Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Top PhD Comics




How can all the things we painstakingly study be truer than the things we experience first-hand? 

Humans, whose porous composition is not fine enough to let the energetic thoughts of others penetrate our own, at the height of our many ancient deliriums, deemed certain revelations to be true and inherently valuable, ultimately disregarding first-hand testimony. 

Since then, we have studied knowledge rather than going out into the world and allowing for the occurrence of natural revelation and epiphanies. 

We have become 21st century knowledge junkies... but at what point will our heads explode? 15 years after grad school when we realize how much time we wasted caring about what other people thought while barely being capable of understanding (and communicating) our own thoughts (and emotions)?





What is it we're seeking other than a piece of paper that manifests with it an understanding that we are more valuable to invest in professionally as opposed to those without this piece of paper?





How can knowledge be above experience or pleasurable sensation as a goal given the radical changes in knowledge on a daily basis? 

Knowledge, according to our present era, is knowing what other people think and feel about the world. It has nothing to do with knowing what we ourselves think. 






All knowledge is merely an experience of concepts that are missing the one final ontological screw which would fasten them onto what we like to call reality. Furthermore, this is the defining characteristic of knowledge. 

Can knowledge exist as an independent perception that has no external source? If we consider knowledge without an external object, we're left with nothing but twisted senses devoid of conclusions. 







Thus, knowledge is a temporary conclusion. A fleeting thought wrapped in technical language submitted to a professor and her or his departmental colleagues for review and evaluation. The details of knowledge are empty sophisms made for the sake of argument. 

This indicates that knowledge in itself is out of our direct reach; before we can know the world we have to know what others thought of it.



Sooner or later, as knowledge becomes outdated it becomes humorous. Perhaps humor is a forward-thinking device. Exposing earlier the antiquated thinking that we so desperately cling to...





After having everyone tell us what things mean and what they are, we eventually consider them for ourselves (if we're lucky), reflecting upon what we learned to believe vs what we see, hear, feel, smell, taste, and intuit, which isn't always the same. 

Given that knowledge is constantly evolving and dependent upon external matters, true knowledge or the ability to determine what is knowledge is within us. 

Just like our predecessors before us, we are the ones creating knowledge for future generations as well as our own in a charming soliloquy of humor's lament: 








Post a Comment