Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.
<missing text see Acedamia edu>
…truth is typically a subjective category…but the truth of the subject in the universe can be known and communicated…
I was reading a paper, part of the paper anyways, where the author talks about John Locke saying his work not involved with science.
Just got me thinking. Georg Hegel, and many more philosophers for sure we’re trying to find some sort of “science“ of …what? Now that were in the moment that were in, I’m not sure we really are identifying what science actually is.
…indeed, even scientists would give us a definition that if we were to look into what it really means, or what it’s really identifying, we would find that it is like saying that that object over there is a chair. Any mediocre Philosopher knows that as soon as we attempt to investigate an object from the standpoint of the phenomenology of the subject, we find that there’s nothing really there that the word identifies. I’m short, that language or words of language are arbitrary…
…I disagree with the opinion of modern subjectivity that concludes itself due to a failure of knowing…
… The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made…
We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenological tropes that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier”. It is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. It is so foundational to the current human condition, constitutional of the basis of modern identity, such that most people would be content in the contradictions that uphold their identity to have some personal and private spirituality and religious belief that most mental health issues are never encountered. For sure that is the way of the modern capitalistic world, and to ask into how it could be changed is itself an incorrect manner of understanding the issue. The issue is the failure thay constitutes the feeling informing how we are able to know, and the limits its imposes upon us such that we should and can only know a subjerie truth.
…however, it is this modern maxim that shows it is an incorrect posture to impose mental health upon all of humanity and its social systems, if simply because we have no way of affectively addressing it. Hence, I see ethics as having to do more with logistics, and less of what meaning and decisions we see ourselves needing to make…
“The Philosophical Hack uses Slavoj Zizek’s book ‘Event’ as a platform from which to hack into philosophy. A hack is someone who is adept in technology and standard methods but is not employed to make marketed products. Yet in another sense, a hack is a repeated application of a specific yet broad algorithmic protocol upon a closed problematic space. The role of the hack is at once to disrupt and to consolidate. The hack is a check on the security of closed functional systems, as well as the impetus for its growth. Defining this problematic space through a careful assault on weak points in the philosophical facade, Nathaniel offers us a way into a science of philosophy. Mr. Nathaniel is writing to a wide intelligent audience in such a way that the philosophical mind will not be ostracized but will indeed be challenged. It is indeed a philosophical hack.”
— Read on www.lulu.com/shop/cedric-nathaniel/the-object-of-the-subject/ebook/product-24228206.html
Something just dawned on me as I was washing the plastic cutlery that I got with my Noodles & Co food.
Now, hold on Judge-mental philosophers. Yes I do live in a pretty liberal place, and, it does really bother me all of the trash that I generate. Which, actually, it’s not very much considering what I notice neighborhoods generate. I generate maybe one kitchen trash bag of trash in my place of living about every two weeks without trying.
I do try to set my boxes and blatant recyclable items aside and put them in the recycling can outside. And, I know, we generate so much stuff that be recycled that never gets recycled simply because we do not have the global power presently to recycle all the stuff that could be recycled.
As well, I understand that even in my very lazy, admittedly not very worried version of recycling and Eco conservation, I probably do more than 3/4 of the globe does. And I would figure that I probably do more in my lame ass version of recycling and conserving then probably 2/3 of the United States.
One may ponder the philosophical questions of “what’s the use“. And then further ponder the usual ethical philosophical answers as like things that have to do with chaos theory, butterfly effect, like, I just do my part, all those kinds of compensations…
Of course, underneath all this implicit guilt tripping there is the Nazi version that basically we hear all the time:
“Human beings are destroying the planet! …
Everyone must get it together now or we’re all gonna die!!”
Ok. When you think about it, this voice goes through every single person‘s head who’s reading this post, I guarantee it. And probably 99% of the people who don’t read it as well.
