The solution to the modern human being

This is purely hypothetical; and a little bit tongue-in-cheek. But I feel like if I would’ve done life all over with the knowledge that I have now, my number one priority would’ve been to make as much money as possible As quickly as possible.

Let me say right off, I don’t think that most people should do this. Greed is not good. Let me just leave it at that until the end of this post. 

So let me qualify this.

As a person in this modern world, a philosopher and a counselor, I am more concerned with what actually is as opposed to what ought to be. I cannot be sure what someone else is supposed to do. As well, I’m not really sure what the world is supposed to do either. I have very little comprehension of what the universe is supposed to do.

I think the basic and fundamental problem of all mental issues, the foundation of modern mental health, is the inability to see things as they are. Mental health, just as a loose definition of working definition right here, has to do with the discrepancy between what a person thinks, and feels and behaves, compared to what they ought to, which is to say in comparison to what they think the world appears as.  and most often what a person thinks the world actually is is really shaded and distorted by what they think it ought to be.

My philosopher joins up with my counselor by saying before we even get to that kind of formula, before I even begin to try and figure out what this person in front of me thinks that ought to occur or how they be, or how the world is supposed to be, one of the first priorities is to begin to get them to notice what is actually occurring, Be aware of things how they actually are before We start making judgments upon them.

Now I weight my philosopher by my counselor. I do not think that philosophy by itself gets very far. That’s just my personal solution to the problem of philosophy. And if you want to try and understand how I see philosophy as indeed an identifiable object of the universe, you can start looking back at the posts I’ve been writingfor the past, I don’t know how long it’s been, six years eight years? or maybe you could look at a couple books I wrote and maybe. Or maybe a few of the papers that I’ve put on academia EDU and stuff.

Anyways. I don’t mean to get into all the ins and outs of mental health. Here.

I mean to give context to why I say if I could begin my life all over again Knowing what I know now, I would have made it my number one priority to make as much money as possible. Of course the close second would be human compassion. But I wouldn’t let my individual relationships with people interfere in me making as much money as possible as quickly as possible. But neither would I let the act of making money, nor the glamour that money tends to enslave people through, dictate my sense of self in the world. and I mean this in the way that would I would instruct my past self to do would be to make as much money as possible, invest that money. And then stop worrying about making money and then concern myself with Being and giving back to the world. if you have enough money, you can do anything that you want to do, whether it is water ski for the rest your life, become a successful academic, run for president, or just travel the world being homeless.

Like I said this is a little bit of a tongue-in-cheek hypothetical simulation. But I believe it has some merits.

Because the fact of the matter is that if you have enough money then 70% of your problems are eliminated, at least as much as they Can be. What we don’t realize when we’re children, most of us, is that old Hebrew kind of saying, “if you don’t have your health, what have you got?”

One only realize this as they get older. Because it’s been my personal experience that my mind really doesn’t change very much. The person that I feel that I am and think that I am and believe that I am really hasn’t changed very much since probably my late 20s. yes, life experiences has caused me to alter perhaps how I view the world, and how I view the situation in various situations, but who I inherently feel that I am and how I think how I approach the world really has not changed hardly at all.

But what has changed is my body stops functioning the way that it used to, the way that my mind think it should the way it Ott. So, the people that are very wealthy have that one in the pocket. For sure we don’t know everything, but money is the golden door to whatever sort of healthcare, the best healthcare that, literally, money can buy. Even if it’s some sort of holistic healthcare that doesn’t require any money. At least you have the money if you need it!

Also if you have enough money you don’t ever have to worry about a place to live, you don’t have to worry about what you’re going to eat.

The only thing left after having plenty of money is whether or not I feel comfortable with myself in The world.

And I would argue that this is the preoccupation with most people, and is the reason why most people don’t make money their main interest, because there’s like 80% of what else is going on Hass to do with how they feel about themselves in the world. And then this preoccupation with self just makes people kind of make whatever money that they think they should and we have the basically 90% of the worlds population right there, weather poverty stricken or upper class.

