Only by a certain orientation upon knowledge does oppositional categories have significant affect.
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.
Science as Truth
I am the first person to suggest that words are not arbitrary. Even while I hang on to the logic of the philosophy which understands words and sounds and symbols is not necessarily being linked to the object that they suppose.
I feel this is a more significant venture for philosophy: that words identify things that truly arise in the universe. That the knowledge of things in such a way is indeed a science, or indeed can be eventually found out and known truthfully in a system of science.
Now, of course, the only logical means to understand that last phrase that I gave is to understand that I am not in a project that has to do with the present moment, so far as modern science. But rather, indeed science is some thing that human beings are involved with teleologically, that is to say, universally. So it is that I say that my work has to do with disrupting correlated terms, which is to say, terms that arise in a polemic which seem like they’re true, but Are really only given into a particular kind of knowledge. I called this particular kind of knowledge modern.
This is interesting because if I’m going to propose that my work has something to do with science then I must realize that there is a current working epistemological paradigm that functions, indeed as it promotes a faith in, it’s mode of corrections, it’s patterned system of lacunae, and that if I am going to propose that my work is scientific, then I must indeed deal with the present misunderstanding that is common empirical science as a thing that arises truly in the universe as well.
In this way, then, we can begin to understand a progress of the human species, of the human being, that betrays the common ideological heritage. We can begin to see that a science arises through a different kind of understanding of what has been happening in the growth of the human creature through time, and indeed that’s come upon a different understanding of what time actually is. After all this: we can find a scientific truth of the universe that human beings can know and apply.
This is also to say that we must contend with idiocy. We must contend with the idiocy of the conservative liberal “science” -oriented modern epistemological technology, and those correlations that constitute its basis, those who have a different opinion, that knowledge which arises as “conspiracy“, The conveyors of post truth, and otherwise ignorant people, warmongers of 19th century disposition, etc..
A little while ago the philosopher Alain Badiou suggested that the radical political move would be to not vote. Basically, to drop out of involving oneself with politics. That this indeed would be the radical political move. And of course, all those for Social Justice really had to take what he was saying and apply it ironically, metaphorically, as if he really wasn’t saying what he was saying.
For, for those oriented in the social justice of empirical modern reality, one must make choices into political action..
Disjointed and disconnected as it is from any true universe — when we begin to comprehend that I am not involved in the constituting of the other, then we can truly begin to understand what subjectivity is and how it indeed arises as a true thing in the universe.
We find that we just must do what we do, and in that doing we arise as a truly radical political entity. The choice into political agency is based in a decision that cannot be made.
We are so motivated and conditioned by the given modern phenomenology that we become fearful and skeptical when the word “truth” arises. So far as mental health, this kind of fear is “the final frontier“, and it is usually a fear that resides so deeply and so substantially that people just consider it normal. Indeed, it is so foundational, it constitutes 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. That is the way of the modern capitalistic world; we cannot 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.
Hello. I feel like I made a really good point in my last post, so I wanted to make another post to emphasize it !
Human life is not something that exists outside of the political domain. Which is just to say, in so much as we have a government, and in so much as we have this good functioning United States government, there is no human life outside of its political arena. And this is to say: law.
Now, I am the last philosopher to say that everything is political. That all we’re dealing with is politics. No.
However, the reason why I don’t feel I need a gun is because I feel safe enough under our government such that if I have an argument with someone I don’t have to worry about them killing me over it. Or me them.
That’s it. That’s politics. At root, there is nothing more than that basic fact. I don’t wanna have to carry a gun and defend myself whenever I go outside my house, or even if I’m in my house because someone might want my house. Governance, and particularly the United States government, is good because I can’t kill someone just because I disagree with them.
Yes, yes, there is all the social stuff too..
But the abortion, women’s health, issue is being made around life and health, more so around the sanctity of human life.
And I am saying that I thank God that I don’t get to kill someone just because I disagree with them. The reason I don’t get to is because of our government; in this sense, life has nothing to do with some essential quality of being human, Which is to say, some quality of being human that exists outside of governance.
If you want to argue the case with me, then that’s philosophy. Without governments you’re gonna start having a philosophical argument with me and I’m gonna pull out my gun and shoot you because I don’t wanna hear your opinion or argue or discuss with you about what some sort of essential valuable human life might be. Because I already know what it is, and if you have a different opinion then I’m gonna kill you. Why not? There is no policing body to prevent me in any way. I would sustain my ideal by removing every other, including what it is to be human and what it’s life is.
Now, I’m just making a point. I am not going to further the philosophical route to say that I’m ethical because of government. I’m saying that government has to do with securing of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the general welfare, and all that Constitution stuff.
I’m saying, life, human life, is what we are when we’re doing stuff involved with other human beings. And if we would bring the issue of abortion back to this basic fact, and not bring in what people believe health is or life is, then the decision would be so clear.
Ethics, and my personal values about the sanctity of human life is my personal values. in other words, it is my religion. And government should not step into my personal religious views so long as they don’t interfere in another persons ability to pursue their own life.