I’m not talking about what peoples opinions on it are. I’m not talking about the ethics of it either. In fact, I would say that the ethics-as-blame behind it really just serve to perpetuate the problem, due to all the underlying mental health, societal, familial issues that motivate the individual to its modern, capitalistic dimensions.
No, I don’t really care here about what is ethical so far as recycling. I’m not even really concerned that we’re going to destroy ourselves, because, honestly, the vastness of the universe, and the vastness of the involvement of human beings in the universe, precludes that we will destroy ourselves.
Yes and – There’s no argument to be made due to the fact that any argument we would make, either pro or con, ignores the fact of the actuality of the situation, argues itself over the actuality of what it is. Namely, here we are having a conversation about a situation that we had no control over, except to say, that the whole time we felt that we had some control over it until we found out about it. And then our ethical animal minds jump up and have all sorts of weird reactions to it, including categorizing them into what is rational, sensible, detestable, fatalistic, you name it…
It dawned on me though: we’re going about it the wrong way. Rather, the people that promote, down our throats, that we are destroying the planet and so we need to figure out how to conserve the planet better, they are going about implementing a solution the wrong way.
Basically , they’re guilt tripping us. ‘Science’ is being used incorrectly. Science yields information, and not an ethical mandate.
I don’t know about any of you guys, but, when someone guilt trips me, I usually end up doing the exact opposite as they want. At least right in that moment. Maybe I might get around to it at some point, but it’s definitely not in the timeframe that they’re thinking about when they’re guilt tripping me about whatever it is.
I’m not saying I’m right or I’m wrong or justified or not in my behavior and attitude, I’m just pointing out a simple fact of what occurs. But also, that I can guarantee that I’m not alone in this attitude and reaction and ultimate behavior.
I think the better approach is to understand that recycling and conservation isn’t about “we better do this or we’re going to die”. Nor is it even about the world that we’re giving to our children, because those are just guilt trips that don’t work.
The way we should think about it is that what we’re doing is we’re giving the present and future more time to figure out how to handle the inevitable problem.
What is the inevitable problem? You might ask.
The inevitable problem is that there is always a problem.
Just ask K:
What the people are not knowing about, in my context, is that there is always some huge giant problem that humanity needs to solve right now.
This is what we call modern subjectivity.
The state that is modern is the state of problem. It is the avoidance of the truth of what is actually occurring for the sake of the problem that manifests because of an avoidance of what is actually occurring.
Ok. I’ll let you ponder that a little bit.
But I’ll just repeat.
We should think about recycling as someone who’s throwing interference in a chase…
If we look at our behavior as that we are just attempting to give our scientists more time to figure out how to handle the problem that is upon us, the problem that is eminent, the problem that will not go away — that is a different way of approaching than from the guilt trip.
Then people might actually change their attitude because then they’re actually thinking about their kids, rather than being told how to run their lives or how to parent.
Just a thought for all you sound philosophers who like to think that you’re ethical.
I would agree with the end synopsis part: the difference between post modern and modern, and the real emotional content. With the caveat : Only in as much as one is informed of those categories by the Modern Method for the discerning of things.
This is to say that the Lion is the Latent Modern presumption of method, the Tiger is the modern orientation upon things, and the donkey is the postmodern orientation. The Lion is the route of individualism and identity whereby agency is assumed but non-active. Or only activated through the tiger-donkey polemic that has recourse to a transcendent Lion (the Modern Real Subject).
The story’s true meaning is that one is always bringing their complaint to the Lion (god). And this opening or recourse in (Modern) consciousness allows for the modern agent’s ‘belief’ in their own ideal of a self-made world. It is this world that is, at once, referring to truth and reality, and without recognizing what is at play, one always held at length in the activity of interaction of subjects for the purpose of sustaining the modern method’s function to present a world.
It is fruitless and deserving of punishment to attempt to have a discussion toward proving a point to those who are not able to reflect upon the truth of the situation. Hence, the real material sustenance of problem.
This is a parable about the the Modern Epistemological Condition.