Paint Me Like One of Your Goya Girls

Who doesn't love artwork with sinister atmospheres? Francisco de Goya creates pieces that really speak for themselves in a way. They speak in a dialect that only the true intellectuals (or those who think they are intellectual) can understand. For example, some people claim that some of Goya's works are able to reveal the "darker aspects of humanity" as a whole. Well, after examining Goya's most famous and darkest works, here are a couple that even false intellectuals will be able to understand.

The first piece comes from Goya's Los Caprichos titled "Chiton" or "Hush". This is a tiny etching only measuring 8.5 by 5.9 inches. In the etching, there is an elderly person, who is clearly very old based on the cane they hold and how hunched their back has become, and a strange figure in black who appears to be "hushing" the old man or woman. To practically anyone, this is a picture of death. They are probably right. However, delving deeper into the meaning reveals a more darker truth. The truth revealed by this painting is that death is quiet. Death makes no noise so how can you avoid it? Even if you can see death coming, how do you know for sure that death is not also creeping up behind you? Thinking in that sense, it makes this etching all the more disturbing the more you think about it.

The second piece hails from Goya's collection of "Black Paintings". This particular painting is called "Two Monks" and is 144 by 66 centimeters. While the title is not that disturbing, the faces of the men are what create concern. The man in front has a slightly distorted face on his left side with a black eye and enlarged ear. The other man in the back looks more like some freaky fantasy creature from The Lord of the Rings. It appears that the bat-like creature-man in the back is screaming into the normal man's ear, but he is not reacting. As monks are known for being very religious individuals, this piece may be a reference to the malicious nature found in religious figures back in the day. The man in front representing the wise old man we see but is deaf to the pleas from his followers. The man in the back represents the evil intent of religious figures such as intentions of gaining wealth and power. Together, the two monks represent the true nature of religious authorities.

Cruelty with Feeling

I would say that the majority of human beings would say that torture is a very wrongful act. There's a reason why the torturing of prisoners of war was made illegal by the Geneva Convention. Inflicting pain upon another human being when they cannot fight back is not only wrong, but cowardly. Unfortunately, the slave named Gordon, as well as many other Africans at the time, was brutally injured while working for his master. This popular photograph, appropriately named "The Scourged Back", helped not only the Americans back then, but also Americans nowadays understand the environment that slaves lived in during the early development of the United States.

While there are other images of the brutalities enacted upon other slaves, this one in particular is very striking. Besides his back, another key feature of this photo is his face. It shows no signs of anger or sadness or any emotion at all. Gordon's stoic expression illustrates a notion of acceptance; like he knows what happened to him and he knows that he is ultimately powerless to stop it. The fact that this is a photo also helps lend to the emotional reality created by the image. Photos allow a viewer to be caught in the moment. While a well-crafted painting or sculpture is just as effective at transmitting emotions and messages, photos have developed more of an appreciation as went on. In the modern world, we rely on photos rather than hand-made images to increase our knowledge and awareness of the world around us. It would be hard to imagine a whole news story about a police chase when every image shown is a painting.

Hand-drawn images, like the one on the left above, can often be exaggerated, though not all the time. They do convey an empathetic viewpoint, but it's not as strong as seeing a real image of a real human being with real actions and emotions. For example, if you could imagine seeing an image of one of your loved ones that has been killed in a car accident, you would probably feel more emotional over a photo rather than a hand-made sketch. Also, there were other photos taken back then, such as the image on the right above, but they fail to capture the rawness of the treatment of slaves. Taking photos of tortured slaves was not a popular activity, especially considering that the owners of the antique cameras were white Americans at the time. "The Scourged Back" was used as a propaganda tool to gain support for the abolitionist movement. If the photo on the above right was used instead, it most likely would not have been as effective as Gordon's picture was. Gordon's photo showed Americans just how miserable the lives of slaves were and that change needed to be done.

Tale of Two Twains

When I think of Mark Twain, I think of him as an original rapper. Twain's method of writing sounds just how people would be talking on main street. For an upcoming book analysis, I have chosen to analyze Mark Twain's book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. I've yet to read the story myself, but I have read Twain's other infamous book The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. From what I understand, Huckleberry Finn is basically a sequel to Tom Sawyer, but instead, we as the audience get to experience what happens to Huck after he and Tom claim the robbers' gold.

