to such a degree as to upset the ecological balance or cause depletion of living creatures”[2]) the conduct of a fisherman who continues to fish appears to be of great concern. The normative ethical position of Deontology may lend a method by which one can discern the proper means of addressing the question at hand: Under what conditions is it ethically irresponsible for the fisherman to continue fishing? According to Kantian views regarding deontology, we can approach the issue in a number of ways using the significant formulations of the categorical imperative. Using primarily the first formulation of the categorical imperative, and to a lesser degree the third, we derive a clear rationale as to why the fisherman is found to be acting unethically.

Kant asserts for the first formulation of his categorical imperative that an individual should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction”. To simplify his statement, one can ask themselves what would happen if everyone were to adopt the same action. Obviously, there are some actions which cannot be made a universal maxim. For instance, if everyone were to murder, the human race may cease to exist; if everyone were to cheat on their significant other, then the concept of closed (monogamous) marital relationships would be frivolous. So, if the fisherman were to make his actions a universal law, if everyone were to begin fishing to the same degree, we would quickly arrive at a point in which not only would the ocean’s population of commonly consumed fish be entirely decimated, but the diverse aquatic ecosystem would be irrevocably damaged. This would, in turn, affect land mammals in the wild which subsist off of fish and force a collapse of numerous niches in our ecosystem. Even if only half of the human population were to make this action their own, we could easily imagine facing similar consequences.

Kant might say that we have an imperfect duty, rather than a perfect duty, to act with the best interests of the human species in mind (a longer examination of imperfect and perfect duties in Kant’s evaluation should be consumed by the reader in order to get a fuller understanding of the matter). Since we can constantly act with this maxim in mind, it will apply to more than just the fisherman’s decision to continue fishing – he might also have to consider the lack of sustainability in his career as a fisherman overall. He can ask himself whether or not there is a better practice for which he can apply his skills, one that reduces his impact not only on human kind as a sole beneficiary but also to his surrounding environment. Keeping in mind that his actions towards reducing his environmental impact are, in a way, a duty towards mankind – if all were to act as if it was their maxim to reduce their impact and conduct themselves sustainably, then the threat of environmental decay could in the very least be abetted for many generations to come. As we see here, we do not only have an imperfect duty to humankind at the present moment, but also to the future of humankind. The second formulation for the categorical imperative does not by itself appear to be applicable to an environmental concern, but when we address the situation in relation to the successors of the human species as shown above, then we can properly argue that to deplete our ecosystem is to act in disregard to humans as an end in themselves. The fisherman is paid for his services by other human beings, and thus he is using their wealth as the means to cause their home harm (although it is not his main goal), seeing as the word ‘ecology’ is derived from a combination of “home” and “the study of”. If the fisherman is to place his own profit over the well-being of the rest of mankind, than his actions come in direct contradiction with the second formulation.

If the fisherman were to live in ‘a kingdom of ends’ as Kant’s third and final formulation of the categorical imperative states, then his actions could be seen as merely detrimental rather than possibly harmful but ‘necessary’. The fisherman can claim that he only continues to fish because he needs to support his family, and that everyone should have the ability to support their own family. In this possible kingdom of ends, every individual within his community has aided in the depletion of the oceans. They would have put all of their profits into creating a fishing industry, and would rely heavily on the output of this industry. Eventually, there would come a time when the biodiversity and livelihood of this ecosystem dies out due to overfishing, leaving the community with a profitless industry and with little means to sustainably secure their survival. Rather than seeing his actions as a means to provide for his family, we now see it as a means of endangering not only his kin but his whole community (and the independent lives of the aquatic creatures as well). There are few scenarios that can be reasonably created where the fisherman has no other option than to fish – chances are his community has a moderate or even thriving production of vegetation nearby, sheltered from the harsh coastal conditions (high tides and drenching, strong winds, unstable lands for growth containing mainly rocks and sand). The fisherman with numerous other ways to support his family is thus choosing on personal whim the method in which he uses to support his family, rather than being forced into a situation. Since he is able to choose otherwise, but does not, he has full culpability for his actions.

Although it is not exclusive to a deontological analysis of the fisherman’s actions to find the situation unethical (we would likely find equal reasoning from the view of utilitarianism or virtue ethics), this particular lens of philosophy allows us to cover more than just the immediate outcome of his circumstance. The first formulation of the categorical imperative becomes the defining essence of the argument, which shows us that if the fisherman were to make his maxim a universal law, we would face immediate problems – whereas if he is to deny others the ability to deplete the oceans, he creates a standard of inequality. This allows the basis by which the second and third formulation can cover more specific dilemmas of the argument, such as how his harm towards the environment eventually affects (or will soon affect) humankind negatively, and how even if he were to be acting immorally for respectable reasons (supporting his family) he is still found to be causing unnecessary harm. The second facet of the argument especially highlights how caring for the well-being can extend far beyond believing that nature has an ‘intrinsic value’ and explores the notion that reducing our impact on our natural surroundings holds importance as an ends for the happiness of humanity.

Started reading The Art of Fielding today, a novel by emerging author Chad Harbach. I was mainly prompted to read it by two authors which I’ve been enjoying as of late – Jonathan Franzen and John Green. Franzen’s review is the only one featured on the front cover of this copy so I’m guessing they know how influential a note from him can be. I eagerly breezed through two Franzen novels in the last year or two, and The Art of Fielding is turning out to be just as intriguing and promising, though extremely similar in form to that of The Corrections.

And then there’s Green, who encouraged the viewers of his vlog to check the book out, giving it some extra (rather enthusiastic) praise.

Can’t say I’m a big fan of the sports theme interloping with the social complexities, but that’s just my personal bias as an anti-sports fan. I do find a few of the characters to be a little strangely helter-skelter in their personalities, though at the same time it makes them more natural. It’s a good shot at realism, and realism rarely feels real in books anyway. We’ve been in the mood for ages to take the stylized world of the page and see it as how life should be, instead of the other way around.

I’ve yet to even breach more than a chapter or two of The Fault in Our Stars, even though I desperately want to (it’s not currently in my possession at the moment, ProleScummy owns it), but I’ll have to get through this, as well as a Philip Roth I picked up in Toronto over the break (Indignation, of course), and this one book I’ve been meaning to read as the internet keeps shoving it in my face (Roadside Picnic). Should be a good start to the year, probably won’t take me more than a month or two, depending on how long I procrastinate.