English 106: Politics of Writing

I am taller than Tom Cruise and other things to mention

2005-09-08T11:20:00.000-07:00

Notice: Turd Ferguson has sarcasm. Grow up and embrace it you pansy.

When I was told that I could write about anything I wanted to, I was shocked. The "structure of power" had collapsed, and I was blessed with the privilege of blogging. But then I asked myself, "What should I write about?". I thought Nietzsche (Yes, there's an S in there. I would hate for people to spell my last name Ferguon, it sounds too much like a character from a SCI-FI thriller) would be a "fun" topic to talk about.. But, last night God, capital G, came to me in a dream. He said "Ferguson, you are a pansy." I mean, I must admit, I do take two showers a day, but why the harshness? So, I decided to write about stuff pertaining to me at the moment.

1. I am taller than Tom Cruise.
It is true, I am taller than Tom Cruise ( 5'7" - 1.70m) by .01m. Yes, that makes me 1.71m tall and better than Tom Cruise.

2. Mourning a friend.
I lost a friend yesterday who I had known for about five years. I called him "Westy", but many called him "WD800B" or "just a computer hard-drive". We went through good times together, but as we all know, there are no good times. [You were expecting something else?] Funeral arrangements (Trash Pick-up) are being planned. Westy will be irreplaceable to me, until Saturday when the Fedex guy comes.

3. Lil' Kim, not so Lil' anymore.
I actually heard about this very late, so please don't bother "dude, that happened like so long ago dude"-ing me. I mean, if Lil' Kim can go to jail for perjury, then the terrorists have won. What happened to celebrity-status? Like back in the old days where celebrities could kill, cheat, lie, or do anything that want? Lil' Kim, or should I say, Kimmy. Kimmy won't be getting the "magic stick" for a long time.

4. Printing fees, the ten-thousandth rant you've heard so far.
Twenty bucks? That's all I get? I know each page is four cents, but come on, twenty bucks? I'm paying out-of-state tuition and the only cost-cutting measure the great minds at Purdue can find is "Hey, lets charge them for printing stuff!". That's like buying a thirty thousand dollar car and getting a twenty dollar rebate for gas. [And for those who didn't know, you need gas for the car to go anywhere] By the way, I do have a printer, but this is my rant.

Thank you for reading my important rants.

- Turd Ferguson

Nietzche and Heidegger

2005-09-06T19:04:00.000-07:00

Nietzche deconstructs the rudimentary foundations of human society: there is no black or white, there is no right or wrong, there is no truth or falsity. On the contrary, there is black and white, there is right and wrong, there is truth and falsity... those are what we call oxymorons because they go against the structure of where our knowledge lies. It's possible to define something by explaining everything it is not. I can tell you what a steering wheel is by saying it's not a utility pole, a blade of grass, a tube of creamed liver, etc. However, Nietzche went crazy because of his complete lack of foundations. Who wouldn't go crazy by thinking, advocating, and actually living out a philosophy that claims any truth that is actually existing is already forgotten and if it isn't forgotten is only a mere illusion?

Heidegger freaks out about truth as well. He claims that if there exists any truth, it possesses absolutely no value to humanity whatsoever. He is considered to be the father of nihilism--a belief that essentially says stuff does exist, but it holds no value or worth because once it dies, it then becomes nonexistent and thus worthless. Heidegger actually thought that the Nazi movement was the perfect political system ever known to humanity. He died in 1976 still believing the Nazi movement to be the proper direction to go... he actually believed that technology carried its own separate energy independently of all other matter. He believed this energy to be detrimental to humanity if not dealt with accordingly.

Later, Jean-Paul Sartre, the father of existentialism, takes nihilism a step further and COMPLETELY isolates the human individual in a godless, barren, nonexistent world who is "oppressed" with freedom and the ability to choose.

All three of these philosophers were existentialists to a degree but also have an utter lack of hope. It's far too hard to have hope when you feel like all that mankind has worked for has been for nothing, when all that is has no purpose or value, and when nothing exists. If they're saying that truth cannot be known or holds no value, then what makes their own writings a viable source of verity? These philosophers could not even conceive of the notion of truth let alone hope. Truth can be perceived with the eye, hope cannot. Hope that is seen is not hope...

The Modern Euthyphro

2005-08-30T10:08:00.000-07:00

In what ways can the same rudimentary Euthyphro dilemma or argument be seen in today's society? Try scaling the Euthyphro argument to any degree from a vast topic like ethical philosophy down to our mere definitions of words and what comprises language... How does it apply? How does it not apply?