Philosophy Rant

Hey guys! I’ve been thinking a lot about philosophy lately, and I wanted to give some of you an idea of what I’ve been pondering.


One of my favorite philosophical concepts is that of the “Golden Mean.” This theory was developed by first by Aristotle, who stated an objection to the original idea of good and evil being opposites. In almost every aspect of our culture, it is made apparent that there is good, which is moral and correct, and evil, which is immoral and wrong. Even ancient literature states this, most notably the bible, stating that God and Satan are opposites, one standing for all thing moral, and the other all things immoral, respectively. This is a simple fact of culture, with the only deviation being that of a moral “gray area,” which does not necessarily lean one way or the other.


Aristotle decided that he objected to that idea, and instead came up with the Golden Mean. He stated that good and evil were not opposites, but rather a spectrum. If one were to imagine a sandwich (yum), one could picture evil as two pieces of bread on either side, and good being the Golden Mean in the middle. On one side, we have the idea of deficiency, one of the evils of the world. One the other side, we have excess, another one of the evils manifested in the world. Of course, in the center, we have a balance of the two, creating a Golden Mean, which combines both aspects.


A way to create an example of this spectrum is to pick a positive, balanced virtue, and scale it accordingly, first to deficiency, then to excess. For this example, we will choose an inherently good virtue: generosity. In a balanced form, generosity includes ideas that pertain to giving to the needy, sharing with others, etc. When one deficient of generosity, they become stingy, and unwilling to share with others. Yet in excess, generosity becomes extravagance, and wastefulness. This is true of any virtue that is moral and righteous. Since good and evil is a subjective ideal, it is impossible to determine a single theory to be true. Such is the nature of philosophy.


I hope this at least somewhat interested you guys. This post was really fun to write, so it was pretty easy for me to rant about it, especially with the subject being so interesting. Stay tuned for more philosophy stuff, and maybe I can even make it into a running series.



Autistic Point Of View – Logical Fallacies

Two posts in one day? Oh heck yeah! One of the most interesting things known to man is the idea of philosophy, and that of logical analysis. As someone who is autistic, it comes naturally to me to think logically, therefore, philosophy is extremely fun! One of my favorite philosophical concepts is that of logical fallacies. There are a ton of logical fallacies, and each one has a unique form. Without further adieu, here are my favorites!


The Monte Carlo Fallacy: The “Monte Carlo Fallacy” is a fallacy that is often used in gambling. The idea of the Monte Carlo Fallacy is described in the following story. Joe the gambler has been playing roulette all day, and has had no luck. After 9 spins, Joe realizes that the past 8 have landed on red, so he must be due for a black! Joe, being the incredible logician he is, put everything down on black, only for it to land on red. Too bad Joe didn’t realize that the chances were the same the whole time! Even though the past 8 spins had been on red, that doesn’t change the probability of the next one.


Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Fallacy: The “post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy”, literally means “after, therefore because.” This fallacy is the idea that because something happened after a certain event, it must have been caused by that event. An example is the idea of vaccines causing Autism. Many people assume that since there have been more cases of autism diagnosed after the popularization of vaccinations, some people draw the conclusion that vaccines cause autism. In some cases, this reasoning is not a fallacy, such as the fact that tsunamis often happen after earthquakes. Yet it is usually illogical, like saying that my grandmother died after David Bowie died, so that means her death was caused by David Bowie’s death. Overall, it’s a very common fallacy, but it’s pretty stupid to use it.


No True Scotsman Fallacy: The “No True Scotsman” fallacy is one where the user shifts the goalposts every time their opponent tries to rationalize something so it doesn’t apply to a “true” example. Example: Angus said that no scotsman puts sugar in his coffee. Angrily, Roghnall exclaims that he is a scotsman and puts sugar in his coffee. Enraged by his comment, Angus exclaims that no “true” scotsman would put sugar in his coffee. This is my alltime favorite fallacy.


Overall, fallacies are gross, and you shouldn’t use them. Avoid them at all costs. See y’all next time!