it means no objective universal synthetic knowledge. Which was obvious to begin with, except to psychos/prophets/etc.
It also means absolute analytic knowledge. It means we can begin to think.
For what purpose? And what is the means of the beginning?
Fixed Cross
We are all fools at times Jakob. I know that I am. You are also in that category at times.
You might have understood that I was asking that question because I was, in actuality, thinking for myself.
Is “with proper discernment” and “right reason” included in your meaning of “truthfully”?
Sometimes people who love in “your” way are not the sanest - they may be unbalanced, dependent and lacking in compassion. It just depends on how they think. Is it real or is it delusional?
I don’t know, Jakob, but I don’t consider it to be arrogance to answer a question which leads to more clarity.
On the other hand…
Freddie’s aphorism or whatever you wish to call it" “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger!” comes to mind. In and of itself, I’d say it requires a lot more thought than given.
Like the buddhists’ “Life is suffering”.
The way I look at it, what aphorisms require is “thoughtfulness” in the reader.
I may be being dumb here, but that might be taken in more than just one way. Care to elaborate?
Yes, I know this…but not always disagreement but exploring further possibilities, painting the canvas a bit more. But your so-called aphorism was atypical. A few words which provoke thought [don’t] an aphorism make]. But anyway this thread isn’t about how aphorisms are seen.
Would you call a camel a horse because it too has four legs, Jakob?
Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.
Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=188756
beforethelight.forumotion.com/t7 … as-all-law
Well Arc, truthfully certainly doesnt mean “agreeing with me”.
It means all you think it means. Indeed, the aphorist does not explain his choice of words, he chooses his words because of how he expect the reader to struggle with them. It is the struggle with words that leads to thought - belief in words is the opposite.
No word actually means something isolated. We know words subconsciously as the context in which we have seen it used most often.
And surely Ive been generous in my responses, when they were to a particular point.
(‘this is vague’ is an extremely vague and unspecific non-point, and I know Erik understands more than he tends to let on - likely because he’s been conditioned a bit by Satyr and others who frown on intelligence)
Then we look at it the same way after all.
I did not care to explain the aphorism, as the aim was for it to provoke thought. That thought is the real value.
Ive seen you grow and become tougher and more subtle in 5 years. It’s been good to watch.
No, I wouldn’t But I would call an aphorism an aphorism when it is an aphorism. Which is what I did.
It’s evidently too dense and subtle for most - which is the point of an aphorism, to challenge the highest readers.
For what purpose?
[/quote]
Health, joy, to pervade the Earth and all its creatures.
Politicizing the philosophy that is headed for this.
Can you elaborate on that second answer?
Also, Arc -
isn’t an aphorism, but a maxim.
is fully aphoristic.
Yes, also this is why I posed the links - they are elaboration and even explication.
We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical ‘element’ but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.
All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, “A”=“A”, which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.
“A” >< “A”
that is how it works. Much more stable, hence, much deeper, hence more dynamic.
“A”><“A” means:
every [i]instance “A” (rather than “object “A””) is unequal to nothing in by the same measure that the next instance “A” is.
But the instances aren’t equal to each other; they are only equally unequal to ‘zero’.
Because ‘zero’ doesnt posit any criteria, this does not mean that the two instances have any true bearing upon each others natures.
It is foremost a prudence in identifying; quite obviously, by strictly analytic standards, “this equals that” is per definition an error. If it would equal it, you could not possibly differentiate them to put an “=” in between.
“A” is something vastly different, in all real ways, to “A”.
Only religious belief in language as coming from God the Absolute directly would cause a belief that the two instances of writing actually designate a reliable equation.
The very (f)act of writing two separate "A"s already points to what mathematics really is; a form of metaphor.
Theoretical math revolves around the fundamental asymmetries that produce the semblances of symmetry; this is why math is progressive, dynamic, creative. The same can be discovered in pure logic; this is what we will be pushing scientists to discover, when all this political madness takes one definitive turn or another.
Sorry, but I am still at a loss as to how all of this didactic “analysis” is applicable to the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.
Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting “judgments” that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.
