Realism and Material. All The President’s Men | HuffPost

All The President’s Men | HuffPost
— Read on m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5f832f7ec5b62f97bac42a7c

—–

An obsession with returning to the past. A reification of the past which blurs and distorts contact with the present.

Sound familiar?

I had a recent discussion about what might be dangerous of ideas. My point was that what I call a conventional approach to philosophy is dangerous. At least in so much as we might be inciting philosophical ideas as dangerous.

My point is that what seems so innocuous and innocent often is what is really dangerous. Take for example these, militia men. I don’t think these people are an exception, like they’re the only people in the United States that’s thinking this way or thinking about taking action in this way. In fact I would guess about 20 miles away for me up in the mountains by where I live that there are a bunch of people who are doing the same thing, grinding their teeth grumbling about this and that conspiracy etc.

To say that there is this common human being that has some sort of mental processes that can be sorted out from what is true to what is false I think is a modern fantasy. Of course there is something about these men that put them in the same arena as me, and indeed they must deal with them as human beings, but I doubt that I would be able to convince them that their ideas are not sound or based on false news.

I think this is the significant issue. It is not so much that these people are using their intellect incorrectly and so we must either get them to find reason or incarcerate them, which indeed that is the only real options. But it is possible to see but they are also mentally compromised. Intellectual ability as a human being I think might be no longer sufficient to speak about what is occurring with human beings in the world.

It might no longer be a manner of extending my ethics out to the farthest reaches to say that we must all love one another and so except that people have different ideas about things. For, what is love? The difference goes to fundamental ideas about what existence is and what humanity is about. Yes, this is a very dangerous idea that I’m entertaining here, but what I think could be more dangerous Is an equivocal justification. What is going on instead of constantly equivocating discussions about humanity is good in the context that we must except that we can’t know what is actually bad until something happens.

And I think there’s equivocation comes from the 20th century Modern postmodernism. Which now has absorbed and morohed into a kind of realism, usurping what otherwise realists would advocate into it’s postmodern materialistic cosmology, such that we have to justify what is real with traditional categories — a phenomenal postmodern theory is such that all we can do is really talk about stuff That we are talking about. Why must a sound philosophical realism answer to a criterion of modern-post-modern reductionism ?

What appears to be occurring is that philosophy has created a cosmological or ideological condition such that there is no substance, that there is only subjective material, such that there can be no truth. And this is irresponsible, as we see is shown by these “militia men”, Who see their liberty threatened because they are caught in a reification of the past for their need of truthful substantiation of reality.

Philosophy somehow need admit the power that it enacts over the world and take responsibility for what it reproduces under the ideal of novelty. 

x

Not as authority. We are not looking for another authority. We are looking for substance .