 My main reason for choosing this book is for selfish reasons. Since reading Tom Sawyer, I've been wanting to read Huckleberry Finn but just never got around to actually reading it. However, this assignment gives me a good push of motivation to actually pick it up and dive deep into Twain's words. Another reason for choosing this book is the way Twain writes. When he creates conversation, he writes how the words would be spoken during that time period. For example, if someone from the South (like most of the characters are) were trying to say "he does not really understand me very much", Twain would write it out as "he don' real' un'erstan' me too much". This method of writing a real conversation is what really drew me into Twain's book. The speech gives a lot more depth to each character rather than everyone speaking in proper English.

Based off Tom Sawyer, I expect this story to play out in a similar fashion. I didn't look up any plot summaries, because I don't want to ruin the story for me. However, I expect Huck to get involved in crazy adventures, but I don't know how he will resolve them. Tom has more of a brash personality and takes life by the horns. Huck on the other hand seemed more careful and not as energetic as Tom. That might just be me though. It's been a few years since I've read Tom Sawyer. I don't even know if Tom will play a major role in Huck's story. If Huck is on his own, I imagine he will be more analytical to solving problems or he might just run away. If Tom is present though, Tom will probably be solving the problems and Huck will just be there for the ride. Hopefully the sequel will live up to the amount of enjoyment as it's predecessor.

Muzio's Music

Have you heard any good piano music lately? Pianos are very versatile instruments. They can be employed in any genre of music and work surprisingly well, whether it be the newest catchy hip hop song or the most scream-driven death metal song. While he didn't necessarily invent the piano, Muzio Clementi is the man to thank for the piano of today. To be fair, he is known as "The Father of Piano".

At the age of 9, Clementi was already an organist at a church, so his skills were developed very early in life. Though born in Italy in the year of 1752, he was taken to England to serve as an entertainer by "Peter Beckford, a cousin of William Beckford" in the year of 1766 (Encyclopedia Britannica). From then on, his music career continually grew until he was rich enough to own his own piano manufacturing company. Clementi died at the age of 80 in the year 1832.

Clementi earned his nickname not through the pianos he created (although he did tweak his pianos in a way that can still be seen today), but rather, he earned his nickname through his technique. Looking at Clementi's Gradus ad Parnassum No. 90 and No. 91, we can hear why he is the Father of the Piano. One example is in No. 90. For those of you that don't know about pianos, there is a device called a sustain pedal that allows the sound of a key to continue playing even after the finger has been lifted off the key. The sustain pedal was popularized during the Romantic period of music, aka after Clementi's time. While listening to No. 90, Clementi is able to produce this sustained sound, though he does not use a sustain pedal. We can see in his sheet music that there are no signs of pedaling. However, we do see that Clementi uses two voices for each hand. Clementi uses one finger to hold one key while the rest of his fingers continue to play the melody. Ultimately, Clementi was playing four melodies simultaneously by himself. This technique is unique in the fact that Clementi creates a sound that is before its time. While the sustain pedal did exist during Clementi's life, it was only used for very specific times, as it was very rudimentary. However, the sound produced by Clementi sounds as if it is being played on a modern piano.

In No. 91, we are introduced to Clementi's conflicting emotions. A great deal of the music created by classical composers are very one sided in terms of emotions. What I mean by that is that a song is usually just happy or just sad. Clementi himself is guilty of this trend as well, however, with Clementi's No. 91, he creates a feeling of confusion. During the first listening, it sounds happy in the beginning, but then turns into a sound of fear or panic partway through. Just as you start thinking of how you feel about the sudden change in emotions, the song then jumps back into a happy tune and ends on a good note. If you cut out the middle section, the beginning and ending of the song would make it seem like a cheerful melody. However, the abrupt middle section appearing briefly and then disappearing creates an attention-grabbing moment that really makes the listener pay more attention to what Clementi has presented with us as the audience.

Overall, if you are a pianist (like myself) or just appreciate the piano, I would highly recommend Muzio Clementi's works. His Six Sonatinas Op 36 are fairly popular pieces and can provide very efficient homework/study music. Ultimately, it is thanks to Clementi that mankind received the brilliant works of more famous pianists such as Beethoven and Mozart. While listening to Clementi's works, you can make subtle connections to the sounds of these legendary piano titans. That alone is reason enough to hear what Clementi has to offer.