And I do not think it is proper to resort to modern statistics topointto the majority of say poverty stricken people who can’t get out of poverty. Because that view is an “ought” view.

Reality and truth of the matter is that some people do indeed see poverty as something that they are attempting to get out of and then they do.

Now I’m not making judgments to say that the people who don’t, like, somethings wrong with them. Because again that is an ought, that is a judgment. I’m not making judgments here. Of course there’s a huge problem with poverty and power in the world. Of course. I’m not making an argument that that is not the case or that somethings wrong with them.

*

I like to bring up something that Bono from the band U2 said Back in the 1990s.

Now, people probably don’t understand it nowadays, but if you were there back in the 90s, you would understand.

I think it was an interview with MTV or Rolling Stone magazine or something, and he said that Americans are the only ones who play rock ‘n’ roll and then don’t wanna make money from it or don’t want to be famous, Have some issue about being popular.. I forget the exact quote. But what he was saying for the time was very true. Because punk rock and what had become popular then known as “grunge”, which was really punk rock starting to make money, somehow the American culture –at least on the one side you have the hippie Grateful Dead culture revival, and then on the other side you have the grunge punk rock starting to make money –both of the sides had issues with capitalism. Both sides had issues between what is authentic art and then making money from it.

Innoway, I think that pervades our sense of modern identity even today. Because somehow we feel guilty if I point out the exception of people in poverty who actually make it their life’s goal to get out of poverty, whereas I don’t so much in this case, in this post right here, rely on the fact that the overwhelming number of people in poverty have no way of getting out of it .

So it seems to me that money really has nothing to do with how one feels about oneself in the world because ultimately everyone is concerned about how they feel about themselves in the world regardless of their situation. Most people are preoccupied with feeling OK. We can bring in Maslow hierarchy of needs if you want to kind of measure this up, but I would figure in our actual current society, aside from what “should be ethically”, all of those needs have do with money, except maybe the highest one of self-actualization, which really then doesn’t matter how much money you make. But the rest of the needs can be solved by having enough money. That’s just a fact of our modern day.

The caveat is that I would not recommend this to most people in the world. I would not say that everyone just needs to concentrate on making as much money as possible, For the fact that most people generally live their lives unaware and are motivated and guided by this unawareness. And it is this unawareness of self and the world for what it is, which allows greed and the power fetish of money to overcome peoples activity.

So what do you guys think? 

And as I will say at the end, again, most people should not do this. Yeah idea that everyone should pursue as much money as possible is probably the most disgusting thing I’ve ever imagIne.

Lol 😝

More on (Moron ?) reference.

Another thing that I struggle with is the idea of having to refer to someone to gain validity or credence in what I might say.

Typically we refer to other authors of the modern era Or contemporary authors, because we are in the process of developing a kind of argumentative community, towards some sort of theoretical ground upon which we can implement some sort of activity that we all generally direct as a solution.

But the a epitome of reference is when we refer to ancient authors, other languages, for example and especially, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.

What perplexes me is why I would need to refer what I’m saying to some originaria Greek term.

And I don’t necessarily mean this in the sense that it doesn’t help with the clarity that I am trying to communicate; I mean it in the sense of why don’t we refer even further back to what the Greek word might have its roots in?

And then also I don’t even mean to suggest that the people prior to the Greeks or prior to the Hebrews etc.. might have had a better way of putting things into terms.

What I mean is what is happening with me, and what is happening to the person that is reading what I’m writing? In so much is I might refer to Greek, say, or even it’s Proto languages, what is really striking me that I might route my discourse is in these Proto languages?

And I think the most basic question that I come to in this Perplexity of why, is do these Proto languages have a more substantial or original airy position with reference to what it is to be human or what it is we might be talking about in actuality?

Because I tend to think that this thing that’s going on inside of me, and I feel that is going on inside the reader, in so much as we both feel really great about being able to bring up these Greek, Latin, or Proto Greek or Proto Latin terms which mean something original, I guess, is that somehow when I do this I feel I’m getting more closer to some “natural” way that the human being actually should or actually does exist in the world.

What do you think?

