Johnny Got His Gun

A novel and a screenplay. “Johnny Got His Gun”.

Joe Bonham, a young soldier serving in World War I, awakes in a hospital bed after being hit by a mortar shell. He gradually realizes that he has lost all of his mobility and his senses except for touch — he has lost his arms, legs, eyes, nose, ears, tongue, both jaws and all of his face — but that his mind functions perfectly, leaving him a prisoner in his own body. He tries to die by suffocating himself but he has been given a tracheotomy of which he cannot remove or control.

He attempts to communicate with his doctors by banging his head on his pillow in Morse code. He has two wishes; one is that he may be put in a glass tube and tour the country, to show people the true horrors of war. The other wish, to die is never granted, however, and it is implied that he will live the rest of his natural life in this condition.As he drifts between reality and fantasy, he remembers his old life with his family and girlfriend, and reflects upon the myths and realities of war. He also forms a bond, of sorts, with a young nurse who senses his plight, one that provides some sort of hope of humanistic love.

The phrase "Johnny get your gun" was a rallying call that was commonly used to encourage young American men to enlist in the military in the late 19th and early 20th century and I guess “Johnny Got His Gun”.

A music video of a song written by Metallica based on the novel and containing many clips from the 1971 version of the film:

Agnostic Epistemology

To start of lets break down the words in the title using simple latin. The prefix ‘a’ means “without” while the ‘gnostic’, derived from ‘gnosis’ means "knowledge".

Now with simple logic and simple mathematics, we can deduce by adding the two affixes together that,

‘Agnostic' = Without Knowledge

Therefore the word ‘Agnostic’,as a noun, is a person who denies, doubts, or is uncertain regarding the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study, often to do with God.

‘Knowledge’, described by Plato, is a a statement that is justified, true, and believed. It must fit all three conditions in order to be knowledge. Use the set below to help better understand:














Moving on to the next word in the title, ‘Epistemology’:

‘Epistemology’ = (episteme + -logia)
‘Episteme’ = “Science, Knowledge”
‘-logia’ = “Study of”

‘Epistemology’ = “Study of Knowledge, Theory of Knowledge”

It is the branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and scope (limitations) of knowledge.

‘Etymology’ = What you have just done.

‘Etymology’ = (etumon + -logia)
‘Etumon’ = “True Sense”
‘Logia’ = “Study of”

Therefore, ‘Etymology’ = "Study of True Sense", or "The Study of the History of Words"

Despite the longer introduction, the philosophy of etymology is not going to be the topic of the post but merely act as the foundation for the understanding of what is to be analyzed in the realm of agnosticism.

Analysis #1:
As the existence of God cannot be proven and therefore does not validate Plato’s definition of knowledge. If we then assume Plato’s definition of knowledge is knowledge, we cannot know that god exists. Therefore we are all agnostic. However we can still believe (theism) or don't believe (atheism) in God.

Analysis #2:
Meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.The fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition. For example, “all bachelors are unmarried" or "all triangles have three angles".

All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin "I believe that ...." are simply shorthand for, "Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of any prevailing evidence”. "I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy," one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence.

Equality

How the hell is everyone supposed to be equal? Even two individuals who are the same based on the various classifications we use (such as gender, age, ethnicity) are highly unlikely if not impossible that they will be 100% the same. If they are not the same, how can they be treated the same and become equal?

People cannot also be equal unless they have the same experiences in their life, and in order for that, they must be the exactly same person, at the same place, at the same time in all instances of their lives to reach equality.

Equality of what?
Of happiness, material wealth, or of everything possibly imaginable?

Equality among whom?
Among humans, animals, or other “living” organisms? What about non-living organisms? Should we give them life so they are also equal? Genetically modify a tree to make them one specific type of human so that we will all become exactly the same thing. Let’s also modify our houses. They must also be equal to us and all things.

Equality how?
All types of chemical modifications (includes genetic modification).

Somehow manipulate the space-time continuum, so we can put everyone all in the same place at the same time.

Set political laws... Wait we’ve done that already.... Hmm, not working…

Why be equal?
Ummm. I don’t know.