Hobbes is Un-Locke(d)

Thomas Hobbes and John Locke are two of the most well-known social contract theorists in history as their influences can still be felt in the modern world. However, as much as I wish humans were naturally good, I would have to say that overall, Hobbes depicts humans better than Locke.

One of the main points made by Hobbes is how society could not exist without a government. One could say that a collection of people with similar goals or beliefs is a society. While this could be true, I would say that this definition would fit the term of community better. For example, a group of farmers would be a community of farmers, rather than a society of farmers. If there was a ruler or a commanding group in charge of the farmers, then they could be considered a society of farmers. In the modern world, there are hundreds of communities that fill societies. One that stands out the most is the LGBT community for their current progress in the 21st century. However, they do not have a central leader or any form of government, so they are called a community.

Another point brought up by Hobbes is the idea that rulers decide what is right and what is wrong. If a society has a ruler that decides that eating the corpses of the deceased is the right thing to do, then you shouldn't be too surprised when you see a funeral procession end in a cannibalistic banquet. Looking at our own society in the United States, the government states that gays can marry each other. However, in other societies, such as some found in the middle east, homosexuals are seen as criminals. This difference in morals are a result of each society's government. Therefore, governments control the morals of society.

To finish on a dark note, Hobbes believes that humans lose any kind of natural rights to the government. If a natural human right conflicts with a government right, the government right will win every time in the eyes of the ruler. For example, if the right to live is a natural human right but the government has a right that if you commit a serious crime then that person must die, then the government will overpower that natural human right. Despite John Locke's belief that all humans have the right to "life", the death penalty exists in modern America. The fact that a theory created by Locke is made inapplicable by a theory created by Hobbes proves how Hobbes is more accurate on human nature.

All I Can Afford

Having a piece of famous art in your possession is highly valued in today's society, just as it was back then. However, since I am a college student, cheap reproductions will have to satisfy my need for high class. If I had a chance to go to the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and had the chance to buy three postcards with my favorite pieces from the museum, I would choose: "The Corpses of the De Witt Brothers", "Morning Ride Along the Beach", and "Still Life with Peacocks".

My first option, "The Corpses of the De Witt Brothers" was painted by Jan de Baen. The actual canvas oil painting is 69.5 cm by 56 cm. Here we see the De Witt Brothers, Johan and Cornelis, after they have been lynched. There is also another onlooker down in the bottom right corner holding a torch to provide the light source for the painting. Johan and Cornelis were key political figures in Holland during the mid 17th century. After being accused of treason, both brothers were killed by an angry mob. The reason why I find this piece interesting is due to the fact that their bodies appear to be on a stage. The brick wall and the positioning of the man in the corner makes the corpses look elevated above ground level. The stage effect really puts an emphasis on the death of these two politicians. That's why this piece would go great with the rest of my souvenirs. The painting exemplifies the significance of these men's deaths that furthered the political events of the Dutch Golden Age.

My second souvenir would be "Morning Ride Along the Beach" by Anton Mauve. This 43.7 cm by 68.6 cm oil painting is a simple scene of men in suits riding their horses by the beach. These men are most likely members of the upper class or possibly the middle class that started emerging during the 19th century when this painting was created. I would like to take this on a postcard due to the textures of the ground. I love the beach (despite living in Arizona) and just looking at the sand beneath the hooves of the stallions makes me remember how sand really does feel on the bottom of my bare feet. The shadows and brush strokes work well together to create a realistic depiction of sand at a beach.

My final treasure to bring home would be "Still Life with Peacocks" by Rembrandt Hermensz. Another oil painting on canvas, this masterpiece is 145 cm by 135.5 cm. This bizarre image shows two dead peacocks with what appears to be a little girl staring at the birds in the background through a window. With the fruit basket in the background, it would appear that the birds were killed in order to be prepared to be eaten; especially since one of the peacocks is hung upside down, which is a technique to let all of the blood spill out of the body. I would take this home purely for the bizarre feeling of the little girl in the background. At first glance, I thought she was just looking at the birds out of curiosity. However, I can almost see a faint smile on the girl's face making this scene a little more eerie. Now, she appears to be amazed or happy that the birds are dead. It's a strange piece by Rembrandt, so I would definitely take this one home with me.

