can a blog “exist” ?

March 30, 2008

on March 29, 2008 at 1:43 am, Jared wrote:

My question is one of the metaphysical nature. How do I know that this blog even exits? If you do answer, please include your qualifications as a metaphysicist.

________________________________________________________________

René Descartes

Thank you for your question, confused as it was. Frankly, none of us here at phi·lo·blog·y know what exactly to make of your question. What would it look like for a blog to “exit”? Such a question takes for granted the attribution to blogs of some level of consciousness, an ontological jump few of us here at phi·lo·blog·y would be willing to make.

However, if the question you meant to ask was “how do I know that this blog exists,” then the answer is a simple one. The philosophical enquiry into existence reaches back to the 17th century with modern philosopher René Descartes’ pronouncement cogito ergo sum, and since the French Descartes would have thought in French, his mind would have translated this from “Je suis un homme très intelligente” which, transliterated into English means “I am a very smart man.” Descartes’ smartness led him to develop a deductive syllogism with the flawless argument that if a person thinks, then a person is (i.e. exists).

But I can already hear you ask, “That’s fine for me, but what about blogs?” The solution is to first ask yourself “Do I exist?” Go ahead, ask yourself. Done? Good. Now, in order to ask yourself this, you had to first think it in your mind, and the fact that you thunk it proves that you exist. Moreover, your existence proves in turn the existence of “the other” (this is the philosophical term for “blog”) via rational self-positing. According to 18th century German philosopher Johann Gottlieb Fichte, rational self-positing entails differentiation: one can only know oneself if one can achieve differentiation between self and other. In short, you exist, hence blogs exist.

P.S. The Philoblogger thinks of himself more as a metaphysician than a metaphysicist, enthralled as he is by the soul-healing power of metaphysics. To be a metaphysician is to categorically evade rigid credentialism in favour of references from satisfied metapatients.


is philology philoblogy?

March 29, 2008

on March 29, 2008 at 1:43 am, Jared wrote:

I now understand what philoblogy is, but what is philology?

________________________________________________________________

phi·lol·o·gy [n.]
1. the love of words (archaic)
2. a primitive form of pre-modern scholarly study fetishizing phonetic language and logocentrism, now replaced by Jacques Derrida’s anti-metaphysical grammatology.

Jacques Derrida

Philology must never be confused with Philoblogy.  While some philologists have claimed to carry the (figurative) weight of the world on their shoulders by saving ‘meaning’ as inherent in human language through Pilates-style theoretical maneuvering, philobloggers have never claimed anything more significant than their right to wage Warcraft.  The philologist is to the philoblogger as the fine-dining gourmand is to the all-you-can-eat buffet frequenter.  Whereas the philologist savours words, the philoblogger spews clichés.

But in today’s cyber-age, quantity is the name of the game, and philology is a distant relic of the past.  There are now very few philologists still in existence after the grammatologists nearly wiped them out in the frenetic Philosophical Genocide of the 1960s.  The result of this mighty struggle revealed the grammatologists as having utterly obliterated the Sisyphean weight that the philologists unwaveringly endured upon their shoulders, proving without a doubt that it never actually existed in the first place.  Since then, one occasionally stumbles across a philologist in the back room of the library’s reference section or doing stenography for C-SPAN, but their numbers are ever dwindling.


the embodiment of onomatopoeia

March 28, 2008

on March 28, 2008 at 5:51 pm, Wes wrote:

Could you perhaps explain the how one could embody onimonipia?

thank you.

________________________________________________________________

No, thank you. Recently, we here at phi·lo·blog·y have received numerous requests (such as the one included above) from our dedicated E-patrons concerning the embodiment of onomatopoeia (“eia” to be pronounced “ayah” as in “Yayah!” or “playa”). But before we launch into such philosophical acrobatics, let’s define our terms:

on·o·mat·o·poe·ia [n.]
1. a poetic device wherein the phonetic signifier mimics the signified (archaic)
2. a way of life

Batman

Onomatopoeia first came into regular use through the 1960s action-adventure T.V. series Batman, starring Adam West as Batman/Bruce Wayne, in which it’s viewership was regularly served with (or subjected to) a plethora of poorly choreographed fight scenes against villains such as the Joker, the Penguin, the Riddler, and Catwoman. In order to compensate for Mr. West’s absurd lack of flexibility, editors chose to insert insert still-screens containing a single word in large, exclamatory font indicating the degree of force to which Batman was pummeling his adversaries. For example, as actor West feebly attempted to deliver Batman’s mighty right-hook to the Joker, at the precise moment of impact the word “Pow!” “Zok!” or “Whamm!” would briefly appear on the T.V. screen. Thus, popular onomatopoeia was born.

Such representations of onomatopoeia, while initially amusing, are soon seen as silly and jejune. But this is not the only way that one may conceive of onomatopoeia.

As defined above, onomatopoeia is a way of life, a philosophy to be embodied in and through one’s everyday thoughts and actions. Embodying onomatopoeia is no easy task. Here are a few steps that you can take to practice (and, like any other practice – medicine, for example – it takes a life-long dedication) the embodiment of onomatopoeia:

  1. Let your actions always perfectly fit your thoughts. For instance, if you are mad at your friend Bob, you should not calmly explain to him, “Bob, I’m angry with you.” Instead, let your anger genuinely flow through your words and actions. Begin with “You suck, Bob!” and even follow-up with a kick or two to the groin if it will further unify the relationship between your thoughts and actions.
  2. Always express your actions verbally, wherever you are. [beginner] When walking into a building, say, “I’m walking into a building right now.” [intermediate] When chewing on a sumptuous spoonful of Count Chocula cereal, remark, “I am currently enjoying a delectable mouthful of synthetically-enriched oats and freeze-dried flavored lard.” [advanced] When delivering a swift kick to Bob’s groin, proclaim, “I am severely injuring Bob’s groin right now.”

There are many other steps on the satisfying road towards the embodiment of onomatopoeia, but these two should be enough to keep the beginner occupied for well over 1 or 2 years, as it takes some time for them to feel natural and for the embodier to come to terms with the social estrangement that may ensue.


Welcome

March 26, 2008

to phi·lo·blog·y, an interactive weblog dedicated to the wonderful world of blogging. As you will shortly notice, this blog can at times be quite complex terminologically and conceptually, so we suggest you begin by clicking the link above entitled “what is philoblogy?” to familiarize yourself with some of its fundamental axioms that will be essential in guiding you through the intricate web that is philoblogy.