Warning: Illegal string offset 'src' in /home/talonsca/public_html/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/functions.opengraph.php on line 293

Talons Philosophy

An Open Online Highschool Philosophy Course


Hypebeast Trash – Lyle Hendriks

TW for photo of dead guy (no blood or anything)


My holiday experience was based almost entirely on consumerism. I ate, watched TV, played video games, and received gifts. I turned into an amorphous blob on my couch. On one such night, I had an aesthetic night of Netflix. Mr. Jackson, if you’re reading this and shaking your head, hang on. That night’s itinerary was: Minimalism, a documentary discussing the impacts of a minimalistic lifestyle in terms of your worldly possessions. I found it mainly to be more of a promo for the ‘life-changing’ accompanying book than any real revelation. It was a little pretentious and lofty at times, and despite my enjoyment of minimalism, I would give it a 6.5/10.

Next up on the list was a documentary I found truly inspiring and possibly life changing. The film Dior and I follows fashion designer Raf Simons as he takes charge of the eminent fashion house Dior, tasked with creating a ‘haute couture’ (high fashion) runway lineup in just eight weeks. The stress and constant time crunch, the teamwork of such creative and skilled people, and most of all, the beauty of what Raf and his team create. What he creates is a phenomenal collection, at times shocking or traditionally unattractive, but with so much craft that I couldn’t help but love it.

The brilliant Raf Simons Courtesy of: Victor Boyko

I ended my evening with two episodes of Bob Ross painting, and melted with joy into my couch at about 3:30 am. My mom came downstairs, yelled at me, but then quieted down and sat down with me when Bob Ross’ pure joy connected with her.

This was my aesthetic experience. Thanks Netflix.

In class we have been asked to identify our personal aesthetics. Mr. Jackson emphasized this wasn’t answered “mainly streetwear but swapped in with dressing like a J. Crew model wannabe”, but rather, “what makes an experience an aesthetic one, for you?”. I have given this a lot of thought, especially during our discussions of art and it’s purpose.

I asked whether all art had to be beautiful. Does an aesthetic experience need to please (everyone/anyone)? In Dior and I, it outlines the differences between ‘haute couture’ collections and ‘ready-to-wear’ collections. When Dior, or Vetements, or Comme des Garcons makes a haute couture collection, they are not intending for people to look at the clothes on the models and buy them for themselves. There is a reason that every dress Dior made for Raf Simons’ collection was one of a kind. They are recreated to order, normally for an enormous sum of money. This begs the question: what is the point of making clothes almost no one wants to wear? In the same way, what is the point of art if it does not have a practical use? I would ask anyone who feels this way about any medium of art to watch Dior and I and try not to have an aesthetic experience. Raf rents a Parisian heritage home, and covers every wall of every room entirely in flowers, floor to ceiling. Models in bold and striking makeup walk with purpose through the house, clothed in a beautiful dress that you would never see anywhere except for at this runway. Dior’s haute couture collection that year was simply art, using the medium of fabric on human bodies.

Courtesy of: Frédéric Tcheng

High fashion is often accused of being pretentious and intentionally and unnecessarily complicated. When a fashion house creates a piece that is shocking, traditionally ugly, or in some other way not what one expects from fashion, I would say they are showing off their own creative skill. This clicks with my aesthetic question, does some art exist purely to show off the artist? Does this context of where the art came from make a richer aesthetic experience, or is it just vanity? I want to explore art’s quality with and without context. Here is a photograph that I really like:


Courtesy of: /u/Definitely-Not-CIA

If you don’t know the story of this photo, you might think it’s a still from a Jason Bourne trailer. It has excellent composition, lighting, and clean lines of the subjects. Independent of the context, it’s an excellent photograph, aesthetically speaking. However, things begin to unravel upon learning that this a photograph of the real life assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey. In the context that you are now looking at a real dead body, does it not have a certain shade of ugliness? I would say it does, and with context, my morals don’t allow me to enjoy this as much on aesthetic grounds.

A contrasting example is this photo:

Courtesy of: fashionising.com

When I first saw this photo, without context, I did not like it. It wasn’t to do with the composition like in my last example, but with the subject. I found the model’s outfit to be ugly and uninteresting. However, I was provided context afterwards, and found out that it was a piece from Comme des Garcons’ F/W 2012 haute couture collection, I gave it more credence. “CDG knows what they’re doing” I thought to myself, so I took a second look and looked for things to like about it. Now I think it’s a creative, unorthodox piece that really shows what CDG can do creatively. I gave this piece more aesthetic validation because of the context of the creator. Now, I could be influenced by my lust for high fashion brands and my overall reputation as consumerist hypebeast trash, but I consider this to be an aesthetic experience nonetheless.