Philosophy of Reference, part 1.

references check mark sign concept

I have brought this up in another post somewhere. Please put your answers in the comments.

I am going to give you the thoughts coming up right now …

In philosophy, why is knowledge based in referring to what past authors said or wrote?

For example, what is the value, say, for what purpose am I referring to another author if I came up with cause as evidencing four aspects which constitute the Being of a thing?

All Beings have a form. What the reason is for this thing to exist is the form that it is. The cause of a Being is its formal sense.

All Beings have, or are, matter. What the reason is for this thing to exist is that it matters; the material which constitutes a thing is the cause of its existence. The tree is the cause of the table, for example.  Or electricity is the cause of the internet.  Of course, because there is plenty of material, the essential Being of a thing can have various material causes.  The cause of a universal thing, a Being, matters, or is derived from material.

All Beings have, or are, motion. What we as philosophers generally know as an efficient cause.  What the reason is for this thing to exist is the motion that it evidences.  The agency which is the thing is that which it does, the motion it is involved with.

All Beings have and end, or what we know as telos, in the ancient Greek.  What the reason is for a thing to exist is that it evidences its own end, or as I say here and there, parameter. 

All of these causes interrelate and confirm one another to arrive at modern idealism.

— Cid Nate.

Now, a significant modern philosophical question is:  With what purpose I am involved in comparing, say, what I came up with here out of the blue, through sheer observation and its resultant description, to Aristotle’s causes?

(comment now, please)

I wonder, because I have to ask myself why a reference to someone from a long time ago is required to give my ideas credence and validity?

What am I doing when I reference someone who is dead?

I can understand referencing someone who is alive because we are involved with global capitalism. But to place all knowledge on a level field to say that the books of the dead people are equal to the comments from people living — I ponder if that is a valid proposition. But then moreso, what exactly is the purpose I am involved with in understanding that knowledge in this way? 

My formulation, the reason I come upon with goes to that in early human history:

Somehow, words had more substance somehow.  Somehow, if I quote an ancient Greek meaning, what I am writing gains more substance.  And, I imagine, that the reason why I believe and feel ancient philosophers have more substance contained in their words is because (again) those people were closer to some essential truth of existence due to their Being closer to the arrival of consciousness from our of prehuman and prehistorical “non-consciousness”.  

Which is to say, then, that the universe was informing them and their terms to a more true situation of Being. 

Why would this be the case?

(please comment :|)

The New Philosophy

The Moment of Decisive Significance took more than 4 years to write and publish, and it still needs edits. The Philosophical Hack the first and second parts took a little less time, partly because of how Nathaniel approached it.  Actually, The Philosophical Hack is not yet complete, so all and all, for all 6 parts, will probably take even longer than 4 years — and being that Nathaniel undertakes other projects, the last 4 parts will probably come out perhaps in 2030. 🙂

This is true philosophy to me.  Yes, philosophy can be understood as a commodity, a product, a piece of consumer good, but that is not what I think good philosophy does and is in truth.  In reality maybe it appears as something different…

Philosophy takes time, it is out of time, and it is thus timeless. 

It arises in time and out of time, but through arising in this manner, it is essentially of two ontological natures.

One of the points the Kierkegaard makes in his book “Fear and Trembling” is that Abraham had a faith that is beyond him; Kierkegaard says that he could never make the move of Abraham and, basically, this is why a person is in despair, sinful, as he says, in despair to will to be oneself.  Kierkegaard thus uses the literary figure of the Biblical Abraham to show the irony involved of Being a Knight of Faith.

His point is that when one is willing to be oneself never does she have the faith of Abraham, and thus, for those who might be so inclined (but not everyone), the best someone who is willing can do is live as a knight of infinite resignation. His point is so long as one is willing, that is, is open to the possibility of being oneself, as opposed to actually being oneself, then that person lives in despair.

Indeed this is the modern dilemma of the individual.

