——- and my comment:
While the premises might appear to be sound, the conclusion toward advocation of action shows an orientation upon things where, not exactly wrong, is nonetheless possibly incorrect.
The universe in itself and as such — qua universe, if you will — can indeed be known.
The assumption in the subjective orientation upon things, which leads to an assertion that one should not worry about abstract thoughts such as the meaning of things, or whether or not we can know the universe truly, shows that one is oriented in thinking in a particular manner. This manner is generalized to what I call “conventional“, or what other authors, such as Slavoj Zizek, the “common”. It is ultimately ideological, and also psychological, but in the end, in large religious.
The conventional manner, or orientation, reveals a certain logic that identifies a manner of understanding oneself in the universe through the psyche. This particular kind of logic is usually emphasized and reified through such conventions as psychology.
However, I am not indicating or suggesting that psychology is wrong or it’s estimations should be corrected or adjusted. On the contrary, I am suggesting that it reveals an inherent, one could maybe say, ‘natural’ way that consciousness, human consciousness in particular, automatically comes upon itself. This is to say, it indicates an ability of the human being, and not a limitation that absolutely corresponds with what is “natrual”. Here, what is natural is what arises without any intervention. It is the way that if nature takes it’s course what inevitably will happen.
So it is ironically it is not towards the subject that we need to focus our attention when we find the failure of abstract and meaningless concepts, an inability to know these things for sure such as the linked post reports upon.
No. It is when we conclude that we must resort to subjectivity that a particular natural orientation upon things is revealed, that an orientation can be noticed. This subjective trope (word-sense-act) understands itself as essentially separated from the universe, such that knowledge, and it’s logic or sense, — it’s epistemology — argues it self into the world as a separate entity reflexively, that is, as an automatic reflex. By this, reason it self is transcendentally separated in an absolute sense, such that it must approach the world in these “either-or” manners, and no other manner, if it is to comprehend things.
When we indicate a limitation of this epistemology we are essentially saying that there is a certain type of way of being human that can be known objectively, or universally objective. This is further to say that it, this object that is the subject, must then coincide with the equity or the equality of objects as they arise in the universe in themselves, in relationships with other objects.
Subjectivity, the action thereof which moves understanding internally, hermeneutically, is thus a kind of ‘natural’ disease of the being that is human. It represents a particular kind of traumatic response of organic existence, but here manifested as the natural human being.
This “objective” way of understanding ourselves in the universe verse ruptures or defies the natural tendency which concludes that we must resort to subjectivity because we cannot truly understand the universe and its objective sense.
Again, this is not to indicate something ethically wrong, or something that we need to argue about. Rather, it indicates or describes what logically must conclude given the situation of the revolt from “existential emptiness“. As opposed to revolting back into subjectivity, when we respond to the call that is the emptiness of freedom, ultimately we come upon the object that is ourselves in the universe as such.
It is against the ideological standard of religious absolutism that we must revolt if we are to find ourselves truly in the universe as such.