Do ultra-coveted brands like Supreme carry aesthetic value? Or is it just the hype? Courtesy of: Ben Roasen of hypebeast.com

Identifying my personal aesthetic comes down to just a few things: what do I like? What interests me? In the context of the aesthetic realm, nailing down exactly what makes an experience for me becomes easy. I am attracted to, and simultaneously detracted from pretentiousness in art. On one hand, a lack of modesty on the part of the creator gives it a certain ugliness, but it also shows confidence, and when the quality of the art merits pretentiousness, I find myself coming back to art that seems to be aware of it’s quality. It’s like diet coke, I hate it, but I keep drinking it. In more natural aesthetic experiences, I find myself immediately attracted to simplicity, but what end of the beauty scale that simplicity falls on seems not to matter. I find myself endlessly fascinated by the unflattering and bizarre silhouettes of haute couture, in the same way I can’t take my eyes off more traditional beauty like a sunrise or a mountain range.


This blog post has expanded into a huge mess, but I’m only now really enjoying aesthetics. I’ll close with who I identify with in aesthetics. Baumgarten judges an aesthetic experience on its ability to create vivid experiences in its audiences. It’s the most simple and least exclusive definition, but I like it the best. Other ostentatious criteria that judge whether or not you’re really enjoying something get in the way of pleasure. I disagree with philosophers like Bullough who say that a degree of disinterest is required for more pure aesthetic experiences, in fact I fully believe that it’s the other way around. When it comes to aesthetics, in my books it comes down to a simple question of whether you like it, or not. What makes you interested to look at? Does the interest change with context? If these questions have made you think of anything, anything at all, I recommend I get you some of that the next chance you can. I bet it will make you happy.



Drake Learns Epistemology – Lyle Hendriks

To introduce my midterm, a short demonstration of the evolution of epistemological self-knowledge:

γνῶθι σεαυτόν

Gnothi seauton

Know thyself

Know yourself (this is the best link)

Our midterm for Philosophy 12 asks us about knowledge – what it is, where we get it, and where we keep it. I aimed to look mostly at where it is kept, and how it is shown. I can’t exactly pinpoint where my epistemological proposition came from, but it has been stuck in my head for a few days, and I felt I needed to at least attempt to prove it.

Premise 1: Knowledge must be able to be demonstrated to be important.

Premise 2: Self-knowledge is the ability to evaluate personal responses to abstract/hypothetical events, future or present.

Premise 3: Evaluations and predictions can be demonstrated.

Premise 4: A knowledge of self is what indicates true, infallible knowledge.

Therefore: Self-knowledge is demonstrated by a congruence or relationship between hypothetical (future) responses and actual (present) ones.

(Credits to Mr. J for helping me figure this out)

This is pretty wordy and confuses me, too. To explain in a more language based way, we can show our knowledge (which is empirically acquired) by being able to predict our own actions. We have amassed a ‘self’ using our experiential and anecdotal knowledge. When faced with a hypothetical question, such as “What would you do if ‘x’?”, we show what we know about ourselves when we can provide an accurate prediction. The reason I believe we can know that self-knowledge is the nature of our true knowledge, is simply because we can never know anything as perfectly or as completely as we know and understand ourselves. Though we will come very close to understanding inanimate objects, living organisms, or other people to perfection, we will never know and feel what it is like to be that thing, and therefore our knowledge is still incomplete.

This relates to my metaphysics question, where I questioned whether human entities had destinies. This proposal of self-knowledge further affirms my belief that humans do not have a set destiny. I believe that accurate prediction is far more valuable and requires a greater critical insight than, say, an analysis of past actions. If a prediction is demonstrated and proven to be accurate, your knowledge of the self has been proven. We know ourselves above all else. If we can predict our own future with any accuracy based on our knowledge of our own nature, does that not disprove an external force controlling our actions fully?

Eric pointed out that if, for example, a person knows they are good in their heart of hearts, and yet everything they do is not good, are they truly a good person? I believe that a person is defined by their actions, but those actions can only define them by the flawed knowledge that others hold of the ‘good’ person. In the terms of interpersonal knowledge, this person is not good. However, this person is good when reflecting on their substantially more complete self-knowledge.