Time Spiral

 

My point is that so long as one is in time, they have faith in themselves and are working towards an end which is always ethically compromised: They have faith (hope) that the world holds a place for them to Be, but they never are quite sure how they are supposed to be (how am I proposed in context is the quandary of modern mental health).  The irony, though, is that one must indeed live in time and be ethical (in the sense of Being involved with ethics), but that that this is not all that one is and does.  One does not live in a condition where she must always choose upon ethics.  This is the point that Kierkegaard makes of Abraham.

Is there a teleological suspension of the ethical? 

We find the answer through his books, and the answer is yes.  The reason for this is that Abraham’s activity was not for his time, and yet in that he was indeed there, a human being doing actions, his actions were not ethical. Indeed, the point that Kierkegaard makes is that the ethics of Abraham were vested in God, and that God thus makes the world ethical by virtue of the absurdity that is not acting in time: Abraham has faith by virtue of the absurd.

Ironically, Slavoj Zizek, a contemporary social critic and philosopher, makes the same point when he says that the subject always acts too late, that by the very ontological nature of the modern subject of ideology, action is always reactionary.  Similarly Alain Badiou says the best political move is to not act politically, to abstain from politics. The revolutionary move is thus to move out of time, and to bring Kierkegaard back in, to act by virtue of the absurd such that what is ethical arises out of the act, as opposed to the ontological act Being involved with an attempt to act ethically.

The condition which evidences this ontological contradiction is what Kierkegaard and Nietzsche as well, call angst, which was first translated into English, by Walter Lawrie, I think, as dread, but then later authors (Hong and Hong, May) call anxiety.  The philosopher who arises out of time to act finds herself in a state of anxiety because she still appears on the scene within the ethical universe, albeit, one that is being manifested by the absurd situation of her being out of time. This is particularly salient in our 21st century because we find that this is a condition of knowledge, and not a condition of every human being who thinks thoughts.

  • The question that I have been grappling with is how does one who is so out of time do the work of art (or of love, Heidegger, Kierkegaard) which is motivated through the state of anxiety? (Also see Harman’s Dante’s Broken Hammer.)
  • How does one arise in time out of time?

My next project will thus be to produce a work of philosophy which covers the whole breadth of philosophical knowledge while at once mentioning neither a known philosopher or author, nor conceptual philosophical tropes, that is, terms which have assumed (privileged) dense philosophical definition.

That is what I am going to attempt, anyways.  🙂

Good luck!

 

Freedom is the element of love

Søren Kierkegaard, the Danish philosopher and so-called “father” of existentialism was born today, May 5 in 1813. To celebrate, I share this essay …

Freedom is the element of love

————- After speaking with a coworker about how to deal with a patient, he replies “Is love a thing?”

Happy Birthday S.K. !

The Simplicity of Substance and the Lengthy Post

I have been re-approaching philosophical ideas that have long held a deep significance for me. Because my life has been basically informed by an incessant and consistent questioning of what I am coming up on, I am finding that I am merely continuing to be what I am, which is, for a term, in motion.

I think this last round of doubting comes about because I am realizing that I am more concerned with actual people than I am with my ability to think great thoughts.

Now, what is strange about this is I am intensely antisocial in general while at the same time at ease with being social in a certain context or a certain framework. I generally hate people (groups) but I love and am very concerned with people (individuals). 🌏

*

This is very Zizekian, from the Zizekian standpoint of media/ideological primacy:

“I do not love the world….I pick and choose who and what I love.”

So far as “the world” might be an ideological fantasy established through magical symbols, Zizek, the critical theorist/media critic-turn-philosopher states unequivocally that “love is evil.”

What he means by this is that we are persuaded by an existential anxiety which pervades the maintenance of the fantasy– that is, due to our investment in the truth-value of the fantasy (the value is gained because it prevents us from having to encounter that which we are most of afraid of: the dissolution of the fantasy, or death) — to love the world, to extend an ideological hand out into the grandiose narcissist world because the idealism inherent of the fantasy is we are ‘in this together’, so to speak, individually yet identically.

The modern individual is ethically bound to, at least, trying to love the world. But in the whole, he doesn’t have a clue how to actually love his sisters and brothers around him. The imaginary world establishes intuitive subjective barriers which serve to maintain the ideological modern identity at all costs against his neighbors, while extending out ideals to the “universe” or “the world” where we all must try to get along.