Shut Up Shakespeare

Do you know somebody by the name of Shakespeare? That was a trick question. Even if a person has never read or seen a play by Shakespeare, they still know his name. William Shakespeare has a large collection of works, so there's something for everybody. In the modern world, it is not uncommon to remake a previous work of art into something new; such as rebooting movies like Superman into Man of Steel or bands doing cover songs of one another. Shakespeare's works are no exception. His plays have been made into all sorts of different breeds of entertainment. Besides plays, Shakespeare's work has been created into movies, songs and television shows. With all of these options, it's hard to find something original. However, if I was being paid to go see a Shakespeare play, I would go to the Romeo & Juliet play put on by Ballet Arizona. 

Romeo & Juliet from Ballet Arizona

My main reason for this particular production is that the whole story of Romeo and Juliet is "told" through dance. The dancers never speak, so they rely purely on their body movements and the accompanying orchestra to illustrate their emotions. While Shakespeare plays are known for their extensive language, it is the lack of language in this particular portrayal that makes it stand out among others. The performers never even speak their names, so it is up to the audience to really dive deep into the performance to get a good understanding of what is going on. For example, when Juliet is saddened about marrying Paris, she puts on a dance that moves towards Paris but always tries to find a way to distance herself from him, which indicates to the audience that she only does so because her parents tell her to but would still like to marry someone else instead.

Romeo and the House of Montague ready to fight the House of Capulet

Another reason to see this rendition is because it combines two classic European art forms together: ballet and theater. To experience a Shakespearean play is highly valued in and of itself. A classic ballet holds a similar social value. Therefore, the combination of two high-class arts in a Shakespearean matter is an experience all to its own that can not be recreated so easily. Those that enjoy theater will appreciate the performer's methods of storytelling without speaking and those that enjoy dance will applaud at the dancers' gracefulness and carefully choreographed moves. 

Although this production has already passed this year, there is a chance they will put on the performance again in the future. Ballet Arizona had put on this play back in 2013. However, the play was never put on again until February of 2017. I was lucky enough to actually attend the one that was held in 2017. So why am I telling you this if the play already passed? It's a great experience overall, even if you aren't a Shakespeare fan. For those that can't really understand the language of Shakespeare, then this performance is perfect. The live orchestra played perfectly, the dancers were all in sync, and the story was told very well for not having any speech at all. So, I recommend that you keep an eye out if Ballet Arizona ever decide to put out this production again in the future. 

His Last Scene But Not My Last Post

When you think of poetry, it is people like William Shakespeare and John Donne that are the cause behind your prejudice in thinking poetry is short yet over-complicated and cannot be understood. Here is where you're wrong. In John Donne's poem "This is my play's last scene" from his 19 Holy Sonnets, the meaning can be easily deciphered from the poets strange language. A good read-through of the poem and just about anyone can see that the poem discusses the idea of death. He speaks of how his body and soul are disjointed as his soul rises to heaven and his body remains in the earth. If that isn't clearly someone dying then I have no idea what else it could be.

The first four lines paint how he is approaching his eminent death:

"This is my play's last scene; here heavens appoint

My pilgrimage's last mile; and my race,

Idly, yet quickly run, hath this last pace,

My span's last inch, my minute's latest point"

Even the title gives away the meaning of the poem here. If it's the last scene of a play, then that means the play is ending, just like his life. However, like many good poets, he reiterates his point in multiple ways. He speaks of how his "pilgrimage" is in its "last mile". His journey is coming to an end. His "[life] span's last inch" is upon him. The next two lines are clear yet again on how death will "unjoint" his body and soul. 

While, the first part of this poem is clear, the next two lines caused me a bit of confusion. Lines seven and eight read:

"But my'ever-waking part shall see that face

Whose fear already shakes my every joint"

I assume his "ever-waking part" refers to his soul, since ever-waking basically means always awake. However, I had trouble discerning what the "face" is. One thought I had is that his soul will see his dead body's face, because he says that the "fear already shakes [his] every joint". Another possibility that crossed my mine is that he will see the face of death himself. Perhaps he fears death or believes death to have a terrifying face. 

The final six lines continue on how his soul will rise to heaven and his body will remain on earth. He also adds how his sins will "fall", which I think means that his sins are forgiven. He finishes his poem with the line:

"For thus I leave the world, the flesh, the devil".

