Philosophize about Philosophy

Today I was reading "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" and I was at a particularly good part. The book was discussing all types of revolutionary philosophy and it made me think...I want to be a revolutionary philosophizer. So I was walking to my next class and questioning everything. Why is this that and such and such. Mostly just picking nits.

Then I stumbled across some more remarkable thoughts (at least by my standards) and if not remarkable thoughts then I would say universal truths.

So...here it goes.



Consider a window. It is made with a single purpose in mind, to provide a portal to the outside world: a place to see through or allow air to pass through. But then consider a bricked up window. Why would someone make a window and brick it up?

The frame of the window can still be pleasing to see, even if it is bricked up. But the window is no longer a window, yet it is still called a window. What would you call it otherwise? And what Purpose would the window serve?

The function of the window is irrelevant. Because it is still defined as a window. By coming to that conclusion we can determine that function is irrelevant. Rather it is function that defines usage.

Consider now the bricked window. It is a window, it functions as a window, albeit poorly; as such, its usage, which has been determined by some outside force, is minimal and primarily aesthetic.

Now consider a pine bush. It expends valuable energy to create a vibrant, beautiful berry. At one time that berry may have contained nutrients but now it is a poisonous shell for a seed, useless to all hosts of creatures. Does it not seem frivolous of nature to create a berry that serves little purpose?

The usage of the berry exceeds little more than that of the window, as an aesthetic piece, and as such is defined as a object of useless beauty. Its existence serves no greater purpose, it is purely frivolous. Through these deductions we can determine that usage indeed defines existence.

As an example: Many philosophers state that humans serve no greater purpose than that of reproduction. But what of those humans, who number a substantial percentage, that engage in no reproduction in their life. Would you qualify them as useless? Does not their existence on this earth correlate to their usage. They are not used as machines as reproductions but rather as vessels for other pursuits: arts, sciences, mathematics, philosophy. Their usage is determined thus, they serve for the betterment of mankind. They are used by the qualities of their mind, be it a sex drive or something more academic. Is it not human nature to question or are we to lie in the complacency of our lying.

We can further state that if we go as far to define something we limit its possibilities of boundless existence. Consider a Car. If we go as far to identify a car as a means of transportation, that is al it is. Can not the car exist for other purposes? Can it not serve as an assembly of parts to generate energy? Or as a residency?




whoah.....that sounded better in my head. I had trouble tying together my hierarchy of existence...but you get it yeah?