Discoursing Our World

Most of us have heard and many of us understand the philosophy behind the idea that everyone gets to create their own reality, but further that we do this through using and manipulating discourse.  I am going to offer two small rebuttals against this idea.

I am walking my dog down the sidewalk in banked with snow filled trees and Icy grass. Picture that. despite the need to translate that same phrase into other languages, I would make an educated and simple guess that everyone can picture what I’m talking about. Is it real? What else is it if it is not real? The same scene say that I use the following phrase: my dog is walking at the end of the leash that I am holding as both of us are strolling down a winter pathway through a hilly meadow. Picture that; is that real? What else is it?

Now, has my reality changed because I used two different phrases to describe the situation? I think One would have to ask how it is that I’m defining reality. But then I could use the same qualifiers for those definitions that I am using to describe this thing called reality.

So that’s the first rebuttal. There is no different reality or different world that I’m constructing through any of my use of discourse. I am simply using different terms to describe the same real situation.

The second rebut has to do with the condition In which I find I find myself, The one where I have to apply the same conditions to the term “reality” as I would have to apply to the phrase-term I use to describe the Wintery episode that I’m currently involved with.

Because I have to do that, we have the two conditions, I might add the two “post-” Modern philosophical argumentative positions that despite what anyone wants to say I do not believe we are even close to getting anywhere beyond. Hence the reason for this comment this post right now.

The second rebuttal hast to do with the fact that if I keep applying my philosophically questioning thinking apparatus to the various terms to try to get to some sort of “reality” of the phrase term that I may use, and the repeated application of that philosophical protocol inevitably I find myself in the case where there is either nothing which supports the discourse, or that discourse is indeed the ground.

The second rebuttal has to do with the results here. First off, in any other condition that I might be trying to solve some sort of equation, trying to reduce to solve to some variables or control for some variables, if the answer I got was nothing, I would throw away the formula. Of course, I might back up just a little bit and then give the formula to a bunch of friends and colleagues and have them rework the same formula, but if all of us got the result as nothing we would throw away the formula.

But somehow in philosophy we don’t do this. Instead, through some sort of magical apparatus, in philosophy we are allowed to say the formula must be correct and we just stay with the formula and continue to use it. In this case the formula is “discourse”. The formula is incorrect and yet philosophy continually uses the formula and say that the formula is producing reality, (and all of us individually despite any good reason why we should be able to interact) and then we have basically all the philosophies of at least the 20th century up till now.

Any thoughts on that?

39 Comments

  1. In both sentences you used here, you are telling the same reality. But if you take the example of using new words, like the ones created alongside technology, they create a new reality.

    1. …then we have to ask what this new technological reality is (in specific instances). But I think reality itself is not being changed unless we reply upon the idea that reality is changing by the terms we use to describe it. Which then merely argues a particular limit as absolute. I disagree with this limiting.

      1. I challenge you to Say something using discourse that means something that we don’t understand. 🙂. (Barring particular untranslated language )

      2. Touche’. ! 🤣

        But the others are a part of the question.

        How do I know what you are referring to? Is it a figment ofmy imagination? Is there actual bits of “meaning” that is floating in space between us such that only human beings are decoding this secret semantic transcript ? But the bits have not relation to anything else but this decoder ring in our brains ?

        What am I talking about brains? To what is “brain” referring to? Is it this always changing mass? Or are the bits of secret info always changing? How does your and my brain keep up on the changing? What exactly is changing and becoming?

        To what do these phrase-terms refer?

      3. You know that language or a discourse is meant to be 1st a tool of communication and that’s why people created conventions: the organ you are referring to was called “brain” as a consensus so people would understand what the word brain refers to. For materialistic objects, there is no problem of reference. The problem of discourse lies elsewhere. This is the reason why discourse fails to be accurate in terms of emotions

      4. I know what you meAn by emotions.
        I would say that philosophy through Kant has shown us that there is no difference between the object of reference noted by brain and the object of reference noted by emotion, that the difference is already part of a given imperative. The object is conveyed intact and complete through discourse . Language is another matter, Becuase language is first arranged in discourse.

        The issue I am indicating is before discourse is fixed in linguistic surety. Hence as you’ve seen, I ask “how do you know” (that I am speaking of epistemology, say, or that when I say brain I dont really mean emotions) as a logistical philosophical question rather than a semantic philosophical question. In order for me to have meaning, that is before I communicate, we would have to first have some conduit where meanings compartmentalize and present sure objects. For example “details of emotion” is itself already known; this is not linguistics or epistemology; it is logistical Becuase in order for epistemology or linguistics to function there must already have been a “packet” of information that was already employed. Fixed. It is not a “changing packet”. It is surly fixed or we would not be able to talk about how reality is changing. No?

