The funny thing about everything is that it resembles itself.
Let’s take a moment and laugh at that, even though it’s about the unfunniest thing said by anyone, ever- wait a second, especially because it’s so unfunny.
As babies transforming into toddlers, we’re basically a small unit of perceiving: a processor that is only able to see, hear, touch, taste, and smell. A baby itself is unable to sustain this activity, its life completely dependent upon its mother-figure.
The mother-figures’ life, in turn, dependent upon myriad social and material factors which enable the activity of child-rearing.
The passage of baby into toddler is marked by physical growth, the ability to stand upright and an increased capacity for communication, amongst other things. This increased autonomy allows the toddler to pursue its own interests, which, from above, seem pretty arbitrary and ridiculous.
I mean, what’s the meaning of crawling around down there, pulling at cables and sticking dust bunnies in your mouth? What is that? The toddler, if it knows, cannot say.
(If you cannot say, can you really know?)
Fast forward. We’re now sitting here, reading this paper (I hope). Can you tell me what the meaning of this is?
Just what is this? What am I even talking about? Am I asking myself? Who’s talking right now?
Have you ever thought about how you use one thought to construct another? How your understanding of one thing enables you to apprehend other things?
As you can see, inquiring into the nature of just what is can be pretty confusing. Firstly, there’s the issue of where to start. Or what to start with. Or who’s starting. Because, can you really say this idea is yours?
In a nutshell, this is the dilemma that what we conventionally designate “Philosophy” has as its object of study. To be more precise, Metaphysics is the label we give today to the particular study that tries to deal with the nature of reality. “To deal with the nature of reality”, by the way, means to try to understand just what is.
The funny thing about Metaphysics, though, is that it’s useless.
Take another moment, laugh away.
I don’t need to understand reality to exist, right? Here I am, typing away at this keyboard. In an hour maybe I’ll get up and make myself something to eat. My existence is guaranteed, and in no way hindered or helped by even thinking a single thought about reality.
Or is it?
Death is the inherent contradiction of existence. We exist, but only because we will die. The cycle of nature is pretty clear (think The Lion King).
But who wants to think about death? I also don’t need to understand death to be alive.
You do need to understand death in order to live, however.
I’ve arrived at an interesting point in my blabber: “You do need to understand death in order to live.”
(The meaning of life. I bet you weren’t expecting this when you picked up the magazine this morning.)
This thesis implies that there is a difference between ‘being alive’ (or existing) and ‘living’ (interpreting that existence).
Being alive is the de facto state of existing: we are human, we’ve eaten and drank at some point in the span of the last few days, physically enabling us to waste a few neurons writing/reading this article right now. It is, in an arbitrary moment, finding ourselves existing.
Living has more to do with the recognition of that moment of cognition. “Oh, I’m alive. How did I get here?”
“Why am I here?”
(Living is a plurilogue- think dialogue, except plural.)
(Plurilectics. I like that.)
Where do you turn to when you ask yourself these questions?
“Mommy, why do trees grow up?” “Daddy, why do you go to work?” “Why?” “Why?” “Why?”
Thus, there is a crucial social element to establishing an idea. In the beginning you have your parental figures to turn to with your queries. Then you have your friends, right? Then maybe you read a book or two, or go to church, or both. You watch TV.
As you grow, this dialogue becomes more internalized. All those voices that in the beginning were in the forms of your parents and your friends, now exist as your own thoughts inside you.
You now choose what to watch on TV, what movie to go see, what book to read, what to talk about, what to do, or who you do it with.
(Idea. Sounds a lot like identity. Maybe they’re related?)
How would you answer the question, “Who are you?”
“Depends. Who’s asking?”
OK, fine. How would you answer the question “Who am I?”
What would you start with? Who would you start with?
If you want my humble opinion, my friend, I would start with death. The recognition of your own finiteness. The recognition of the finiteness of all people, ever, everywhere, no matter what.
It’s OK if you don’t feel like laughing anymore. This is the funniest part though:
Death is life’s biggest contradiction. It only makes sense to start with the death inherent in your own life if you’re ever to understand the meaning of everything you are.
Food for Thought:
- Dialectics
- Epistemology
- Ontology
This article was conceived as the beginning of a dialogue with the reader- you! Please send us your thoughts, feelings and any reaction at all to ecc.observer.news@gmail.com.
ECCO 
