Pondering climate change.

As I walk my dog, I am pondering climate change.

For you philosophers out there that have been keeping up, say, with philosophy of the past 20 years or so: don’t you think that it’s exceedingly coincidental that the end of philosophy and the end of history and all this stuff happened at the same time that climate change has become a major issue?

Does not seem suspiciously convenient?

I mean, did the philosophy departments across the globe decide 25 years ago that the new curriculum will focus on the end of the world and coming to a philosophical conclusion, but not only this, but because the whales were starting to become extinct?

I mean why couldn’t philosophy right be in its heyday of coming to all sorts of excellent conclusions about the greatness of man and how we, I don’t know, have an ability to find things that are actually true about things in themselves and create all sorts of great technology such as the widescreen high definition TV –and then have the world ending 12 years?

Why did philosophy talk about the end of history in the end of philosophy at the same time that the earth itself is behaving in such a way that civilization is going to be seriously altered and compromised if not destroyed?

I’ll say it again: that’s seems really fucking suspicious.

I mean it kind of sounds to me like say for example when Galileo was pointing the telescope at the moon and everyone thought that he should be like burned at the stake because he was a heretic. (Please excuse my lack of historical specificity and accuracy, if it’s not very accurate, but you know what I mean.)

You simply cannot argue against the doomsday science. I mean, you can’t argue if you want to. But the sheer weight of the meaning of this science, I think, should not be denied. And what I mean by this is I’m totally incapable of not weighing that information into my philosophical considerations.

I’m gonna stop myself right now because I’m not going to go into any philosophical speculations right now.

I’m just gonna throw around some doubt. I’m gonna throw around a possibility that mythology, this structure of discourse, is what allows us to view the world. This is not correlationalism as much as it is pure mythology. And I don’t mean it in the sense that it is fake or is that it is not true; on the contrary, I mean in the sense that mythology cannot be argued against. By definition an intrinsic mythology is that through which the world makes sense.

But to bring in philosophy right this second; the idea that we can think of ourselves outside of that which makes sense is a contradiction of terms and defines our area as nihilism in its truest sense.

I mean, even think of it in terms of the Europeans deciding to go West straight west across the Atlantic. Even when Columbus ran into, what was it, Haiti or something like that, Puerto Rico and those islands, Cuba or whatever that was that was not Asia, Columbus was sure that it was Asia.

It doesn’t mean that “really” he ran into the western continents. It means that his mythology was totally functioning.

I’m not gonna take that analogy to much further, of course. But not for reasons you might think. It it can’t be taken much further because it soon as you try to take the philosophical premise out to its logical ends you basically get to a bunch a fantastic nonsense that everyone begins to argue over it’s various ability to hold truth. I mean as an analogy for this kind of motion, we can just look at Western philosophy of the past 200 years which culminated in 20th-century basic nonsense. Lol.


I’m just staying right on the edge of thoughts right now because I’m just walking my dog and I’m not thinking things all the way through or even saying that there is any truth in them at all.

I merely casting ideas about.

What climate is changing? Isn’t the climate always changing?

If man is the major contributor to climate change, how is the productions of philosophy, and the extensions of reason, separated or different or excluded from this effect?

And like I said I’m not doubting that we’re not gonna have like 50 terrible hurricanes every season and a bunch of people going to die and billions of dollars are going to get sucked up into the Malström.

But you know , i bet 25 or 30 years from now I’ll still be writing this blog about various ideas.

That’s a bet I’m willing to make, actually. And yes the stakes are really low so maybe that makes it easier for me to make that bet. But we can talk about it 40 years from now, how about that, Right here on the new improved word press and I will have an archive that goes back to 2013 and it will be then like 2060.

(God; what an insensitive bastard that guy is. What is he even talking about?)


Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s