To be continued…

Five Reasons Why We Keep Living

1. Hope – Knowing that there is a possibility that life would turn around and change for the better, the possibility that there will be more happiness then suffering in ones’ life as it often doesn’t seem so and the possibility that there is more after life.

2. Distractions – Being able to forget about the outside world from time to time. They are the Sex, Drugs and Rock n’ Roll of life. Movies, computer games, music, sport, TV, motorbikes, the internet, reading philosophy blogs, cars, doing laundry, buying things you don’t really need, going to school/work, eating, sleeping, and even love.

3. Ignorance – Not knowing that life sucks. Basically being under the age of 10 automatically grants you this ultimate ability.

4. Death – When you don’t have to put up with the shit anymore unless of course you’re wrong about what life is, was, or can be.

5. Oh and did I mention sex, drugs and rock n’ roll?

Describing Love…

Love is so difficult to define. We use it in so many ways, I love playing golf, I love my brother, I love my friends, or I love my wife. How does one distinguish love from infatuation or lust?

There are three paradigms that the ancient Greeks have attempted to describe love by, 'Agape', 'Philia', and 'Eros'.

Agape – The sort of love God has for us persons, as well as our love for God and by extension, of our love for each other.

Eros –Love in the sense of a kind of passionate desire for an object, typically sexual passion. It is often described as the “‘love of desire,’ or acquisitive love” and therefore as egocentric.

Philia – The kind of affectionate regard or friendly feeling towards not just one's friends but also possibly towards family members, business partners, and one's country at large.

For the Greeks, the term Philia incorporated not just friendship, but also loyalties to family and polis-one's political community, job, or discipline. While Agape has come primarily through the Christian tradition, used in religion and that is one key point that separates it from Philia.

Now when we have Eros love for someone, is it just because we want to have sex with them (procreation) or have them protect us from potential dangers such as women in our ancestor's times. Or for social or monetary reasons which seem more applicable in contemporary times but still highly resembles the very same reasons we had 10,000 years ago. It really seems to be dependent on egocentric reasons, doesn’t it?

That is why many philosophers believe that Eros is “selfish” and is a response to the merits of the beloved—especially the beloved's goodness or beauty.

‘If x loves y then x wants to benefit and be with y etc., and he has these wants (or at least some of them) because he believes y has some determinate characteristics ψ in virtue of which he thinks it worth while to benefit and be with y. He regards satisfaction of these wants as an end and not as a means towards some other end.’ (Taylor 1976)

But Plato believed that sexual desire to be a deficient response to physical beauty in particular, a response which ought to be developed into a response to the beauty of a person's soul and, ultimately, into a response to the form, Beauty.

However in the contemporary world romantic love seems just to be agape with sexual activity which acts merely as the expression of what otherwise looks very much like normal friendship.

Now imagine this dilemma, there is someone who has a sexual incestuous relationship with his sister. Is that love, Eros or Philia? Yes it is affection for a family member but it is also affection with sexual desire. What about if that someone is also christian, and have been "commanded" by god to 'love thy neighbour'. Agape also? So what the hell is love?

Maybe the three different notions are a difference of degree rather than a difference of kind.

Why Do We Love Who We Love? - Part 2

Some people believe falling in love is magical. If they use the word 'magical' as a metaphor to describe the wonderful feelings of love, then good for them. But if they mean it literally well then I think they are idiots. Magic is simply just unexplained science. Everything in this universe is governed by laws, just not all are understood by science and this is why I believe science can slowly reveal to us why we love who we love.

We love who we are attracted to. Love is simply a biological mechanism created from years and years of evolution to help us reproduce. Anyone disagree? If you do, then you are also an idiot. So please feel free to use the world ‘love’ and ‘attracted’ interchangeably from now on.

Pheromones are chemicals that trigger a natural behavioral response in another member of the same species. Few well-controlled scientific studies have ever been published suggesting the possibility of pheromones in humans. The best known case involves the reported synchronization of menstrual cycles among women based on unconscious odor cues. This study proposes that there are two types of pheromone involved: "One, produced prior to ovulation, shortens the ovarian cycle; and the second, produced just at ovulation, and lengthens the cycle".

