It is interesting to me how an arm of continental philosophy is concerned with critqueing science. While i, as a sort of continental myself, am involved in an attempt at making a science out of the continental form, which, in effect, is itself a critique of continentalism.
Innoway I suppose one should be willing to state things albeit preliminary, in a clear fashion. So I’ll attempt this.
Despite all the various philosophical designations such as subject object material empirical I deal real void, and however many others that just aren’t coming to mind at this moment, The question always has to be what the hell are they talking about. The problem I find with many people who don’t consider themselves philosophers is that when you ask them about philosophers many of them have an opinion that philosophy says nothing significant, but they are talking for the sake of talking. And honestly I tend to agree. Ask a philosopher to what they are referring to when they say ‘material’ or materialism, and I will bet you everything I own that they will give you a never ending rambling discourse of various other philosophers and what they think and how it’s really a difficult subject to define etc.indeed, I am guilty of this very thing.
So despite all this philosophy and philosophical jargon I attempt to dispose with the never ending reference of the myrads of various big and little name philosophers that comprise the traditional corpus of philosophy. I tried to really stick to the question what the hell are we talking about.
If I say grass you know what I mean. If you ask me what I mean by grass I can say that green stuff right there next to the sidewalk, and you know exactly what I’m talking about. Be particular method of investigating terms to find out something that is more true of a particular object is metaphysical. And without mincing words, I say the discussion about fundamentals of things being, what we generally call ontology, is religious theology under different terms. This is why I say that when we look at ancient civilizations and we say they’re mythology was this weather cosmology was that we are referring to their reality, indeed a reality that is not functional anymore, but a reality nevertheless that does not merely take place within some belief system or conceptual organization, as if there is some reality that each human being only partakes in a piece of whether it be capacity or ability of knowledge or whether it be ignorance versus intelligence or education . Indeed we call that arena reality . To investigate the terms of reality in mind that the terms refer to objective essence of sorts , is real and functions as truth of reality . The human being present on the scene is organized and is placed through the terms of reality. What I call conventional philosophy is a theological situating of these terms to justify ones being in the world (ontology).
Such ontology is always situated in a dualistic mode; in particular for this essay, we mean to indicate the thinker and the thought as well of the object, The subject and object. The argument that there may not be such a case is it self still a real discernment based in the observation of the thinker upon the real universal object or the assertion there of, which is to say part of the negotiation of finding out what is true and false.
By contrast the partition recognizes the in evitablilty of existence, what we call determinism. Yet as soon as we attempt to look into what determinism may mean, as soon as I search some meaning of determinism where I’m going to argue this particular truth of reality against people that have others ideas of what determinism is Oregon’s people that don’t believe we are determined, is a contradiction in terms. So by contrast we leave the simple definition of determinism as that which reality will not allow, which is the say inseparable from itself and proceeding ultimately the only way that it can and does.
The reason why we must say that reality will not allow this simple definition is because it argues into the real ontological status of the term. It argues into nihilism, nothingness and similar nill sets. This is because the arguments of ontology are based in object-term identity. We call such arguments redundant because regardless of the meaning of the terms or clauses such meaningful structures are taken to refer to essential real true objects in themselves. This is how reality functions.
Yet the fact remains that this is the only way that we are able to speak of the situation. This is so much the case that we can take Gyles Deluze works as examples of contradiction in action. The reading ofDeleuze it’s like an exercise in comedy. For the meaning of his phrases perpetually indicate the nothing Ness of the object such phrases are taken to refer to. We might call his products saturated irony.
So what is a difference precipitates out of the situation at hand. For the statement that speaks of determinism is like a sort of portal or doorway; it’s riddle is like that of the sphinx. The answer to the riddle when one approach is the sphinx has already been formulated, The question already structured even before he encounters the sphinx. Thereby what occurs is in evitable; The person passes the test and walks through unscathed, what the individual answers incorrectly in the sphinx devours them.
We mean to address those for whom the sphinx has allowed to pass. Regardless of the distaste that may arise in many is conceptual mouth, regardless of the ridicule that maybe thrown towards those who are not devoured, regardless of how many spears are thrusted into the sides of those who already know the answer, The truth remains solute.
This is thereby an invitation, A calling to those for whom the discourse speaks similar to the way that I describe. Is the kind of signal, that we are asking for an opening, but more so that this opening will be created despite the naysayers. The religionists will always adhere to their ideological faith. And the question that hangs in the air is if anyone understands me.
And if anyone does then the next order of business would be to begin to detail the aspects or elements that makes it possible. Not so much what it implies about existence as to an ontology of being, but rather what occurred or what is occurring that makes it possible to have the understanding of which I speak.