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.
I’m not making a political statement here, really. .
Science as the Object of the Subject.
Maybe that’s what I’m saying. Science is always epistemological. Epistemology grants the significant understanding of the true universe.
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.