Reality, Truth and Discourse

Given that people come to all sorts of reasoned and experiential ideas about what is true of any situation, And we discuss debate and argue with each other about these maxims even while what we know is true will not be moved by the interactionwhat we know is true will not be moved by the interaction.

Question: If we weren’t talking about it, Would a true reality arise? :

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

40 thoughts on “Reality, Truth and Discourse”

  1. Well, you said the brain produces discourse. And you also said that try to think without discourse.

    So, does the brain exist outside of discourse?

    Are not you, in this very formulation, having thoughts and knowledge which is entirely discourse ?

    I call it logistics. People tend to see the questions that I’m asking as having to do with epistemology. But I say no, I am asking logistically.

    One of the problems with me just making statements, and then you just making statements, is that we never really communicate. You already know everything that you know is true and everything that informs you to what is true, and there really is no argument that I can make, no statement that will ever convince you against what you already understand as the truth of the situation. So, if we are both involved with philosophy, then I would say that philosophy has failed right there, because no statement that you’re going to make to me is going to be able to change my mind away from what I already understand is the truth of the matter. As well with you.

    we both have a greed that nothing arises outside of discourse.

    And so really the only thing philosophical that I can think to really say to you to try to inspire communication between us, is to ask you if the brain lay outside of discourse?

    If it does, I would have to say how are you able to breach that discursive limits to be able to know that the brain is the thing that makes discourse or otherwise manifest discourse?

      1. Do I intentionally form or use them? If I quiet them to silence. Do I choice the order they arise when they do? Do I chose when they arise. The words ?

      2. To silence them or not, to choose them consciously or not, that’s not the problem. The problem is that the truth is a concept that does not exist without words nor outside of words.
        Reality is reality: discourse or judgement on reality can be right or wrong depending on parameters of course.

      3. 😁. I ponder if it is only right now that the truth lay in discourse. I’m not totally sure that 100 years ago or 500 the truth lay and discourse in how they used it.

        What we can see if of as a progression I feel is only what we come upon as discourse now. That is, not only with a particular layout which we see as the progression, but that discourse is the result of this progression also, it is just an arbitrary manner of being human now.

        So there’s that, what I could call one route.

        Then there is indeed the truth of the progression that we see obviously that arises or comments or ends to our present situation where we can draw historical vectors and say such and such that philosophy used to be this and now it’s this and that this progression is innately and inherently evolved as a human being through our history.

        That is the other route. I think in terms of truth, they are both true. But, if we stick to one of the routes as indicating or telling us what is more true of the situation, then we have ultimately merely adhered our concept of truth to only one of those routes.

        I think that the manner that humans are able to know things, through either of those routes, through both of those routes, evidence the contradiction between them must conclude that they are both true and do not contradict one another. Each has their particular lineage of thinking, linking of concepts, how everything goes together around it and circulates around it as a universe. And that they both exist at the same time and do not contradict one another; Hence, to reduce one to the other is really just another opinion, just another false claim that reduces to the great one route that arises which everyone argues over.

        I think the truth is that there are two routes which manifest knowledge.

      4. But it is not relative. It is not postmodern subjectivity. It is actually objectively considering the presentation of what knowledge is able to be. It is not just merely two routes among a multitude of routes, because any other idea of truth would necessarily fall into one of those categories, either in opinion based upon histories and trajectories of knowing and manners of reasoning and argumentation, or that are vectors ultimately lead to a sort of “Zen now” kind of an evolving eternally present being.

        If I was to argue Christianity, say and their cosmology and stuff it would necessarily fall into the same kind of route for truth as the philosophical argumentation lineage history route that I described above. If we look at all schemes of knowledge they would necessarily fall into one of those two categories.

        I think this says something about how humans know. Not about subjectivity, but about the object that is the human being which thinks.

      5. …And it is not an opinion in the regular sense that we understand and know as opinion. It is the truth because it’s really the only sensible conclusion one can have critically about the situation of knowledge.

        Can you think of another manner that knowledge can be accounted for?

