A Timeless Response

www.academia.edu/2635852/Shut_Your_Mouth_when_Youre_Talking_to_Me_Silencing_the_Idealist_School_of_Critical_Race_Theory_through_a_Culturalogical_Turn_in_Jurisprudence

I’m not sure when Tommy Curry wrote this paper, whether he was actually writing it as a direct response to my paper that I published at academia EDU (see my recent post), or whether it is purely coincidence that he happened to publish this paper or it was put out on the platform just a couple weeks after I published my paper that had some commentary with the author (Bloniasz).

In any case, this paper Is a brilliant comment in itself, but also A perfect response to my Comment. If anything, timing is ironic, and actually goes to both Currys and my points.

— ah: 2012. Is his paper. I might imagine then that either Curry or an algorithm placed this paper in my cue.

It seems sensible then that the two routes supplies a correspondence that Curry does not imagine in his orientation upon jurisprudence.

I will be addressing it directly and part three of my series of essays on Academia.edu

Fox Be Defunded

Last week, the NAACP wrote a letter to the NFL making a request for the good of humanity: stop giving money to fucking Fox News. Okay, that wasn’t their exact phrasing, but it captures the spirit…
— Read on level.medium.com/its-time-to-defund-fox-news-a99234035d4e

—- Interesting.

I wonder if the United States at least will be able to pull out of the downward spiral news based from idealisms, and get back to news about actual events and issues that surround those events.

I feel like this is what the author is calling for, I feel like this is what Fox News is being indicted for: Fox News is the reflection of a kind of human being which views the world through their myopic idealism, ironically, what Philosophy. has been making arguments about for the past 200 and some years, and which the newer “realist philosophy” rebut as a methodology.

Idealism is where the individual is understood as sacrosanct. It is correspondent with the ideal of phenomenalism. And uses post modern deconstructivism as a methodological firewall.

This approach upon reality understands the human being as a generator of ideas, and that these ideas are given to the individual as a kind of divine right. This divine right thus then informs what all human beings, as individuals, are able to see. It is this closed circle of idealism which then understands the human being as involved with a common effort, which can be understood ultimately as an arena where by various subjective idealisms confront each other. This manner constitutes the individual asserting its own ideas upon the world, and upon each other, as opposed to gaining ideas from what is actually arising and occurring.

The newer approach to reality understand itself coming upon what is actually occurring, which is to see that reality is just filled with things, and that the human being has a responsibility to encounter the issues that arise from the relationships between things.

The polemic that I’m laying out here is not some thing that we have encountered before in history, I believe. Simply because there was no need to discern between these two approaches. It is not so much that idealism once dominated; in actuality it is because the meaning of idealism has changed while the symbolic representation, otherwise known as discourse, has remained the same. It is the ideal, the very idea that the terms are relating Constant meaning through time which is the source of discrepancy in our world today. This is to say that No matter what we would read or think of idealism that was written 200 years ago, there is no way to say that the meaning that we are coming to right now is the meaning that they meant 200 years ago.

What we are finding in our current politics is the gap that appears between a “living document” (reality) and an “original intention” (idealism).

It is a manifestation of how human consciousness is behaving now. Which is to say, this is not how human consciousness was behaving in the past. And the discrepancy arises within the event where someone would propose that we have a way to come upon a meaning that someone had a long time ago.

This is not to say that we cannot come to some meaning that someone had a long time ago, but very much what some authors have talked about before, but likewise has been missed in the estimation of a constant semantics; Namely, that we would have to bracket, they didn’t so much as we might understand some sort of meaning that occurred in the past, it is all he was qualified within a bracket of knowing that is only occurring right now. This is not an argument for any sort of presentism, because there too with the ideal of presentism be subject to the same condition in the attempt of trying to overcome it .

*

The irony lay in how original intension supports idealist righteousness through its use of the “living document”: postmodern deconstructionism allows the truth to arise in how one uses discourse: the truth stems from the right of the individual who can present it any way that fits with the right of divine audience, since it has no responsibility to any thing, or anyone else but the relationship of the individual with the source of the inspired truth, namely, for any other term, God: Reality is what the argument can be made to present.

*

So I wonder if we can ever really get back to the issues at hand, such that we are Americans talking about issues, rather than individual people talking about who constitutes the “actual American”. 



xx

The Dealing of Philosophy

by John Clark Philosophy is in decline. You hear it all the time. The evidence is regularly trotted out: fewer graduates; no jobs; no prospects; a …

The Healing of Philosophy

——- Physician, heal thyself!
I love this post. Not only is it a Nice reflection upon the situation, but I also think it indicates a problem in philosophy: it has no body !

I think one of the things that we found out in late 20th century Philosophy. and coming into the 21st-century, is, that human beings have an ability to cast its self it’s ideas, upon the world and make the World answer to its ideas.

This is particularly a 20th century phenomenon. To the extent that many of us are not able to read philosophy that arises outside of the 20th century within its own temporal manifestation. We simply are unabke to conceptualize what they were talking about in the proper sense of what they were talking about becuase of the manner that philosophy is prefugured now in the ideological context of nothingness; we hear everything, read all text, in the context of an atemporal yet universal code of words, of idealized thoughts of definition.