To sum up my opinions on this, my thirty second example was the most dense yet understandable version:

“Self knowledge, the most perfect and complete knowledge, is demonstrated by showing critical insight in an accurate self-prediction regarding a hypothetical scenario. This shows more self-knowledge than simply analysing and evaluating past events.”

In the end, the debate between future prediction and past analysis for being the best indicator of self-knowledge can never really be answered. Some feel more secure in being like Drake and knowing that they “were running in 6 with their woes”, or that “she used to call them on their cell phone”. I for one prefer the “future” based Drake, “Will I get it all right? Ain’t no tellin’.”



Three Hours of Doing Hoodrat Stuff – Lyle H

It was Sunday night at around 9 PM, and I didn’t know what to day for my Phil’s Day Off, which was due tomorrow. I decided to take a walk. I have given some thought to how destiny can be affected by something as simple as your outfit. I dressed in all black, and put a hat on, and went out into the night. What was initially going to be a brief Sunday night stroll wound up being a 3 hour adventure through the labyrinth of Westwood Plateau.

I wanted to answer a few questions: Do I have a destiny? Are my choices predetermined or are they my own? Was I destined to take the route I take?

My plan was to have no plan. I took an undetermined walk around my neighbourhood, with the only details being I would record my route, and note anything I saw on the way. Here’s the route I took:


View post on imgur.com

The first point is my house. From there, I went to my old elementary school at Point A. On the way there, I saw an enormous owl in a tree beside the trail I was walking on. Owls kind of scare me because of the whole 360 degree head turning thing, and their eyes strike me as very lucid when I shine a light on one that’s staring at me. At my elementary school, I walked around until I heard a weird noise coming out of the external PA speakers. This is something I never noticed before. I walked up the next part of the trail from there, but it was very dark and I was scared of going up the forested trail, so I went up a staircase from the trail to a cul-de-sac at point B. I walked up the street and saw a second owl that scared the poop out of me when it flapped up to a nearby tree. This one was very clearly interested in me, and I quickly moved on. I walked around to the top of the crunch, where the spooky trail would have taken me anyway, quickly detouring to a pump station surrounded by a barbed wire fence. I walked around the perimeter, accomplishing nothing but getting my shoes extremely muddy. At the top of the crunch was a car parked to the side of the road with the headlights on. The dome light kept coming on for a few seconds at a time, and then fading away so I couldn’t see anyone inside. In the brief moments of light, I saw two people sharing one front seat. I choose to assume they were exchanging platonic massages, and nothing more.

I accidentally scared some guy walking down the trail, despite my best efforts. From here, I cut through a forested path. This was easily the scariest part of my trip. I constantly felt like I was being watched as I walked through, and was checking behind me, seeing things in the trees. I was happy to break through into another cul-de-sac. I decided to push on, and found myself at the Westwood Plateau golf club. I sneaked into the parking lot and for a few minutes pretended I was a diamond thief or a serial killer – watching the few closing workers shut down the restaurant for the night. I seriously considered jumping over the fence onto the actual golf green, but decided against it. From here, I called up my cousin, Brock, because it was getting a little lonely. We met up at his house, and walked towards Eagle Mountain Park. We didn’t do much, just walked and talked. I took a good minute at the Meridian Substation, which is a huge enclosure of electrical towers and conduits the power the neighbourhood. It has a weird vibe, kind of like the power station in Stranger Things. We found an open gate onto the golf course, just a few minutes later, so naturally we headed in. There wasn’t much to see, so we carried on up to a little playground called Tanglewood Park, which is about as North as one can get in this area and still be in suburbia.

From there, I walked home. I arrived at my house around 12:30am, and it seemed my parents didn’t even realize I left. I slipped inside and kicked off my muddy shoes, and went to bed.

So what was the point of all of that?

I wanted to see if there was anything drawing me to where I ended up. I was open to any kind of manifestation of destiny presenting itself, and used every sense to decide which way to go – left or right. If I had come across a car accident or some other event I would be able to help or participate in, I would be more convinced of a pre-planned destiny. The only pull I felt was motivated by instinct and emotion. Detours like the pump station and substation were motivated by curiosity. Getting out of the forest and into the cul-de-sac was motivated by anxiety and fear. This still leaves the question of whether I was always bound to do what I did that evening. And really, how could I know? I do know however, that if my trip was pre-planned, it clearly did not have much in store for me. It wasn’t dull, but it wasn’t that exciting. I tried to keep destiny on it’s toes, making choices that I wouldn’t make normally.