So; yet in truth he denies what is really occurring; which is, we are all being selfish and choosing certain universal things and people to love, and not really loving the world.

It is this tension of modern subjectivity we deny through the institutionally normalized and sanctioned “state of” anxiety which then in relief shows our ultimately ‘sinful’ nature: “In despair to will to be oneself” (as Kierkegaard puts it) is the condition of the modern man concept of love which avoids its true nature: hence, it is evil because it is an ideologically sanctioned “global” love that misses the intimacy that we generally misconstrue in the notion of agape, or man’s love for God. Since, God in this modern sense, is indeed a “usurper” god which takes the place of brotherly love to which agape would otherwise return to reflect in God itself, that is, in the world.

Zizek is, of course, referring to the modern ideal of love by which humanity defers itself and by which humanity is regulated to its conceptual ability.

Beyond the ideological love, by reflection, any love of a transcendent world is a narcissism, a pathological version of the human being. While within the fantasy, the narcissism is justified through the fantasy erected by trauma and told or narrated as “just human” , the “all too human” who takes on little responsibility for his actions, while erecting layers of intellectual and ideological facades in grandiose defense of them. Hence, the love that is evil is indeed, on one hand, a carnal love based in the libidinal control of the ego which then moves to impose or identify itself with the super-ego material norms: the subjective ideological identity.

Yet on the other, love is evil from the transcendent standpoint because the love I would have for the world that is my sisters and brothers, that is, not put off to a mere grand idea, is an evil and absurd activity.

So ironically, items that I pick and choose to love are in or of the reality that I cannot but be involved with– this is an evil manner of doing things. Hence, I do not love the world from Zizek’s standpoint of an ideological (media critique) analysis.

But indeed. I should not love the world in this way, so I don’t. Instead, I pick and choose to thus remain consistent and cohered to that which is the fantastic manner by which I must apprehend the ideological world.

The true love I profess is not modern, thus from the modern ideological standpoint, it is evil.

I won’t go on.

(Please don’t) 👨🏽‍🚀

*

The Local Psyche Global. (Lacan part 2)

Ok.

The question on the table is two parts:

  1. If The modern world is really the unrecognized embodiment of the reflection of one’s self, which is the the factual state of individual alienation, then what does it even mean that the alienated self-reflection is looking at cars, trees, space, planets, stars, deers, etc….?
  2.  What does this have to do with ego development, modernity, and philosophy

 

Of Firsts.

Philosophy can be said to be involved with a reduction which has already occurred.  What I call conventional philosophy sees the effort of philosophy to be the uncovering or discovering of the original reduction.  The word we use for this original reduction is ontology.

Philosophers love Lacan and psychoanalysis in general more than the psychologists. I asked my Theories instructor once about Lacan, and she said that she had never even heard of any psychotherapist who uses him, that his theory is very complex.  But in fact, Freudian psychotherapists in general are a minority now days, and I suspect mainly on the East Coast of the U.S and in Europe. (There is a comment to be made on this but it will have to appear elsewhere.)

I don’t prescribe to the Freudian lineage for psychotherapy.  But I do enjoy Lacan and often via. Zizek’s use of Lacan’s theory.  The question above that I pose really concerns how these two worlds might meet, or, how they interact or come together.

The reader should understand that it is always possible to come up with a theory about what the material is we deal with in mental health and how we treat it which will work or produce good mental health outcomes. Though Freud was the first popular psychotherapist in the sense we think of it now, very quickly his theory about ‘what and how’ stopped holding water for the treatment of patients and clients (medical doctors, neurologists and psychologists usually treat patients, while counselors more often treat clients). Freud, and the psychodynamic psychologists who followed him, believe in a very elaborate structure of the mind which functions primarily through various polemical psychic situations and motions involving an invisible energy.  Psychic energy was posed without any actual evidence of such energy. We are able to produce electricity, measure it, and put it to use in predictable ways, and Freud was speculating that we would be able to find the same things with psychic energy, but he could not, nor anyone since then.  But the system sounded really good; when you get into it, it does appear to have some sensibility to it.  But, like Freud, when we take that idea too far and attempt to use the model to fill in more and more evident holes, the more elaborate structural interactions required to account for the new issues simply become so vague and involved that what ever at one time appeared like some sensible dynamic of structure, fails. That is, unless you are really sold on the beauty of the simple beginning theoretical structure.

