No, I am not connecting the three together, I just wanted to toss a few thoughts on here about how they connect to things I’ve been thinking about.  I already posted in much more detail about how Kierkegaard and Camus relate to my thoughts on philosophical suicide and insanity…want to make some more connections like that.

1) Nietzsche’s conception of the “Overman”

I am really a fan of this concept; I think combined with all my thoughts on technology it proves to be an incredible idea that is amazingly applicable to today.  People need to read more Nietzsche. Yes, read Thus Spake Zarathustra, it will change your life!  The concept of the Overman/Superman (depending on the translation, but Superman invokes visions of flying men in tights…) is the equivalent of what I like to call the Ascendant. The Ascendant is my (well, Curt and I’s) term and is more directly tied to technology than Nietzsche’s Overman, but they have the same end. I, in fact, plan to take a LOT from Nietzsche know when I write more about The Ascendant later on (the names are even similar, invoking the height metaphor). There are a few differences, however, one of which is particularly meaningful.  Nietzsche’s Overman is one who has overcome  both traditional forms of virtue and himself to become a creator of new values and meaning. The Overman lives a life designated by his own purpose, freed to some extent from others, and, as the individual, proceeds forward with his life through his own virtue–a virtue only applicable to him. Also, the Overnman believes strongly in the earth and in his own body (N. would say they say “Yes” to this world).  My difference, I think, is that the Ascendant concept includes the idea of the Overman, but comments further on what it means to be the Overnman. In other words, you are never quite “over” so to speak, but are always ascending.  This does not mean in a judgmental sense; it is meant in the sense that people who are Ascendant live life for the progression and exploration of experience (N. would say “creating”). Essentially, I think of the Ascendant as someone who, having attained their own virtues and meaning, now proceeds forth in that meaning to enjoy and explore the possibilities of existence.

2) Heidegger’s concept of “Idle Talk.”

I love it. I just wanted to make a note here about it because its such a good concept but I’m not likely to forget it. However, I do not feel like explaining it. Only this, that this concept of idle talk is being compounded by our technologies. If we really want to exist in a technologically advanced world we must once again remember the maxim “enhancement not replacement” and remember to use our technologies to allow us for deeper and more authentic talk. Instead, newer technologies give us the opportunity to be even more inauthentic than ever; it does not need to be so. For instance, I have Gehrke (my advisor) on Facebook and we’ve shared some substantial links and comments that led us to really good conversations later on. Same can be the case with texts, blogs, short columns, etc. Depth! We can’t lose depth!

Oh, and Heidegger now officially gives me the philosophical justification for hating small talk. Thank you Heidegger, I now forgive you for being so difficult to read.

3) Chomsky’s idea of universal grammar

Alright, I’m really not so concerned with Chomsky in this comment (but you cannot be a thinker about lang and “not be concerned with Chomsky”) only his comments in a documentary I was watching this morning was getting me thinking. His idea of universal grammar assumes that people have a certain innate system within them that limits and defines language. Children identify patterns, first within noises, then within words, and finally within sentences. Many of these rules and structures are astounding and there is no possible way they can be taught; there has to be some physical mechanism for picking up on the subtleties of their language.

Of course this is a brilliant line of work but I have no authority to speak on it as of yet. I did have a thought about this in a broader sense, or rather a question. If our brain and physiology restricts our linguistic experience to a certain set of rules (there are only a few ways, across all lang on this earth, that you can arrange Nouns and Verbs) then how might our physical existence restrict us in other ways? What implications might this have for philosophy?

Here’s what I have in mind. I think a whole philosophy could be built off of one premise: we are semi-conscious, semi-rational beings who often think we are rational. All of our existence is defined by this fact. Furthermore, each of us is rational and conscious in different ways and on different levels.  When we talk about the multitude of “problems” that exist in the world and propose all sorts of solutions…well I see all social problems (any problems involving humans, ie, all of them we talk about)  as coming from the fact that we are semi-conscious creatures.

To put it in relation to Chomsky, much like how our body limits us to a certain set of grammatical possibilities–as well as how our language acquisition ability pretty much disappears around age 12–could technically be one part of an argument about the physical limits of our existence.  Limits to ability, consciousness, comprehension, imagination, empathy, etc–these all define our existence. In fact, our whole existence is essentially defined by its limits.  Stuff like grades and SATs are meant to essentially test your limits of what you are working with. In other words, what are the limits to your human experience.

Ah! And this is unexpected. I see how all three of these actually connect. If our existence is defined by limits,  our Da-sein (to pull out the great Heidegger word–for those who don’t know it indicates “being” or “existence” but in a way that implies no physicality)  is simultaneously a constrained and also unequal and differentiated Da-sein.  Nietzsche’s Overman has separated from the “they” (another Heidegger term, meaning vaguely “the crowd” or, to use Nietzsche’s term, “The herd.”) and therefore achieved an authentic existence as a creator. My Ascendant has achieved this and, in doing so, pushed the limits of his own experience, his Da-Sein, his semi-consciousness, which is tied heavily to his physical body, his level of education, and his breadth of experience.  The Ascendant then uses this to push his semi-consciousness in an ever moving progression toward what may be abstractly called “full consciousness.”  This is done through those three things: experiencing more, learning more, and enhancing the body (right now through physical fitness and health, but later through technological enhancement and experimentation).

See there is a physical element to this; right now we still accept much of the limitations our physical existence places on us, like the fact that we no longer naturally pick up language after a certain age–and we, for now, largely work within those restrictions. But very soon, and we are already seeing this, we’ll have much more ability to push these physical limits.  In the mean time, however, we can still push the limits of the semi-conscious (do I venture to say the semi-Da-sein?) through learning more and seeking after a greater variety of experience.

Man, this is awesome. I really feel like a comprehensive philosophy is developing here. Its not really something I can tell any philosopher. It always seems like they laugh a little at this little exuberant undergrad. Still, I understand that I have a lot to read and understand before I can really write this stuff out in a comprehensive, tightly written philosophical argument. In my mind though it winds ever tighter and defensible. Learning philosophers only increases this. So I really must make my graduate study more focused in on the way all of this connects: language, technology, philosophy, physiology, and our existence in the world.  They all connect so intimately.  I shall have to read Fucault, for sure, and really get through Nietzsche, Heidegger’s Being and Time, learn more about the physical restraints, and, most importantly, the way people react and adjust around technology. All of these are intimately connected. Of course I can’t frame my project in terms of this philosophy; it is still to undeveloped for that. I need to look at language–so communication, rhetoric is good–but keep the philosophical emphasis–so find a school with a heavy emphasis on theory–but do so through technologies role interaction with these–so a place with a tech interest.  I mean, it really can be summed up by this: I want to study how the development of technology influences the way people interact, live, and conceive of the world.  They won’t really know it but at the core of my interest in this is the Ascendant. I don’t think I’ll really be able to pull that concept out for a while…not seriously.

If philosophers don’t pay attention to me at least transhumanists will This is practically the perfect transhumanist philosophy.