But surely can love someone for more than a menstrual cycle, right?

In social psychology interpersonal attraction is related to how much we like, love, dislike, or hate someone. The evolutionary theory of human interpersonal attraction states that interpersonal attraction most often occurs when someone has physical features indicating that he or she is very fertile. The only purpose of relationships is reproduction, thus people invest in partners who appear very fertile to increase the chance of their genes being passed down to the next generation. This theory has been criticized because it does not explain relationships between same-sex couples or couples who do not want children.

Another evolutionary explanation suggests that fertility in a mate is of greater importance to men than to women. According to this theory, a woman places significant emphasis on a man's ability to provide resources and protection. The theory suggests that these resources and protection are important in ensuring the successful raising of the woman's offspring. The ability to provide resources and protection might also be sought because the underlying traits are likely to be passed on to male offspring.

Good face symmetry shows that an individual has the genetic goods to survive development, is healthy, and is a good and fertile choice for mating. This is one of the strong determinants for attractiveness and of course “love”.

Body shape is also important. A women’s waist to hip ratio may deem a women attractive to men or not. The waist where fat is deposited on the body is determined by sex hormones; testosterone in men and estrogen in women. If a woman produces the proper amount and mixture of estrogen, then her waist to hip ratio will naturally fall into the desired range. People in the ideal hip-ratio range, regardless of weight, are less susceptible to disease such as cardiovascular disorders; cancer, and diabetes, studies have shown. Women in this range also have less difficulty conceiving. This makes them able to produce and take care of their offspring better and longer.

Behavior and personality also plays a key role. Similar personalities allow a couple to tolerate each other long enough until their offspring are old enough to survive on their own, while different personalities will be able to complement each other and will ultimately help achieve means where only one may not be able to.

I have superficially, as compared to a vast amount of ever-changing factors, looked into a elements that would help us understand why we love who we love. For an absolute or near-absolute answer we will have to wait till science progresses.

Why Do We Love Who We Love?

Reason is not some external power which dictates how we should behave, but an internal power, integral to who we are… Reason does not command that we love anyone. Nonetheless, reason is vital in determining whom we love and why we love them. (LaFollette, H., 1996)

What, if anything, justifies my loving rather than not loving this person?

What, if anything, justifies my coming to love this particular person rather than someone else?

What, if anything, justifies my continuing to love this particular person given the changes—both in her and me and in the overall circumstances—that have occurred since I began loving her?

To be continued... (That means there will be a part two.)

Ground Thoughts on the Philosophy of Music

It is safe to say that everyone has some point in their life, created music or listened to music and this is why many people can relate to the philosophies of music and the questions that arise within it.

Music is seen as an art form in the medium of sound utilizing elements of melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre and texture. There is program music which is music that evokes extra-musical ideas, images in the mind of the listener by musically representing a scene, image or mood. The antithesis would be absolute music where it is non-representational or non-objective. Some argue that absolute music cannot exist, but I am not going to get into that for this post.

In music, unlike most art or literature, the instances of a work are performances, which offer interpretations of the work, yet the work can also be interpreted independently of any performance, and performances themselves can be interpreted. We can also do this with any other art form and perhaps it has been done before, lets take 'painting' for example. The initial artist can produce a score or general instructions on how a work should be painted and then there is the painter who interprets the score and creates the painting. Finally the audience can then interpret the painting. Essentially this is the same as what always happens in music. There is the composer who produces the musical score, the performer, and then the audience. This leaves music very dependent on human interaction.

What is perceived to be good music has changed greatly over time. During the “classical” (Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic) periods, the sophistication and complexity of compositions were one of the determinants. However music was always and still is judged on how pleasurable it is to listen to or in other words the quality of entertainment it provides.

This is the quality that many musicians are looking for and I believe that science can help them. Heck. Music may even become a science in the future, if it isn’t already. The rationale behind this is that we can study how sound is interpreted and its effect on the individual. Deducing from scientific methods we can utilize the findings to serve the entertainment purpose of music.

