The Great Difference

For a while now I’ve been talking about the difference in philosophical approaches or orientations. I have situated this difference in a few ways. I think my main go to is the difference between description and argument. And I speak of this difference in the context of Conventional method and conventional Philosophy.; The conventional philosophical method is oriented upon argument, which is to say as essential difference in particular of human beings who think, have different views on things, different opinions, and that they are trying to convince me of some thing that I shouldn’t already know. They are not trying to convince me of something that I should know, indeed my approach in this conventional philosophical method is that I shouldn’t know this, and that it is the responsibility of this other person to convince me that I should. This is the case even to the extent that I might assert that the other person is trying to convince me of something that I should know; This idea is based in my perfect created being that is involved with others who are trying to tell me something that I should not know. I am not supposed to know it, because if indeed I was supposed to know it then I would already know it and you would not be required to tell me. So it is that in my conventional Philosophical negotiation with another person they are trying to convince me of something that I should not know. We can call this Real situation the problem. 

So it is that the conventional method takes place on a fulcrum of contradiction. This fulcrum stems from the idea that I have a foundational and essentially valid situation of myself that is unimpeachable, de facto created perfect, such that this perfection can only be changed if someone else is responsible for changing it. The contradiction is that I put the impetus and weight of change in someone elses agency and ability, while also holding onto the idea that my agency and my ability is already perfect as it is. It doesn’t matter if I think I have a “open mind”  — this is the contradiction — It is my perfectly created being that is holding itself as a mind that is open such that I wait for the other person to convince me that I am wrong. This is the conventional philosophical method.

The evidence Of the great difference in approaches between the conventional philosophical method and what I have come to call philosophical anthropology (i’ve just decided to come up with this term because to continue to call it philosophy is nearly pointless anymore), is what I just put forth. Namely, that I am describing the situation, I am not so much trying to convince anyone that this is the case, But that indeed people will read this as though I’m trying to convince them that it is indeed the case, which is to say, as if I am putting forth an argument to try to sway them from the perfectly created being.

I also speak of this great difference as between argument as contests and argument as validation.

The description that I give above of The conventional method is an example of argument as contest, which is to say, that the regular way that people will read this is as though I’m putting forth an argument, as though the author and the reader are in a contest with one another, which is to say, involved with proving the other Wrong, which is further to say and effort into proving that my created being is perfect and you have failed to change me.

The description I am putting forth here, though, is argument as validation. For those who read this as a confirmation of what is actually occurring are those validated that indeed their created being is perfect. And this is to say because they do not see that I am making an argument against their perfect being. Or, for other words, I am describing the truth of the situation as it is.

Continuing on, another way that this great difference manifests is either through retreat or engagement. I have described other places how consciousness can be understood as a retreat from the universe. What this means concords with argumentation and the conventional method. In so much as my being is created perfectly and it is someone else’s job to prove to me that I am not perfect, thereby do I constantly withdraw from the world. I find myself automatically in axiomatically as the center of the world at all times because it is the world case as ontological absolute to challenge my being. In my confronting this challenge, I assert an understand myself as moving forth, but this movement forward into this universe is really an eternal retreat. And we call the discrepancy between the assertion of progress and the existential retreat, problem. It is not difficult to then associate the modern world with the organized pursuit of creating problem.



On the other hand, the engagement with the world does not see the world as a challenge to my being, but instead understands the world as a vital component of my being, such that the difference that arises between what I know as my being, and the world that is being, is it self compensated for through the act of description, which is to say, argument as validation.

Hey !! x