I have concluded that I am in full control of my choices. I have no way to know for certain, but I am pretty confident that my life is a series of yes or no questions, quite simply. If I were to make a physical representation of this model, I would add the third dimension to show things that can influence your choices, shown by peaks in valleys of the line of ‘destiny’ in the key. This probably isn’t clear without an image, but I don’t have one, so allow me to make it more convoluted with my wordy explanations.

Suburban Hell, breeding ground for teenagers like this guy. Courtesy of abcdunlimited.com

I don’t believe an omnipresent force like destiny controls our actions or decisions. I think they are influenced however, by external factors in the more tangible world. I was motivated to turn right instead of left because I was scared of being in the dark forest by myself. So fear motivated that decision. These influences can be things like the actions of others, the invisible forces in someone’s head, or any number of things. I believe the only things controlling our decisions are: tangible influence, and statistics.

Phil’s day off ended with muddy feet and tired legs, but I refined my opinion on destiny, all while spitting in it’s face. It’s good to be a skeptic.



Dream Worlds, Astral Planes, God is Dead, and Something Controls Our Every Move – Lyle Hendriks

The discussion was a weird meld of what I would describe as tinfoil hat level conspiracy, psychedelic drug level insight and paranoia, peak breakdown level existentialism, and ego death level self-awareness.

My discussions in Block 2 philosophy were added to by such minds as Jamie Fajber, Ashlee Ann, Emma Jeurgensen, Jason Forster, Martin Norman, Claire Lundin, Ben Mendes and others.

We discussed everyone’s topics, some more confounding than others. Horrible, mutated examples of the English language came up, such as Martin’s question: “How do we know that we know what we know?” Who knows? Jamie asked a question looking to disprove Descartes’ syllogism supposedly proving the existence of a god. As an atheist, Jamie was infuriated by this supposedly irrefutable argument, and I was curious about his reaction. A purely theoretical syllogism that has no real bearing on anyone’s life totally shook Jamie’s theology, which tied in partially to my own question of destiny.

Throughout an exploration of destiny and it’s impact on humans, I have gotten a clearer idea of what I believe human decision making to look like. I described this to the second group I was in, and I got even more clarity because of it. I see a human life as a dichotomous key, a series of yes or no choices with several branches cascading down from the point of birth towards the point of death. This tree has billions upon billions of potential ways it could go, with some tree branches potentially leading to a much later or earlier death. Some key decisions could totally alter later events, who you become as a person, or when you die. However, only one tree branch is explored fully. Your tree can be augmented by the trees of others, as branches combine and overlap, your choices may be influenced by external forces, such as other people or inanimate objects.

I explained that I believe that inanimate objects have some kind of destiny. In the book 127 Hours, the story of a climber and hiker who becomes trapped in a canyon when a boulder rolls down and pins his arm to the canyon wall. On the third day or so, with almost no water and no food, he has a vivid dream/hallucination where he has an epiphany about his situation. He sees the rock coming down to earth as a meteor millions of years ago, he sees every choice he has ever made in his life to become the type of person to be a hiker, to be the type of person to enter that canyon, to be the type of person to do it without supplies. Every choice in his life leads to this moment – and he faces one more choice. Just a few hours after his epiphany he makes the choice to break his arm and cut it off with the blade of his multitool.


The gruesome scene of Ralston’s self amputation. Was it destiny, his own choices, or sheer bad luck that he ended up here? Courtesy of Atria Books


This idea of destiny will be explored in my ‘Phil’s Day Off’ post. Check it out next time.



Free Will, Determinism, and Destiny – Lyle Hendriks

Is free will real?

    1. Are events determined by ‘destiny’?
    2. Is every event just a result of statistical probability, the past, and laws?
    3. Is any choice our own?

This morning, I made a choice on what to wear. It probably won’t change my day much, but what if I did decide to wear something else? If I were to be fall in love with someone that I had instant chemistry with because they liked something I was wearing, some might say that it was ‘destiny’ that I wore that outfit on that day. However, when I was getting dressed in the morning, I had the choice to wear anything I wanted. Was destiny controlling me?