        But I say it’s two routes that don’t reduce into one another because, in a manner of speaking, I would say that I exist through both conditions at the same time, yet one of those routes does not inform my opinion about the other route. The ideological, traditional, ideal logical sense of knowing that I might have which leads me to conclude that I exist in an ever present moment, does not inform my reasoning upon the traditional lineage of philosophy and evolving humanity. But neither does my view or knowledge about the traditional evolving humanity inform my conclusions or am I thinking about how my ever presents of existence makes sense. .They are two routes that arise mutually exclusive to one another and do not inform or affect the other so far as how I am or how I engage with the world, at least so far as my opinion might go or my knowledge might affect how I M

      6. Even with D and G: if I ama desire producing machine, of sorts, Spinoza was not. And yet he was. If I make an argument that he was not because there was no concept yet for him to be that, then I have merely adhered to the traditional route, So I can say he was not. But if I say that do you and G were talking about something that is inherently human and applies to all humans throughout history, then I have some and a sort of ever presents, I sort of static being that exists through a time, one route, but then I have also made an argument about whether or not that’s the case, that is the other route. at no time am I ever able to summon both of those ontological truths into the same presence into the same lineage, into the same argument or presentation of meaning.

        I’m walking my dog so I’m thinking a lot and then talking into this phone. 👨🏽‍🚀

      7. I sensed that you were walking your dog and talking into your phone lol because it is not very clear.
        Let’s go back to the start of this discussion. what was your main question about discourse’?

      8. I kept on thinking about this. I watched my 1 year old twins nephews and they “know” small things of course and they don’t speak. So maybe we know things by intuition. But I wonder how deep can we defend a thesis like this

      9. I’m not sure we have to.

        Because first we should parse out discourse.

        Is everything discourse?

        Does the human brain and or body make or otherwise produce-to-know discourse?

      10. 😁
        I think here where you defer to another discipline is exactly where philosophy really begins.

        (1). There is nothing outside of discourse

        (2) what is discourse ?

      11. A discourse is a way of communication, made of words that are sings, a synthesis of what exist in the real world

      12. My last question was: does discourse (text) indicate something that is not discursive ?

        The brain. Perhaps?

      13. Now That Is and interesting question.

        Maybe you didn’t notice the accompanying reply. Which appeared – I don’t know why – in a different part of the comment thread:

        Well, you said the brain produces discourse. And you also said that try to think without discourse. And you said also “both routes are made of words”.

        So, does the brain exist outside of discourse? Is the brain made of words? Or is it made of something else?
        Are not you, in the very formulation, having thoughts and knowledge which is entirely discourse ?

        My question has to do with, say, your niece. Or nephew. Is your niece made of words? That is the same as the question: to what object does discourse refer?

        I call it logistics. People tend to see the questions that I’m asking as having to do with epistemology. But I say no, I am asking logistically.

        One of the problems with me just making statements, and then you just making statements, is that we never really communicate. You already know everything that you know is true and everything that informs you to what is true, and there really is no argument that I can make, no statement that will ever convince you against what you already understand as the truth of the situation. So, if we are both involved with philosophy, then I would say that philosophy has failed right there, because no statement that you’re going to make to me is going to be able to change my mind away from what I already understand is the truth of the matter. As well with you.

        This is the situation Zizek refers to as the near impossibility of thinking beyond Capitalism.

        Yet, we both have agreed that nothing arises outside of discourse.

        What does that mean? How is that possible to have agreeed on something (disourse is an object outside of itself, that is, something your use or do that is not me). What have we agreed upon?

        And so really the only thing philosophical that I can think to really say to you to try to inspire communication between us, is to ask you if the brain lay outside of discourse? Does the thing which produces discourse lay outside of discourse?

        If it does, I have to ask: how are you able to breach the discursive limits of your own discursive world, to be able to know that the brain is the thing that makes discourse or otherwise manifest discourse?

      14. I will answer your last questions: no other existing brain ( except for the human brain of course) could produce discourse and words. So, you are asking a question dealing with ontology. Even biology.

        So words made our story as a human specie. To ask if a discourse refers to something beyond it that is not made of discourse, the brain, is like asking who came 1st the egg or chicken.

        So we can’t think outside of words. Paradoxically, words made us evolve and create but they have their limits. In spite of this, we can’t think outside of words because ideas are words/signs.

        Capitalism is a replica of our lusty nature and our instinct of survival. More is more and more will make us richer and powerful, so we can survive more. This is why, Zizek said that about capitalism which needs to be corrected because it is creating social injustice.