If a fetus is interfering in my life and my ability to pursue my values and my beliefs, then ultimately it’s doing it through its mom at least, at minimum. And so whatever value that the fetus might have so far as a human life, is ultimately a religious ethical argument.
We need to write a better law. And not make it upon whether or not a fetus is a human life and deserves rights.
Individual communities can do that. We have to get clear on what is actually happening, if we are going to ever get anywhere towards some sort of “inalienable rights“ as an essence.
Roe v. Wade has been sent to the states, I guess. And will be up for vote in the ballots later this year, I guess.
These debates over abortion, I feel, are about religious belief. The arguments that are being made about women’s health are really taking shape around the battle of religious belief, rather than about governance.
First off, the very idea of “inalienable rights” is it self a legal position. There is no such thing as in an alienable right that people are born with essentially; An inalienable right is a right that our government afford citizen people under the law.
It could be that people think an inalienable right is actually something we are born with as human beings regardless of governance, and that could be why no one wants to call out The fact that people are taking the religious position under the guise of science in women’s health — because then that might open up the inevitable insecurity about those people who believe that inalienable rights are not something that government gives us.
Question for those people: What good is an inalienable right if you don’t have the power to keep people from killing you over it?
It’s the inherent irony of religious belief.
However, if we keep governance about trying to keep the peace, and not about the religious questions of what life is or when it begins, then the decision becomes clear: Life is what we do when we’re living with other people.
The problem is that people are arguing about what is life, and not debating about whether or not people will kill each other over this. No one wants to talk about how we are killing people by making them have babies that they don’t wanna have. Because that would have to require of American citizens a little bit too much reflection upon their own ideas of belief and the ramifications of it in real world.
I feel like it’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I don’t hear it anywhere. The discussion is about science, or about life. I’m not sure whether these things have anything to do with governance or law in the United States.
I think it’s obvious that people who are pro life are trying to push through a religious agenda because they feel that the United States is a Christian country, or at least a 10 Commandments fairing country.
Perhaps that is an overgeneralization, but it seems all this bickering over Roe versus Wade and women’s rights is really missing the issue of abortion and government in the United States.
The role of government is to mediate between Parties so we don’t kill each other.
Aside from that argument, though, I think the pro-life position really is one which says that all human life is valuable, and so as soon as a fetus is conceived in the womb, it is a human life, and so is valuable, and so is protected under the United States government.
To me, pro-life movement seems like a pipe dream that doesn’t want to face the reality of the situation. They take their religious ideals and then find “science“ which appears to agree with it and support it under the notions of women’s health and etc…
It’s as if they wear blinders to the truth of the reality of the situation of pregnancy. It really is like saying that if someone ended up pregnant then it’s because God deemed that this human being should be allowed to continue to live, and that human beings shouldn’t interfere with that life or else it is murder.
…it’s utterly a religious issue in that respect.
For sure, though, I feel that there should be more resources, mental health, physical health, financial, education, etc. for people in general, let alone would be mothers. Yes, that’s true. Yes we should.
But to make people who end up pregnant continue with their pregnancy by virtue of the fact that they got pregnant, is really just saying that they got pregnant because they are immoral or irresponsible. And in this country, don’t you know, we think that people should be responsible for their actions.
Again, that’s an ethical question, that’s a religious question, because it doesn’t deal with the reality that more people are getting pregnant every day than any pro lifer advocate would want to admit, And getting pregnant more often than any sort of mental health or social system could help to absorb.
I agree, actually, that the question should be put to the states. I think that is the issue of the law, beyond the “inalienable rights” to health issue. The law was not written in such a way to be full-proof, and I think that’s what the Supreme Court is making notice of. So they are returning it to the states, basically, telling everyone that they need to write a better law if we are going to make this right of citizens in the United States to control their own bodies.
I have an issue with conventional philosophy: the method it assumes to make its statement that the problem of the criterion is generally figured to be the main problem of epistemology, is a real philosophical issue. So, because we can indicate the method as redundantly involved with the problem it poses, I must disagree to the basic premise that is going unsaid. Namely, that there is a knowable center of knowing from which knowledge can be said to be knowledge.
However, my extended discussion is not this post. I really mean to show how this conventional philosophical method extends and plays out all across every aspect of knowledge that figures itself to be philosophical.
The issue that I’m pointing out is that there really is no distinction between what could be a philosophy of Christianity any proposed Philosophy and argumentation about it.
This is the problem is the criterion: There is no criterion. Which is to say, the criterion is the proposal itself, what I call “redundant”.
And in comparison, we might even suggest that Christianity is being more honest in where it gets its idea for its proposal, because at least these Christian apologists say that there is an intuitive understanding of God that is informing our ability to make statements and arguments. In a strange way, I think this is more honest than what more academic philosophers would say about ideology or politics or any other topic. Even the Michel Foucault users – and I like Foucault – are unable to admit such a simple idealism at route to their discussion.
So it is that I say when we talk about what is actually occurring, what knowledge actually is, what epistemologically must be the case, I feel that these philosophical ideals really fall drastically short.
And if you’re interested you can look past into my blog, and maybe even read some of my published material.
Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.
The fact of the climate changing is true.
Climate Change is real.
The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.
To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.
However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.
This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.
The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.