I would say then that the reason why philosophy like psychoanalysis but Lacan so much is that it begins pretty good.  Freud’s theory appears really nice in the beginning and seems to make sense.  So without having to actually observe anything beyond the initial evidence, Freudian psychoanalysis is fabulous, and philosophy that likes Lacan is usually about first or reduced things: Ontology is about what things truly are, how they are first;  epistemology is about how thought must first be in order for everything else to be able to be thought. So, the Freudian structure of the mind The Super-Ego is the rules or norms; the ID,  involves the ‘unbound’ instinctual drive which produces libidinal energy, and the Ego is that which harness both  extremities: the philosophical ratio, or the Rational Mind, so to speak; this fits very well into methods that involve first things: 1,2,3…presto!  It is simple and it makes a lot of very easy sense without having to think about it too much.  It also, quite coincidentally, reflects the philosophy which was arising around the same time as industrial science of the 19th century: Hegel, Marx, Freuerbach and many Enlightenment others basically were already philosophizing around these very same ideas.  But as I have said a few times already, when we apply them to any world that we actually encounter, this ‘philosophical mind’ falls quickly short of accounting. And this is to say, like I said above, unless you are really sold on the theory.

The philosophical question here, then, becomes whether or not we are fitting reality into the theory, or developing theory from what is being observed?

Enter modern capitalism.

I submit, that most conventional Western philosophy suffers from the attempt of fitting what is observed into the theory.  Hence, the reason(s) why philosophy often enjoys a psychoanalytical involvement with philosophy.

So it is that I came across our question above: Why should alienation have anything do with the world we are coming upon? In what way does the “mirror stage” of Lacan have anything to do with modernity beyond the theorizing?

I submit, that the reason is because if indeed we make an ontological theory of what is observed, actually form or develop a theory upon what is being presented to sense, then the Self no longer appears alienated from the world.

Some may know that Lacan said something like “the mind is structured like a language”.  This is because he was making a comment upon what is inherently problematic about modern subjectivity.  This is, the subject is always in context, but the nature of the operating psyche is that is does not function as though it arises in context, but rather as though it arises indeed from nothing.  This is to say that the modern subject understands and thus operates itself as not a true subject (arising always in context) but as indeed a subject only in a thoughtful reflection of itself, as though the thinker itself exists outside of the world and as indeed the essential nature of Being is dichotomy: object and subject.

So, the next question (#1), is what this has to do with the presence of the parents for the development of the ego, and why does this have anything to do with actually being in the world?

1655-ego-depletion-an-influential-theory-in-psychology-640

A common and modern belief is that the ego is not a modern ideal but a human one.

Reality, philosophy and science: How do they relate to establish World?

youtu.be/p_AyuhbnPOI

I think what this guy is saying is really crucial.

HERE Terrence Blake has some comments.

Unless I am mistaken, he is giving us an example of how view overtakes an ability to see and how that seeing is implicit to every knowable aspect of world.

Again: What is the climate that is changing?

How — logistically speaking — is this change coming about?

Like that old 1960s Star Trek episode where they goto the old west!

The salient question is: Could the landing party convince themselves that the bullets were not real without Spock’s mind meld?

The answer is no. So the bullets would have remained absolutely effective.

So it is with Lyotard’s dicussion of “The Differend”

Namely: could a person make a case to a court that was unable to hear the evidence of the plaintiff’s case? And, what would the judgement of the court be based upon?

Lyotard says that the judgement is always based on “facts” which are missing the evidence and so offers restitution which is always short and fails to compensate for the true damage.

