A Dreamy Midterm Blogpost

            As I sat alone, tapping the pencil against my skull, I thought. I thought about myself among the tens of thousands of millions of others like me, how each one live about their lives and how similar or different their days are to mine, how easygoing my life is in comparison to many, many others. I thought about myself and how different my life could have become if only certain steps along the path were not taken. Most importantly, I thought about myself and my future, the uncertainty of it all stressing yet exciting me all the same, I can almost say the same with the entirety of humanity's future. The future for the human race permeates within me a feeling of both hope and dread, a coalescence of the two that forms a gray, unending fog, growing more thick and coagulated the deeper I try to look into it. I see bright glimpses of light in the mist, only to be blotted out within seconds of fruition. In the fog, I am at a standstill, alone.

    BAGGINI: "Ah, that's no way to think, something must be wrong."

            I hear a voice, emanating from within the fog.

    WARBURTON: "Well, it is a way of thinking, however one I don't condone myself."

            Another one, had I fallen asleep while at my desk?

    ANDERSEN: "Maybe he has a point, although nothing will come out of this uncertainty."

            These voices, they were unfamiliar, yet I recognized them as clear as day. Suddenly, a quaint, circular table, with a chair for each quadrant, materializes from the fog. And with the table come three individuals, each taking their seat without a second thought, now looking up to me. In turn, I take my seat. Without any formalities, like we had done this a thousand times over, one of them asks,

    ANDERSEN: "Briefly, what do you think about the world how it is now?"

    INGRAM: "Well, I personally believe that the world is conflicted with itself right now and we are at our lowest point in this modern age. I think the ongoing outbreak was a catalyst and a manifestation for the world's greatest problem: ignorance."

            The words flowed from my mouth, without any question to my current situation. He asked, and I answered. I gave way to the rest of the conversation.

    BAGGINI: "I can see where you're coming from. Our current events have come to show the worst of what humanity can bring out. However, I bring a question stemming from this. I ask everyone, let us say, through philosophy, is there a way we can reverse this ignorance, prejudice, and negativity into a more pristine way of thinking?"

    WARBURTON: "I believe I can give way to the beginning of our problems. With Socrates, among many other unfortunate men and women, were outcast or even executed for their, at the time, wild and unique ideas. Galileo is another infamous incident, being accused of heresy by the Church and sentenced to house-arrest for life due to his scientific breakthrough. During these trivial times, to question was to break out of line of society itself. Now some people have begun to question everything. This is great, amazing even! However, they are doing so upon baseless entities. Let us take Alfred Jules Ayer and his Verification Principle. ‘Ayer’s way of telling meaningful from meaningless sentences was this. Take any sentence, and ask these two questions: (1) Is it true by definition? (2) Is it empirically verifiable? If it was neither of these then it was meaningless’ (A Little History of Philosophy, pg. 191) His principle was a brilliant way of thinking, although costing him with a near-death experience he had later in life which delved into questioning his entire way of thinking. Beyond this, I think ignorance somewhat stems from a twisted version of the Verification Principle.”

    ANDERSEN: “I believe I can bounce off where you’re coming from. What ignorance means to me is to stick to a set belief, adverting attention whenever challenged. However, with that Verification Principle, you would go by the order as you regularly would, however you would find whatever or whoever else that agrees with your standing and use that as a reinforcement.”

    WARBURTON: “Precisely, and with this principle I believe one could use it to great effect if used wisely. To change a person devoid of knowledge, you must first teach them. You could even learn how they came to their own set of conclusions, but you must show them the truth using the Verification Principle only in set circumstances. For example, it is discouraged when talking about religion, because the principle completely cancels out faith from discussion like how Ayers intended among other things. Instead, it should be used solely for scientific purposes, to help with the learning process.”

    INGRAM: “Ah yes, I understand now! I like that modified way of thinking and will stand by it, how the restrictions set upon it can actually open up conversations and not deny them. I try to be a flexible listener and am constantly learning every day from others, however I see people that will continue to cling to beliefs that are difficult to understand and in turn may hurt others. Why do they continue to think this way?”

    BAGGINI: “What they believe may just be how they were raised, ingrained into their family or maybe even culture. It would be extremely difficult to change that way of thinking if they were to hold on to those beliefs into adulthood, which could be frustrating to both speaker and listener during the process.”

    INGRAM: “I see. I understand that may be a problem, but I hope there are as many if not more people who are willing to listen and think for themselves. However, that poses another question. What happens in the future? Whose to say that the loud majority can or cannot overturn the other side? What will our future be like perhaps even beyond us?

    ANDERSEN: “That is a difficult question you proposed there. My answer to that question is that we must look upon the past to see how we got to the present, to understand at least what not to do in the future. Going along with our discussion on ignorance and the Verification Principle, there was a time during America where ‘Americans felt newly entitled to believe absolutely anything, to mix up fiction and reality at will. I’m pretty certain that the unprecedented surge of UFO reports was not evidence of extraterrestrials’ increasing presence but a symptom of Americans’ credulity and magical thinking suddenly unloosed. We wanted to believe in extraterrestrials, so we did. What makes the UFO mania that started in the 1960s historically significant rather than just amusing, however, was the web of elaborate stories that were now being spun, not just sightings and landings but abductions and government cover-ups and secret alliances with interplanetary beings.’ (Fantasyland, pg. 219) I firmly believe that right now we are back in this same position, but instead of the fantasy being if aliens are real or not due to some government cover-up, it’s a real-as-can-be viral outbreak. This shows that if we don’t do something quick to change up our act, America, and maybe even the world, will be doomed to repeat history over and over again.”

    BAGGINI: “I can see why you’re irritated Andersen, knowing how thoroughly you researched and explained the worst of America’s upbringing up to today, just to see it in the state it is currently in. However, I think that in the near future we will become a better whole. I think that our problem is that we are too self-centered, and that we do not think about companies or groups as individuals within, but rather as one large entity. An idea shared by the cultures in Eastern Asia what Japanese philosophers call the Relational Self is possibly the best outcome that can progress the world into a better place. Many Western medias depict Japan as a conformist society with dreadful cityscapes, however, “When I went to Japan, this is not how I felt. Most people I dealt with were extremely warm. They were not so much conformist as pro-social. The reason they board trains in such an orderly fashion is because everyone behaves in the best interests of everybody else, not because they are trying to ‘fit in’.’ (How the World Thinks, pg. 191) The reason behind this behavior has ties way back into their culture and even their language. Others may see how their society functions as said before conformist. Does anyone believe this statement?”

    WARBURTON: “I think it’s rather sound, I can see how one can call it a ‘conformist society,’ although I would also imagine those same people to be individualists, focusing on themselves rather than others.”

    ANDERSEN: “I agree completely with you, Warburton. America has a way of self-centeredness; I believe we could learn a lot from other societies.”

    BAGGINI: “Exactly. I believe all the topics that we have talked about today have a connection, what say you, Ingram?”

    INGRAM: “Hmm... Oh! I can see clearly now! I believe to cure the world of ignorance and negativity; we must relate to one another through discussion and a relational connection and learn about what happened in the past to avoid our mistakes. Although the path seems almost impossible and ambitious, through great effort and determination, it may just become reality. Only then, can we see a bright future for humanity.”

            With full clarity and flow, I finish my thoughts. Before I'm able to thank the three men for their help, the table fades as the now empty chairs disappear. The fog begins to clear as a bright white begins to swallow my vision. Then in an instant, nothing. I awake at desk, my paper before me, devoid of any markings. 

I have a lot to write down.

Zalen Ingram, Section #10