I aim to look at free will, and the agents that hope and claim to have it. In my series of blog posts, I’ll be focusing on human agents. I have done some reading on the subject that was pretty dense and hard to understand – let me try to condense a couple things I found interesting. One theory that gives an interesting idea to the philosophy of free will is called ‘Casual Determinism’. The very short version of this complicated theory is that if humans had perfect knowledge of every event in the past, and perfect knowledge of every law that affects events (physics, evolution, etc), and had perfect, infallible logical reasoning, then they could predict the future. This seems like a stretch, and personally I disagree with this theory. It doesn’t account for some things that I see to be unpredictable, especially the human aspect of life. Humans are unpredictable, motivated by intangible constructs like greed, sex, narcissism, jealousy, anger, and others. Even if you have perfect knowledge of what every person has done in the past, mental health issues could come up that totally change who they are and how they act.

The other theory I found interesting is called the ‘Reasons-Responsive View of the Will’. This can be explained with a quote:

“A reasons-responsive view of the will says that Allison’s volition to walk her dog is free if, had she had certain reasons for not walking her dog, she would not have decided to walk her dog. Imagine what would have happened had Allison turned on the television after waking from her nap and learned of the blizzard before deciding to walk her dog. Had she known of the blizzard, she would have had a good reason for deciding not to walk her dog.”

-Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

What this means for human agents having free will is that they can always choose whether to do or to not do something, which leads to new yes or no choices. With my example of what I chose to wear today, Reasons-Response View of the WIll says that I have the choice to put on the clothes I am wearing, or to not choose them. Then I look at the next option in my closet, say yes or no, and then the next if necessary, etc. I think that this is a pretty close match to my own views on free will. I don’t believe that humans have a destiny, simply a dichotomous tree that begins at birth and ends at death, with billions of unexplored pathways, and one fulfilled to completion.

This has been a very interesting introduction to an extremely complex topic. Although a lot of the reading that I have done so far is dense and difficult to understand, it offers many different viewpoints to one question: “Do humans have free will?” Find out next time (probably not but I need to keep my readerbase up)!



The Logical Syllogism of Why the Star Wars Prequels Blow – Lyle Hendriks

Among film enthusiasts and critics, the prequels in the Star Wars franchise (The Phantom Menace, The Attack of the Clones, The Revenge of the Sith) are regarded generally as ‘bad’, ‘unwatchable’, and at times ‘a dumpster fire’.

I don’t really have any respect for anyone who thinks those films are good. They’re not. (They’re) a monumental misunderstanding of what the (original) three films are about. It’s an exercise in utter infanticide … (like) George Lucas killing his kid.

-Simon Pegg

Out of the currently released seven Star Wars movies, the prequels have been slammed more than any others, and in my opinion, for a good reason. The invalidity of the prequels as any kind of follow up or preclusion to the originals can be proven through a logical syllogism:

Premise 1: A ‘certified fresh’ (steady Tomatometer of 75% or higher after a set amount (80) of reviews on rottentomatoes.com) movie is objectively good (as considered by professional critics and reviewers).

Premise 2: Star Wars IV-VII (“The Originals”) have an average tomato score of 89.75%.

Premise 3: Star Wars I-III (“The Prequels”) have an average tomato score of 66.3%.

Conclusion: Therefore, The Prequels are not good movies.

Premise 1 is the weakest of the three. It takes an average score of largely North American and European reviewers to give as best of an objective score as is largely popular. However, this is not a perfectly objective fact. I believe it could be identified as true by most logicians, and so I will treat it as such.

Premise 2 and 3 are objective facts as calculated by the RottenTomato score (average of 80+ reviews each) of each movie in each category (Prequels or Originals). These will hold up as true, assuming that RottenTomatoes can be agreed upon as an objective source of movie quality ratings. These will be considered as true.

The conclusion is valid because of the law of categorization in logical syllogism. If a ‘certified fresh’/good movie is the largest circle in a diagram, The Originals would be inside of that circle. The Prequels would not be included inside the circle of good movies, and is therefore not a good movie. This is a valid conclusion to draw from three true premises, and therefore, the argument is sound under the assumptions outlined above.