*

Peace be with you. x

A Phenomenological Critique of Object Oriented Ontology

HERE is a recent published journal paper critique of OOO.

I think of the most salient issues that forms the divide between these issues, these ideas, is: Is though sufficient in-itself to achieve the object of argumentation?

The answer, I feel, forms the pure reason which makes to divide substantial. I enjoyed where this author ended.

Here it is at ResearchGate.

Here is another comment on the situation.

Retrieving Reason Episode 4: Common Ground

Retrieving Reason Episode 4: Common Ground

Retrieving Reason Episode 4: Common Ground
— Read on retphi.com/2020/03/01/retrieving-reason-episode-4-common-ground/

First I will say that I totally love this series. 

…And…

In counseling we are taught to engage openly, to question in a manner that elicits a response from clients that is more than just yes or no.

One of the ways that we can do this is to try not to exacerbate feelings in the client which cause her to repel or reject or “fall back” into her self, basically, we try to interact with the client to create a welcoming space, a space where she is accepted for who and what she is.

And one way to do this arises When we come upon a very typical situation where the client is presenting about themselves something with just obviously contradictory, something which is yet upheld there in equal forms by the client but yet to the counselor are obviously contradictory. Basically, for something that the client is not seeing of herself we do not engage the client, or we are not encouraged to engage the client, by suggesting that they are wrong or incorrect necessarily. And we can do this by not saying “but”, as in “you did a good thing but then you were wrong”. The conjunction “and” is more effective at carrying on a therapeutic discussion because it points to the legitimacy of the being of the client in exactly the way that she is presenting.

And so to this particular podcast about common Ground, about philosophical common ground in particular, I say that I totally love this particular episode…and…

It is filled with so many assumptions of common ground that it nearly contradicts itself in the proposal that she makes over the 20 minutes. But honestly I don’t have time nor the energy right now to pick apart the podcast.

And you should remember that I said I absolutely love what she is saying. And not because I think she’s wrong. But because what she is saying is correct and has been shown to be highly problematic.

Was it Nietzsche or Wittgenstein Who said that we climb the ladder only to throw it away.

(Perhaps I am misquoting )

Yet — I didn’t say “but” lol — I use an analogy which brings up a more current philosophical Point,  namely, that philosophy extends no further than itself.

In order to conceive of this point one might take it Just as an analogy and not as a definitive argument. So here it goes and then I’ll shut up for a while.

*

Excellent music can be learned and played without any knowledge of the theory of music. One does not need to know, say, keyboard theoretical logistics, or various ways to move the hands over the keyboard of a piano in order to make excellent music. One does not need to know the names of the notes. One does not even have to play the piano “correctly”. And yet the music resonates, people listen to it and love it, the musician plays the music, all of which occurs completely absent of any philosophy of reason or knowledge.

Hence, when we talk of common ground in philosophy we are basically setting aside the “musical aspect” of philosophy itself for the sake of an assumption that there indeed exist something that is common or that can be common as a ground.

Now, this is not the same as what Dr. Fitzsimmons proposes as rebuttals to what she saying. For example, this is not asserting a contradiction or denying identity. By her estimation, I am having no integrity by my suggestion; but I submit that I am. I am engaging in good faith: I am simply saying that what is dialectical is the effort to find common ground. And I would submit that the assumption of a philosophical common ground which is stretched back thousands of years, like a thread that links all of humanity, is it itself and ideological power-play. But this is not to say that there is no thought or that thinking is bad or that logic is bad Or reason doesn’t exist or that we are not reasoning or that Dr. Fitzsimmons post is incorrect.

But what it does suggest is that something else is going on that has to do with Philosophy, that Philosophy itself is missing something through a certain appropriation of what philosophy “already is”.

I feel the first question for philosophical common ground, a question that is routinely set aside and basically ignored, is: for what purpose are we working philosophically?

This — I feel might be the case — is the question which moves us out of the general phenomenological metaphysical ontological proposals into the question of object ontological orientation.

OK. So that’s enough for me for a while. Hopefully I will only be re-posting other peoples posts without any further commentary.

Thank you for being.