Overall, I feel the poem gives off a feeling of relief as if he is grateful that his time had finally come. There is no sense of sadness or fear that he is dying; more like contentment. It is a relaxing viewpoint that his soul will ascend into heaven. The language is what gives me this feeling. It isn't so much the word choice that makes him seem content, but rather the lack of word choice. He never uses words with negative connotations other than gluttonous death, fear, hell, evil, and devil. Despite these words being present, the surrounding language negates any negative feelings that may arise. For example, when he mentions "gluttonous death" in line five, he mentions in line six that he will "sleep a space". Here, instead of being fearful or saddened that death is coming for him, he is more at peace that he will be able to sleep. If he wanted to instill fear into the poem, he could've mentioned how death would be dragging his soul down to hell or that he will never be able to rest easy again. However, we get the opposite, thus eliminating any feeling of sorrow or regret.

I really enjoyed this poem. I feel that it wasn't too hard to comprehend, but still offered enough complexity to be torn apart in greater detail and illustrate a deeper meaning than what appeared on the surface.

This Isn't the Garden

There are very few artists who can capture the meaning of hell better than Hieronymus Bosch. Bosch has depicted hell in various ways, but they all contain a similar feeling of dread and panic. One such example is in a triptych he created called The Haywain Triptych. This particular piece holds many similarities to his more well-known triptych called The Garden of Earthly Delights. However, the Haywain is more narrative than the Garden.

To begin with, the left panel starts from the top with God throwing out the angels who betrayed him. As they fall, the angels turn to insects. Next, God creates Eve from Adam's rib. This particular scene bears very similar resemblance to the Garden in that God appears to favor Eve more than Adam as he lays helpless on the ground. After that, Adam and Eve meet the serpent under the tree and partake in the fruit. Finally, an angel casts Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden. Looking at Eve in the final scene, she appears to be looking left at the next panel and is worried about what's to come.

The center panel most likely represents the modern world. Here many scenes of sin occur. There is murder right on the ground, a man who would appear to represent the sin of gluttony sits on the bottom right corner, and a cluster of peasants who are grabbing every shred of hay they can off the wagon to represent greed. Very clearly, God is portrayed at the top of the scene; however, only the angel is looking up at him from atop what appears to be a wagon of some kind. Everybody else is ignoring God, thus putting more emphasis on the sin aspect of the modern world at that time. Also, the wagon-like object appears to be moving towards the right panel. Oddly enough, there is a mixed scene between the middle and right panels that occurs on the right side of the middle panel. Here, humans appear to be morphing into animals and other strange beasts. The metamorphosis of the humans further illustrate how mankind is losing God and becoming more like the beasts that posses no God. Plus, the human-beasts appear to be pulling the wagon and humans into the next scene.

The right panel, just like the Garden, is Bosch's interpretation of hell. All kinds of pain and suffering are depicted here. From a man being impaled by a spear to a two-legged fish creature devouring another man, all sorts of paranoia are present. Towards the right side of the panel, it would appear that animals are building a home or shelter as if to tell the humans that hell is their home now. Surely, this piece would strike fear into the hearts and minds of faithful Catholics during Bosch's time.

Characteristics of Those Who Hold More Power Than You Do

Machiavelli's The Prince provides a fairly useful outline to what Machiavelli believes to be the ideal leader. To begin with, Machiavelli's first characteristic of a good leader is that he (or she) should be feared rather than loved if only one option is available. Personally, I feel that to be loved would be a more effective method of leadership. Creating fear in your subjects could lead to the development of radicals among the people that could potentially take action against you. On the other hand, if you are loved by your people, than there should be no reason for the people to revolt. As long as your rule is just, then the people can live in peace without the paranoia that their leader could chop off their heads at any minute because they forgot to bow when he or she walked by.
Next, the second characteristic according to The Prince is that a leader should have the support of his people. This is true. If you don't have people to rule over and command, then you are not a leader; you are just a deranged person trying to order people around that could care less about you.
The third attribute is that a leader should hold or at least appear to hold good virtues. I agree with this. Even if it's a lie, the easiest way to gain support from the people is to display how your actions match with your subjects' thoughts and beliefs. If the people believe your rule to be justifiable, then you have successfully gained trust in your subjects.
Characteristic number four is to never rely on outside military forces. This is true to a certain degree. If the outside forces come from an allied kingdom then there should not be a problem using them. However, your personal military should be deployed first and foremost. Outside help should come as a last resort. Mercenaries, however, should never be deployed since they act on the basis of a paycheck rather than loyalty.
Machiavelli's last and most important characteristic (in my opinion) of a successful leader is to have intelligence. No matter what the leader is in charge of, they will need intelligence to be successful. To possess the ability to think of a clever solution to any problem at any moment is what separates the successful leaders from those that end up dead.