If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?
What are we able to establish as “judgments” here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?
We have developed a logic, called value ontology or self-valuing logic or spherical-synthetic logic or living logic and many other names - this logic is oriented on actual existence, that is to say it doesnt seek for a hypothetical ‘element’ but observes all the actual elements around us; beings - and we count every paradigmatic element of any of our thoughts to be beings - there is nothing dead or neutral.
All of logic so far has been based on the dead law of identity, “A”=“A”, which on a purely epistemic-ontic level is either gibberish or simply false; all math and conceptuality that is based on this method of equation leads inadvertently to dead results. The key to any proper creative ethos is the recognize the (joyful, dancing, vital) asymmetry of being even at its most fundamental level.
[/quote]
What you speak of correlates with my questions like teddy bears and planets, or television and national history. I believe that the atom doesn’t exist, but the need of balance is that therefore any event doesn’t exist - there was no Vietnam war, or is no Stonehenge, or no Oscars ceremony.
If one assumes that a war is real, what is it real relative to? The same with an American family, in any US state - whatever the event in the history of the family, what is the reality of that event relative to?
The “dead” law of identity does not say that A’s are one and the same A only that they are equal in relevant aspects. Kinda like what your “alive” law of disparity says.
It’s interesting to note that you are replacing one kind of equality (identity) with another (same degree of inequality to zero.)
Not so fast. You immediately fly from the meta-problem I confront you with, “down to earth”, like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. (I know ostriches don’t actually do that; but you do.)
You speak of “the distinction that I make between assessing whether Mary did or did not have an abortion and if in fact she did assessing whether this abortion is moral or immoral.” I ask: on what basis do you make that distinction?
You speak of “[v]arious combinations of reason and emotion.” I ask: is this distinction between reason and emotion itself a rational or an emotional distinction?
You ask: “what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?” I pose the counterquestion: how does one establish a fact if one is not God? In the absence of God, is a “fact” not merely a consensus that may well be wrong? (Think of Descartes’s “evil demon” here. By the way: if there is a God, then what’s right is simply what He deems right–even as what exists is simply what He deems right to exist, what He wants to exist…)
Reading back a bit, I think this is crucial to what I’ve been getting at:
Surely “all of us” here means “all accountable (responsible, ‘sane’) human beings” or something like that. Surely it’s not necessarily true for a young child, or a mentally challenged person, or a wallaby. Just as those for whom “the laws of nature” seem true is a certain group of living beings, then, so there are apparently subgroups within that subgroup: some to whom it seems true that abortion is always wrong, others to whom it seems true that forcing a woman to bear a child is always wrong, etc. “Homo sapiens” is simply a subgroup of living beings that shares certain value judgments (e.g., the judgment that logic’s self-identical “A” is invaluable–of which we don’t know by how many other living beings it’s shared).
To “problematize” “value” means to “problematize” “fact”. It means not taking any values for granted. “God is dead” means there is no transcendent Giver of value. The “problem” with this is that it’s an enormity to posit value. But however problematic it may be, “value” must be “problematized” because of a need for a demand for value-positing. Formerly, those to whom values were facts took the positers of those “facts” for granted, nay as dispensable. At best they were seen only as media, as mouthpieces of God. But in order that these positers not be dispensable to themselves, they will now assert their own value. They will assert themselves as those few who embrace the fact that there are no given values–no facts…
I can agree with that.
Let’s just say that it seems reasonable to me pertaining to [in particular] those folks who come into communities like this one in order to discuss/debate the meaning of social, political and economic interactions among flesh and blood human beings out in a particular world rooted historically, culturally, experientially.
Yes, I think this is reasonable.
Here though I’m not sure what you mean. Homo-sapiens are [as far as we know] the culmination of that which [so far] is the evolution of life on planet Earth. We are the creatures [the only creatures] able to make observations like this. At least on this planet. Observations which others are then able to either agree or disagree with. Also, observations that revolve either around the world of either/or or around the world of is/ought. Above, I try to make a distinction between those things that we claim to know are true “in our head” and those things which we are in turn able to demonstrate [empirically, materially, phenomenally, mathematically, scientifically, logically etc.] as true for all reasonable human beings.