      15. Causally yes I could see it as a chicken and egg problem. But this is not really causal. Becuase: which one is true, nothing exists out side of discourse or somethings exist outside ?

      16. Let’s say something exists outside of discourse: so what? How will you try to know it without naming it? How will you reflect upon it without words? Which means the existence of something outside of discourse is irrelevant.

      17. So there is nothing outside of discourse.

        I think of things and approach philosophy from the stand point of what is actual. What is actually involved. And as we might be able to reason about it (for our reasoning is actual also, the fact that we are able to do it).

        So are you saying that discourse arises or is created from something that is irrelevant ? (The brain).

      18. … So how do you differentiate between what is the brain, what is discourse, and what is thought?

        I saw your other post and you talked about how philosophy is the science of definition.

        And I commented there that I disagree.

        I think it is a definition of a particular kind of philosophy. But if that’s the case then I could claim that biology supersedes philosophy, and that philosophical categories ultimately have to answer to biology. It would make no difference what you wanted to argue with me philosophically about the case, because I already know that biology trumps anything philosophy would say.

        Or I could even say that Christianity Trump’s philosophy in every case, and that one merely needs to believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, and the point of philosophy as something distinguished by definition becomes a moot point because there’s nothing that you will be able to say philosophically to change the Christians mind.

        The only way that you could say or claim that philosophy as a disciplines distinct from other disciplines, is considering things in a better light, in a more comprehensive light, in whatever like you would want to say, is to refer to philosophy itself, is basically to deny that Christianity has its own basis of making claims for truth.

        So I’m not sure if the science of definition is an accurate philosophy for what we are speaking of when we say philosophy. If only because I could have a philosophy of being Christian, we would have to say that whether I have defined philosophy as a particular discipline has that’s just been broken somehow by saying there is a philosophy of Christianity, a philosophy of biology, a philosophy of computer science.

        I’m not sure what kind of definition we could make which could umbrella all these different types of philosophy and still be talking about philosophy.

        I disagree because when I say grass you know exactly what I’m saying regardless of what definition. Or if I say ecology; you pretty much know what I’m talking about in the context that I use it. Or if I say science; it doesn’t matter what definition I have of it you know exactly what I mean when I say the science of geology, or the science of mind. We already know, before we even start talking about it, what I am talking about.

        And so I would say to limit philosophy as just a discipline or a category amongst other categories is really not paying attention to what is actually occurring as philosophy, not really paying attention philosophically to what is occurring.

        It appears to me that if I say philosophy is one discipline, and that history is another discipline, and psychology is another discipline, then I’m talking about something else. Because ultimately I would be saying that my philosophy of defining is thus. I wouldn’t be proper to say that my Biology of understanding things is to defined them into categories such as philosophy, history, mathematics, etc. sure, we could construct discourse in any way we want to and talk about “the ecology of categories”. But then what is the point of having the category of philosophy when I could just as easily say that neuroscience explains everything that philosophy is talking about, or I could say computer science is more explanatory than philosophy ever is.

        Basically for me to stick to my particular philosophy, philosophy as a particular discipline as opposed to other disciplines, is really just asserting my subjective privacy. And that, without really looking into what is occurring when I rely upon that automatic, axiomatic, reflexive given that I just assume as I go into the world.
        In short, yes in one way I can understand what you’re talking about when you talk about philosophy as a science of definition, but on the other hand when you start to think about it philosophically, it’s Really just a subjective assertion, really just subjectivity arguing itself. And I’m not sure how that is any different then a Christian merely arguing it to you over and over again how you need to save your soul by believing in Jesus Christ. I’m not sure what the difference in subjective activity really is, because even if we go into saying that we are negotiating these categories, ultimately were left in the end with me saying you better save your soul through believing in Jesus Christ or you’re an idiot.

        The same way if I adhere to my definition of philosophy as a science of definition, I pretty much approach everyone else and everyone else’s ideas as if there an idiot; I’ll be at I can have a certain compassion and a certain tolerance for their idiocy, but my approach towards them is basically that I don’t have to believe in Jesus Christ no matter what you tell me. My particular view is privileged as it is given to me as a subject of the universe and it is correct because I see it everywhere as proof.

        There’s something else going on that this kind of definition of philosophy is trying to avoid intentionally I think.

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