The truly odd thing about humans thinking is the idea, so vested of (human) knowledge, that the idea can at once be merely an idea and yet also a mark of something that is not an idea. It must be considered the religious disclaimer which marks human thought to its manifestation as a universal constituent.
This redundancy can be noted when we have an idea which at once make a space for itself while denying its spatial component. For example, the common notion that the universe exists as place which is not dependent upon human thought. One should be right to ask how we could know this, for this question goes right to the crux of the issue, for it is a logistical issue, not an epistemological issue; the latter functions to establish the contradictory space noted just above; namely, the idea at once posits itself as a place which avoids itself, keenly functioning to avoid its own dissolution as knowledge.
Again, here is another way it succeeds in its Privileged assertions of status: the often usual argumentative rebuttal will consider that thought thus is being asserted as the cause of any known universe. Here, the logistical question is dismissed out of hand for the sake of maintaining the human privilege; it is automatically placed in the context of the human knowledge, and thus neatly avoids knowledge as such. In fact, this system of knowing is compoundedly idealistic in order to defer its operations to, again, an ontological supposition which is not ideal, thus, for the sake of being able to make statements of various qualities imbued in knowledge as though such qualities arise in the universe as such and yet particularly human (the ratio of the human intellectual ability).
The proposal that the universe is dependent on the presence of thought is not an argument that thus the universe is constituted or arises only as thought as opposed to something that is other than thought. The assumption of common method into any statement derives non sequitur and thus the answering is based in a false positive set of logical options.
As Kierkegaard noted, it is a ideological (religious) shell game, an ideological magic trick, a discursive sleight of hand…
…and then further to posit that there is no knowledge that can arise, be spoken about and discussed, which does not accord to this mandated ideological method for what knowledge is allowed to be. That is, that the answer to our question here, then, must be something particularly spiritual, or, nothing at all, that is absence.
It is the ridiculousness which marks out its space and then denies what it is doing, which then claims any sense which does not adhere to its rules is nonsense, that Kierkegaard calls absurd. He thus posits a knowledge which is not absurd with reference to that method which upholds its own manners as sacrosanct and violation of such epistemological ethics punishable by ideological excommunication and intellectual banishment.
Claims about what exists outside of knowledge still arise in knowledge. However, when (and where) such knowledge ends is exactly the space where everything is possible.
This is what science finds under certain conditions. The limits which define real universal space do not remain outside of those constraints; instead the universe arises in the possibility of having no constrains or, at least, a fundamentally different set of limits.
In so much as philosophy is considered as the method by which constraints are fixed and maintained, there do we have real considerations of what is impossible and possible, and we have the intellectual policing of the current ideological state. I call this reality; we all must adhere to its dictates.
By contrast, or then also rather, when philosophy is the reflection of all that is known as knowledge of the universe as it is indeed known then things are revealed to their truth, and despite what we must deal with in its presence as content.
Leave a Reply