Ideas in popular fiction often gain momentum in a snowball effect. People unexposed to the pure vitriol of the internet that watched the prequels in their youth, when anything Star Wars was sacred, may think that they are good movies. Sure, they might pick up on the weird, in-your-face CGI, the wonky acting, or the subpar dialogue at times, but the uninitiated would never pick up a hatred for the prequel franchise like people involved in the internet discussion have. This snowballing effect plays into the idea that mob mentality can crush individuality in opinions. On the r/movies community of reddit, a distaste of the prequels is not enough. For the true, die-hard Star Wars elitist, there can only be hatred, which fuels logical syllogisms such as this one being created and widely held. While I personally believe that there are very few redeeming qualities in the prequels as films, they provide an interesting diversion to the overall story arc of the franchise and created a good second chapter in a chronicle of Skywalkers.

While the prequels are not ‘good movies’ by any stretch of the objective mind, they do hold value. This syllogism may be sound and also widely supported, but I believe this is largely a result of steamrolling opinions to fit in with the group collective.

But don’t be confused – the prequels are not good movies.



It’s Dark in Here

We sit on our knees in the world, never sore and yet in constant agony. But to us, this is what life is. One of us was released, and he has since left. The screen in front of us is everything. I know the people around me only in periphery and by voice. The person who was released was overwhelmed at first to even stand up, and more so to turn around. He reluctantly was led away, and things went on as normal. He came back after a while, and even though he usually did very well in the shadow competitions and ate well, when he came back he said he could not see the shadows. We laughed at him, mocking him for ever leaving our world. The screen is everything, and he gave it up in favour of whatever lays behind us.

But when we were laughing at him he said something I cannot seem to shake. “This is not all there is.” After that, he left. I seem to be the only one affected by what he said

The seed of doubt has been planted in my mind and I can’t help but think that there’s something beyond the screen, that it isn’t everything. I heard one of the shadows say enlightened, and I think that maybe that’s what my former colleague is. Maybe he’s right. But for now, I am still stuck to the floor, with my head locked forward. I have nothing but time to think.



Lyle Hendriks Document of Learning #1 – Never Forget the 2016 Colander Riots

In just two weeks of philosophy we have covered several topics, topics like the meaning and purpose of education, what it means to love wisdom, and how to make a rubric for an assignment we are doing the next day in class. Philosophy has been a difficult journey of figuring what it is I’m supposed to be doing or saying, pretty much everyday. And even though sometimes a cut and dry criteria sheet that I can use like a checklist is what I desire more than anything, a self-guided and highly customizable plan is also desirable at times.

Thinking about the goals I have for this course, I have realized I want to establish a personal philosophy. I want to accumulate a set of morals, ethics and outlooks on life that are mine only, and I hope to accrue that throughout the semester of philosophy. The first discussion that made me think about my personal philosophy was the discussion about the meaning of philosophy, which is the loving of wisdom. I wondered if I did love wisdom, and whether I loved knowledge.

I wrote on love as being a total expression of self-sacrifice and devotion to a person or thing. For example, Jamie has an undying love and devotion to wearing a colander on his head in his go-card photo. This love enabled him to have the argumentative stamina to debate his rights to wearing this holy headdress with Gleneagle Administration for about half an hour. With that dedication in mind as the definition of love, I had to decide whether I would go to those lengths in the search for wisdom.

“A Surrey man is straining the limits at ICBC” (Courtesy of ctvnews.com)

In the week one class where we defined philosophy, I labelled wisdom as having the best answer to as many questions as possible, while simultaneously understanding that not all questions have that ‘best answer’. Some things will only ever be opinion. I also had to know the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I think of knowledge as hard facts. Things like the Pythagorean theorem, grammar rules and trivia about 20th century history are things I consider knowledge. While definitely pragmatic, I have come to realize that knowledge is not a crucial part of my personal philosophy. Wisdom on the other hand, is a malleable way of seeing the world that no two people have the same way.

A nice, tired and overused quote on knowledge vs. widsom. Courtesy of askideas.com

Philosophy 12 has helped me to discover one piece of my personal set of philosophies: I have a thirst and love for wisdom. Sometimes it surprises me to think about what I have already experienced in my life. A series of once in a lifetime events have given me wisdom and life experience that no one else could exactly replicate. Whether it’s how to give advice on a relationship or how to build a fire without matches, necessity has given me knowledge, which I have in a sense converted into my own wisdom.

I don’t think that simply loving wisdom makes me a philosopher, even though Mr. Jackson’s worksheets have further established me as one whenever I write my name on them. I hope to at least have a larger variety of wisdom by the time I write my next document of learning.

But wisdom is ultimate power (courtesy of reddit.com(???))