I’ve become more and more convinced that freedom references a conceptual ability and not so much an ontological condition.
One of the issues of philosophy which gets reconciled in anthropology is: what constitutes the umbrella condition?￼￼￼ is it “meaning” under which everything else finds substance? Is it “definition”? Is there a “being” under which everything else gets organized?
I think specific questions such as these are specifically philosophical, and as such, do not really get to the truth of the situation.
They do offer up reality. And I think the difference between truth and reality, and how we get to either one, is the central issue for being human. It is not so much philosophy, in my opinion. I feel that philosophy is kind of a “middle player”; I feel that Philosophy. is involved with closing, or the closure of being, but also the disclosure of being; I feel it is specifically concerned with reality, and places reality over truth. The philosopher is able to come up with categorical distinctions so far is approaches and activities, such as, epistemology, ontology, Praxis, Justice., all these kind of categories that we see in the beginning of Greek￼ philosophy.. it is a way to help people who are really just trying to eat and have a roof over their head and raise some kids and go water skiing on the weekends. Philosophy. really never gains, by itself anyways, what is really going on. Rather, it defines a space where everyone else can go along in their lives unreflectively, happily, in the middle, and live their lives.
￼ I feel along this line of contemplation that there are two times happening, and that how we view this time is reflected into how we approach the universe.
The salient questions:
Am I writing, am I discussing things in order to speak to listeners and conceptualizers and perceivers specifically and only right now? Is my activity and investment attempting to only gain some thing for myself in the world while I’m alive ￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼? Do I situate what might be in the future against this project that is me in the world attempting to affect it in an ethical manner?
There’s probably more ways I could phrase this category of questioning. And, keep in mind in posing these questions, I am not there by suggesting that there is something incorrect in whatever answer would be solicited or gained. For sure the answer is yes to all of them except as they may indicate the only thing that is going on.
I mean this in the sense that philosophers who are not writing for their own time but that indeed are writing for a future that they cannot conceive. That indeed good philosophers are addressing things that they are not able to contemplate. Their philosophy is founded in what is preposterous, what the middle Road sees as absurd.
The Philosophers that we know so well are timeless because, regardless of what they thought about their own projects, they were writing for a situation that they could not conceive of. Implicit to their ideas is a timelessness exactly because they were not placing the objects of their consideration within the Real frame that they understood: Theyre discourses were oriented upon a transcendence in the purest form, what in the 20th century a few author is called “difference as difference”. And this is to say a difference that is never reconciled in present time or reality, but is reconciled at all times in reality￼.￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼
When we reference truth in this way we have to see that the present fashions of philosophical argument in negotiations are exactly real, and true and as much as indeed they are manifesting now as if they are talking about an atemporal and omni present truth which extends through history.
As Donna Haraway talked about in her video that she put out, I don’t know, 30 years ago, about a ball of yarn. As we approach to talk about what might be happening, we grab hold of one particular string and we begin to pull it out from that ball. Discourse is proceed along that line of thread. But at all times is such a discourse never and always referencing the thread that is perpetually uncovered and undiscoverable.
Human beings make sense. And they act. The twoare correlational and extended no further than the individual body. The true issue is that the body,￼￼￼￼ while the real issue is the spirit. It is by virtue of the spirit that the individual erect a partition of itself to be able to have a world in which purpose becomes manifest. ￼￼￼