Looking over all of these characteristics, I can't say that I can really think of a contemporary leader that fits the bill. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to contemporary leaders, so I can't really think of anyone. However, my boss fits the description fairly well. She definitely instills fear in me and my fellow coworkers, but we still support her demands. She at least appears to hold good virtues since we all work in the food department of a retirement home. I've never seen her rely on outside help to get things done that we could do ourselves, like fixing a broken refrigerator. Plus, she does hold quite a bit of knowledge to gain the position that she has now.

If I could create my own ideal leader, I would believe he or she would possess these characteristics:

• Has a decent degree of intelligence
• All leaders need intelligence to make acceptable decisions
• Is accepting of change
• Change happens all the time, so the leader must be ready to face any new challenges with an open mind
• Leaves personal matters out of the leadership position
• Personal business should not interfere with a leader's duty. He or she should always consider the needs of the people over his or her own personal agenda
• Is capable of making allies
• A leader that only makes enemies has never heard the saying that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and will find themselves being faced against an enemy alliance
• Has a strong military force
• Any successful leader will have enemies and a strong military will make anyone think twice before attacking the kingdom

Since I don't really pay that close attention to leaders, I can't think of someone that fits my ideal leader. If I had to choose someone, I suppose Barack Obama could be one. He does possess intelligence and is accepting of change as seen in his LGBT support. I don't remember his personal life ever interfering with his job. As the United States president, he was at least successful in retaining the allies that America had before his office. Lastly, there are very few military forces that can rival the might of the United States military. Therefore, Barack Obama would have been my ideal leader. However, I don't follow politics heavily so any other actions under his administration that could convince me otherwise that he was an ideal leader are not known by me. 

Craving Creativity in Culture

For the melting pot called America, it's nice to have a plethora of cultures to partake in and enjoy. For me personally, I am most involved in the food and music cultures. What I mean by food culture is the experience of new foods. For example, molecular gastronomy has been developing more and greater techniques at creating different foods. While I was in San Diego, I visited a restaurant that uses molecular gastronomy called "Plan Check". Here, they turn regular old ketchup into ketchup leather. The creation tastes just like ketchup but feels like a fruit leather/fruit roll-up in your mouth. These kind of new food tastes, textures, cooking techniques, and experiences are what I love the most about the food culture in America. On the other hand, I enjoy all kinds of music. My favorite genre is rock, but I have an appreciation for the other genres as well. One element I find interesting in the music culture is the blending of genres. For example, taking a look at an infamous rock band (and my favorite one at that) Linkin Park, while they have their main albums of rock, they also create remixes of their albums featuring popular DJ's and rappers such as Pusha T, Killsonik, and Jay Z. When genres collide, I love it. That's why I'm always keeping my eye out for any up and coming artists that might be flipping the music stereotypes that America has created over the years. Overall, just based on these two cultures, I would say that anything that is new and not very culturally accepted is what draws my attention. I'm always ready to try a new experience.

(Linkin Park with Jay Z)
(Left: Chester Bennington, Middle: Jay Z, Right: Mike Shinoda)

(Chef from Plan Check holding
a batch of Ketchup Leather)

While I only really consider myself to be a consumer of the food and music cultures, there is one particular culture that interests me. The culture of philosophy (which sounds philosophical in its own right) has always made me think hard, in a good way. I would like to know how philosophers get all of their ideas and how past and current philosophers were/are so successful in presenting their theories and ideas. I've studied a few philosophers in the past, but I could never really figure out how they could create such insane and radical ideas that actually become reality. If I could come up with my own philosophy and gain a following, I could die at that exact moment...that way I wouldn't have to face any opposition that would look to disprove my theory. Philosophy sounds like a harsh discipline full of people that just want to be proven right.