      5. I see what you mean but what is fixed in reality is the repetitive thing. From an empirical view, the repetitive might change any time. David Hume said that if the sun rises every day it doesn’t mean that it will be so forever. So in a way the repetitive is considered as the fixed reality which made epistemology and discourse, even Aristotle’s logic possible. But there is another logic that is wider which Deleuze talks about: immanence, life, energy and these 3 are not fixed

      6. Well, as I’ve said: I am not a metaphysician. I am not proposing an argument about what might be holding it all together or what might be going on behind the scenes. I am describing what is occurring.

        Hey; was it Aristotle that situated metaphysics with religion? That really they are the same thing ?

        Phenomenology, if I am correct, is based in the idea that Becuase we are not essentially separate from the universe that thought therefore should have some manner of discerning what is true of the universe? That wehave access intuitively to what is true? And Hegel for one spells out what exactly this coordination of thought and universe should mean when it is possible.

        How does that go exactly. Do you know what I’m talking about. ?

      7. …I am
        Using the notion of “fixed” as a way to direct a view upon the situation. The usual meaning Philosophical empiricism would thereby have to change to accommodate a different way of viewing human knowing. And thus the way we speak and reason would adjust, how the world is would also adjust. But first we would have to understand what is actually “fixed”. Like a calculus.

      8. … Hey but I got a little off topic of this post.

        My pointreally is that the formula that came to the conclusion that the answer is nothing must be incorrect. But philosophy —- and yes ! as you kind of point out, probably continental philosophy but philosophy as those which entertain these big names such as Heidegger and Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Kant, etc. and so I say “philosophy” —-

        But that’s why in my other post that I think you saw I distinguish between different types of philosophy because then when someone says “philosophy” and starts talking about something, we could already have an understanding about what kind of philosophy they’re talking about. It would serve to add clarity into what people are doing when they say that they are philosophizing or that they are addressing philosophy or something like that.

        Anyways —-

        The reason why philosophy, which we can generalize to say Western philosophy, but then most recently continental philosophy in particular, That ends in the conclusion of nothing and or discourse is incorrect because The equation does not balance. The equation that philosophy concluded with nothing basically says that 0=1.

        At any other moment of logic outside of philosophy, once philosophy reaches the conclusion of nothing, then the result should be that the method is false. This is what we see with the struggles of Wittgenstein himself, in his work, Becuase he realized his answer did not sync, did not wash, as they say, with what he would want to otherwise try and further propose.

        But because philosophy still continues what we must conclude from that is that something has changed in what philosophy is doing before the conclusion was “nothing=discourse”.

        If we just say that philosophy is just a particular type of activity of thinking, then we cannot also say that philosophy can address anything there is in the world. Or rather, it is only by denying the conclusion of nothing that we are able to say that philosophy is at once just a particular type of thinking, but as well able to encompass everything that might arise.

        It would be like saying that I am able to rake up leaves that have fallen from the tree, and in this activity of raking up leaves are thereby build computers.

        Do you follow that line of argument ? What do you say ?

      9. The grounding of knowledge in thought, like Kant, indicates that there is supposed nothing knowable outside of human knowledge. Nihilism posits nothing as the ground of ethics. As well and knowledge. Wittgenstein shows how there is nothing Which supports discourse. What do you think ?

      10. What you can perceive. It comes from Greek, “phe” which means light. In other words, a phenomenon is what appears to perception

      11. …because. APA Witt: discourse only refers to itself. What is passed over is something that must include what we generally assume is “the thinker”. But, as Wiit Came to realize as he moved into his philosophy beyond the Tractatus, or at least as he had been formulating notes upon that initial work, he could not even refer to the thinker as if something is thinking, as if indeed he is thinking, because if he were to say that they knew he would be negating the body of his whole work. Hence there’s a split, as I talk about in my book(s)— sorry; as some philosophers have said, really philosophy is only about one thing,lol— There must be a split because it is evident by the subsequent philosophy that tries to address his works, that people view his work as if it’s fuel for thought. But really the conclusion that he came to was that there is no thought, it’s something that we must Passover if we are to truly engage with philosophy as a historical venture. And we might even bring inHeidegger “ what is it that we call thinking?”