Western music theory resembles musical science in many ways as it had attempts to create laws that govern how music should be created and these rules varied from musical period to musical period as there were social, cultural, and other factors that affected people’s taste in music during different times. Music theory tries to act as a guideline to what is correct and what is wrong for the listener’s ear. An example would be the ‘tritone’, a musical interval that spans three whole tones, and was regarded as strong dissonance and to be avoided before 20th century music as many disliked the sound. However it played a strong role in the development of jazz and is regarded as an appealing sound to many listeners.

In the future we may be able to assess the exact state of individual at a given time and determine which sounds would be most enjoyable to them or create any other desired effect. Perhaps alter their emotion; make them happy, sad, afraid, disgusted, confused, lonely, hungry, compassionate, depressed, embarrassed, affectionate, grateful, interested or frustrated. How about angry, aggressive and violent?

Although it is theoretically possible to do all that, music is still an art as it is an expression with aesthetic principles regardless of methods utilized to create music.

"Rip The System" and "Rage" against "The Machine"

Rage? It is angry fury; violent anger. The Machine?

The Machine is what we have come to know of as our governments, our politics, our economies, the people and corporate conglomerates that have come to dominate our society in this day and age as Lee Smith of the band ‘Rage Against the Machine’ believes. The Machine is the oppression of people everywhere, from Mexico to China to the United States.

RATM through music is sending out a radical message to all and is trying to “push back the governments, the empowered moralists from controlling our lives”.

But is there really anything wrong with having our lives being controlled? I guess, it all comes down to who controls us…

Socrates believed in the idea of the "philosopher-king", the wise person who accepts the power thrust upon him by the people who are wise enough to choose a good master. From his thesis, “the most wisdom the masses can muster is the wise choice of a ruler”.

Political statements and activism of Rage Against the Machine such as their 1993 Lollapalooza act screams out freedom. They got up on stage naked with PMRC painted across their chests, electrical tape on their mouths and with the guitars feeding back for fourteen minutes and just stood there in protest against the ‘Parents Musical Resource Council’, an organization founded by Tipper Gore that promotes music censorship.


The band was formed in Los Angeles in 1991 and wrote/performed their songs in the 90s until RATM disbanded in 2000.

It is now 2008.

But has there been change for the better? Is there still a need to “rage” against “The Machine”?
Soon after their reunion in 2007, Tom Morello stated “It feels like these are songs that were born and bred to be played now.”

Think about that and make the connections.

When I was young, music was a damn good source of entertainment. Now it is also a way of understanding the world through other people’s works while expressing my ideas through my own music.

But what else is music? Surely it isn’t just art in the medium of sound to express ideas or emotions. Or is it? But IT IS a powerful tool that can be used for good or bad.

Determinism & Chaos Theory

Can we predict the future? Theoretically, yes. Let me explain. I believe that everything happens for a reason. An event happens for a reason. This is simple logic, with me so far?

An event is determined by a chain of prior occurrences and the factors that revolve around the occurrences. Imagine an entity that knows all facts about the past and the present, and knows all natural laws that govern the universe. Such an entity may be able to use this knowledge to foresee the future with every detail.

But of course, would it be possible for such an entity to exist in the first place?

What about God? If he was omniscient, he would know how the universe will play out when he created it with certain properties. He would know how the universe would interact with itself and thus the events that would follow in the future.

If this were true, is there such thing as ‘free will’?

Had he created us and the universe differently, as in with different properties, future events would also be altered. Does this give him full control over our actions, regardless of time, and take away our ‘free will’?

To help you further understand, you can familiarize yourself with “Chaos Theory”.

Chaos Theory, states that “systems whose state evolves with time – that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random. This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. “Adapted from Wikipedia

It is also colloquially known as “The Butterfly Effect” through several different forms, let's take one for example, “A butterfly that flaps its wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas”. Do not take this literally, as the kinetic energy from the flapping of the butterfly’s wings cannot create a tornado. But have it haven’t flapped, wind patterns would have been altered causing a change in the trajectory path. A small change in the initial condition of the system causes a chain of events leading to large-scale alterations of events.


However another question arises, is it possible to identify all the factors discreetly? Absolute continuity. We describe and measure aspects of the universe in numbers. However can a number ever end? If not then it wouldn’t be possible to define the future as one cannot even define the past.