The issue with 20th century philosophy ever since Wittgenstein , but I might even say ever since Kierkegaard pointed it out rather specifically, without actually naming it I would say (lol. Kierkegaard talked about it specifically but never named it in a way that the 20th century could understand)– it is that we are able to become enamored with ourselves and us see the world in our own image. (Lacan’s mirror stage). And this is so much the case that we are unable to even consider philosophy that didn’t arise in our 20th century understanding of it: that is the definition of the end of philosophy that we had been dealing with for the past 20 years at least. namely, that philosophy argues its own self reflection as the valid point across all philosophical dimensions, time being that main component, that main dimensional feature of being.

And without going into the further discussion of this discrepancy that makes Philosopher is so adamant and adherent to their own view, as though ones own view is able to argue with someone else’s view, that is, is even able to encounter it– this is the definition of modern subjectivity that brings about the end of philosophy, anyway we want to put it, this is the fundamental and basic issue that we are dealing with. And, We might say, is the reason why “realism” has become so popular lately: as though suddenly we can change our interests and be able to change how we see things. We’ve been so caught up in ideas and thoughts, now we are trying to find what is actually “real”. 

But my point is less intellectual. philosophy argues itself into its own ontological corner through its reliance upon epistemological identity, which is to say, where we see and understand terms as identifying some thing that exists between people who think, but also between the thought in the world, thereby are we are caught ultimately in an idealism. For any other name.

This is what Michel Foucualt and perhaps others, were dealing with in their works; this particular issue that keeps coming up over and over again. Recall Kierkegaard’s work “repetition”.

The body was “cut away” by the surging force of the intellect, until the ‘gaze’ that the intellect identified with the object became the whole of interest: This is clinical medicine. The body was replaced with a holistic version of the intellectual gaze of sense. Disease became positive and the body negative until we now no longer even an ability to ground knowledge except in the gaze-idea, the knowledge-power of the subject of reality.

And philosophy has supported the whole notion the whole way. The basic issue is that Philosophy has removed itself from the body by which it originally gained credence.

Yet, in contrast to the modern ideological development and to point the view to where it does not want to look: I will go so far as to say that there is nothing that exists in the universe that does not have a body. And this is to say that everything and anything that has any sort of truth that we work with is a body. Hence we find many authors talking about this very thing, even though they might not put it in terms of “a body”. Many authors talk about how Philosophy. has just become subjective abstraction, various idealisms caught in their own subjective worlds asserting themselves over other peoples essential Transcendent represented in words.

The problem is that we are talking about nothing; we are talking about talking. That philosophy has become an eternal argument about vacuous idealism.

thanks post guy!

x

xxxxxx

A Critique of Sam Harris

A Critique of Sam Harris

A Critique of Sam Harris
— Read on benjaminstudebaker.com/2018/10/12/a-critique-of-sam-harris/

This got a little long for one reading on a device for me. but I did my best graduate school skimming and focusing and picking out parts that seem important, and I got to say been put down a really good explanation and argument for his materialism.

As many of my readers may know, or may not know, I tune on the side of materialism, but to me it’s just a simple statement, as everything is philosophical material.

But I like the simplicity by which Benjamin situates idealism and materialism. And his historical analysis and projections into present political analysis I think hold water.

But philosophically I would have to ask, for example, well sure the church split a long political lines but why did those lines fall where they did?

I think at some point and such and analysis and in pursuit of answering such a question, eventually we would have to come to pure speculation and argument, and I would submit that speculation in arguments are based in ideas, but not merely ideas that are relative to their conditions, but ideas that indeed function as though they are attached to an essential object: idealism.

So to me it’s a chicken or egg situation, and then I even go further and I ask how do you decide whether or not you are on the side of the chicken or the egg? Do you ponder the various arguments of idealism and materialism and then spontaneously something makes more sense to you than the other side? Is that occurring because the conditions create this situation for you (which is just another way of talking about a transcendent ideal), or is it occurring because you are remaining true to yourself (which would be another way of saying a fundamental material of self)? It seems to that to make any argument about what might be true or false or more actual or more true or more Real, that at some point you have to simply act and behave and think as though you are not just a nexus of conditions. It seems hypocrisy and contradiction pop up at every juncture.

This brings me to the radical middle. So to speak. And it is this radical middle that really defies either position, that of idealism or materialism (that is, except the materialism that simply states everything that arises to knowledge is philosophical material). And I think people as world identities have great difficulty realizing this radical middle. It really is that people argue this circularity of their position to avoid recognizing the actual situation that they’re in.

Then we look at history honestly and we can come to no conclusion about whether it was political forces or ideological of forces or idealist forces, that is. We have to admit at some point that it’s all just fashion and that indeed whatever opinion were coming to is a part of that fashion, part of a motion that we really have no say in. Which is to say, except in as much as we maintain an idealist position of our ability and understanding and grasp of thought.

Block politicians on social media.

Perhaps we will learn from our current administration here in the US the amount of chaos and general BS that can arise from a president being able to use social media platforms as he wishes.

Perhaps we might have an intelligence and a motivation to make a law that if you are the president of the United States or a member of Congress that you are not allowed to use Twitter or Facebook or any of those kind of social media while you are in office.

I’m sure that texting would be sufficient for anyone needing to communicate anything important to their friends and family.

Part of this opinion stems from the idea that transparency in government could be an ideological posture more than it is a necessary tenant of democracy. Already our modern democracy is a distortion of “true democracy”, so it can appear that the ideal of transparency is able to occur more as a tactical manipulation of the politicians over the ‘good’ that transpires up from The Represented.

We might begin to see that what we want to mold together and conflate into Democracy could be a belief that misses the facts of what occurs in broad daylight, the ideal posture seeing only what it wants to see for the sake of the ideal ‘free subject’.