Again: From my perspective you are only making an argument here. You offer what I construe to be a “didactic analysis” in which one agrees or disagrees with your points based almost entirely on the extent to which they share with you the definition and the meaning that you give to the words used in the argument.
And that is precisely why I aim to shift the discussion instead from that to this:
[b][i]You leave the clinic and out in the parking lot are protesters insisting that Mary’s abortion is immoral. They are asked to demonstrate this. And, having been informed that Mary had been 2 months pregnant, they show you this:
youtu.be/rl3NMXObqNs
So, have they in fact shown you that Mary’s abortion is immoral because in fact Mary killed a human baby and that in fact all unborn babies have a “natural right” to life?
That is the distinction I keep coming back to. I’m still not at all certain what distinction you are making.[/i][/b]
And…
[b][i]Again, imagine we are outside that Planned Parenthood clinic debating the various conflicting “judgments” that are been hurled back and forth. Various combinations of reason and emotion.
If what you are arguing about what I am arguing about above is true, what exactly are you telling these people about the fact of the abortion and, having established the fact of it, their reactions to the rightness or the wrongness of it?
What are we able to establish as “judgments” here that all reasonable men and women are obligated to share?[/i][/b]
How would you analysis here be pertinent there?
What I think is immoral is Mary not having cultivated herself enough to be a child bearing mother. But that is a hard fucking way to judge people, and I am not particularly a moralist. Life is hard, and I respect women who are put up against choices like that and take ownership, one way or the other. Hard fates, but then again, it is the beginning of life.
Sorry, I missed this one.
But my whole intent here is to fathom how the manner in which you see this as a “meta-problem” is relevant to the manner in which I am entangled in my dilemma above relating to moral and political value judgments in conflict. And how that might be intertwined into The Grand Scheme.
On the fact that a pregnant woman will either choose to abort her baby or to give birth to it. And on the fact that some people will want to comfort and support her while other people will want her to be charged with murder, tried and if convicted punished accordingly.
How then are these reactions not rooted more or less in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy?
Well, all we can do here is to make these distinctions pertaining to particular contexts. What do we establish is rational [true for all of us] and what do we argue instead is only an emotional reaction not able to be established as objectively true for all of us.
Many different folks might react in many different ways emotionally to the fact that Mary had an abortion. But what doesn’t change is the fact of the abortion itself. But when folks start screaming and shouting, “abortion is evil!”, “abortion is just!”, “abortion is a sin against God!”, “abortion on demand!”…what here can be established as true for all of us?
That’s my point: How does one establish that what they claim to know or claim as true “in their head” is in fact in sync with the objective world.
Sure, we can always go back to Hume’s radical skepticism: that correlation is not necessarily the equivalent of cause and effect. Or, yeah, we can go back to Descartes: his speculations about malicious demons and/or our existence being but part and parcel of a dream some cosmic entity is having.
“How can you be certain that your whole life is not a dream?”
Rene Descartes
Indeed:
What can mere mortals establish beyond all doubt given that…
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.
…is applicable to all of us?
It is a fact that you have posted this on ILP.
It is a fact that I have read it.
Unless of course someone is able to demonstrate that these are not existing facts at all.
But how would either one of us demonstrate that what you argue here is in fact that which all reasonable men and women are obligated to either share or to reject?
Should we respect women who choose abortion more or less than we respect those who want to take that choice away?
And, again, the choice itself…is it embodied existentially in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy, or are philosophers able to construct the optimal assessment for deciding it morally?
Back to scheming now men.
Where is Ptolemy?
Anyway.
Join me.
Where is that Karpathian wine, Orbie? Yes, thanks.
Oh fine, you left some,
Raise glasses!
Hail The Anger of Zeus and the Plague Sending Apollon; because this is the good, as the ancients understood it, as they let it erode them, into this doric order, which takes on more splendor as forces smash and grind their souls into it.
Thank Demeter, for everything I suppose. Now, those herbs -