      12. Thinking is a process based on our own understanding of what we perceive (again). It is a process of constructing and deconstructing what we have been given through perception, education, culture etc. It all creates a pattern made of connected flux

      13. Do you never question why perception is at root, or ask into why perception should be foundational? For, what is the phenomenon of perception? Why should or why is the thing called perception different as a known thing than the thing of the phenomenon? Are they both not known?

        And What is constructing and deconstructing ? What is doing those? How are such things available? Available to what ? And what are the things “deconstructing”?

      14. perception is our passeport to the world and to everything existing out there. perception is undeniably the link to the phenomenon. our mind functions through perception, this is how we are made.
        i like Hume’s explanation on this: you perceive a phenomenon and it creates in you an impression. then you interpret the impression or represent it. it becomes an idea. the more you perceive, the more impressions and representations you will have. the connexion between all of these (constructing and deconstructing) is the mind

      15. It is the interpretation of the sensation. So it comes from consciousness. Let’s say it is understanding the sensation

      16. …For example: to what does “reality is made of different layers” refer?

        If it refers to a constant becoming and transformation, to what does that discourse refer? Is it a “non-moving” state that is “constant becoming”? If it is constantly becoming, then what are the terms themselves? Since the terms are fixed. Or are they constantly changing? Is the letter “A” changing before my and your eyes? Or is it always “A”?

      17. Very legitimate questions. But you are pointing more to philosophy of language than philosophy in its larger scale. And yes words are changing because the world is changing. There are words we don’t use anymore since they don’t refer to the current layer of reality. So a discourse is related mainly to a state of mind, action, event, thought, feeling etc.. past, present and future

      18. 1). “…you are pointing more to philosophy of language than philosophy in its larger scale. And yes words are changing because the world is changing”
        —-Did the words change in that sentence.? When do the words change?
        When or how does the scale of philosophy become larger that it is? Under what conditions is philosophy more that it is?

        2) “There are words we don’t use anymore since they don’t refer to the current layer of reality.”

        —What words are those? When you tell me about them, are you not using those words to tell me about how they are no longer used? How could you use a word that is no longer used and tell me about it, if it is no longer used? How could you know what it means?

        3) “So a discourse is related mainly to a state of mind, action, event, thought, feeling etc.. past, present and future”

        — I would say this phrase, the one that you are using to tell me about discourses, is discourse. So I am asking, to what is that discourse referring?

      19. 1) and 2) philosophy of language and logic look at the meaning of words in a sentence and their correlations to reality. For example, God as a word doesn’t have a materialistic nor a perceptive reference in reality. God has a meaning in the sentence where the word is mentioned and to a believer. This is very specific to logic and to philosophy of language. But philosophy in a broader sense would discuss God not in the logistical linguistic and reference frame all the time. As a metaphysical entity, God as a word and meaning remains the same throughout history. Another example, some grammar forms that are no longer used, or names of tools we no longer use etc..
        3) no.. discourses to discourse is like some forms of philosophy of maths or metaphysics where the reference is an abstract object that is a concept without an empirical correlation. Because in this case I would say that words and sentences and discourses work like algorithms

      20. I like the algorithm and sentences thing.

        I don’t see it as linguistic philosophy Becuase by the time we have fallen I to the category of linguistics we are speaking about what might be occurring behind the scenes. I am speaking about what is actually occurring now. What I’m getting at though is as you read this sentence, as I typed it, as it comes in you screen, as you encounter
        it, did the words change? Is that word there “change”, changing? Is it? Are the symbols moving before you eyes? The actual meaning of the term (and by extension, phrase) in a state of flux that you are perceiving? I say no. The word “change” is fixed, both in structure and meaning for both of us. If it were not we could not communicate.

        Like wise whatever terms existed that we no longer use are things that are speculated as existing essentially “behind the scenes”, in history, the past, as invisible psychic structures or what have you. The fact is that as soon as you refer to “words we no longer use”, you/me are enacting two “meanings”, but what I am calling “orientations”. The One orientation brings in things behind the scenes as they are implicitly understood to be actually involved in the informing of a term to true meaning; for example, words from the past we no longer use are understood as existing or having existed somewhere else, essentially having some aspect of themselves, whether of “knowledge” or “bits of info”, that is moving in time to inform us to the true meaning of the situation referred by the term-phrase. That activity is based in linguistics.

        The other orientation says that “terms from the past” occur now, referencing only the phrase-term. It is logistical Becuase it has to do with how the world is being manifested as the human being is seeing its productions as extending beyond the moment of use. How do I know, I thus a question about how those two orientations operate in the human being. Not what they mean only; but how what is meaning is working as the human being.

        I say that These orientations are not mutually exclusive nor argue that one is more true, but work together at all times.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s