Where does the conception “truth” get its meaning? Is it determined ostensibly, i.e., defined by pointing at something? The motivation for existing has to be dreamed up as a myth. I.e., the word motivation doesn’t mean anything, except that it gets somehow a meaning, in a non-demonstrable way.
The group regards your view as a myth, since, how can one demonstrate that he must demonstrate, or that it is better to demonstrate, or what demonstration is?
This being said, the group is perplexed that a man can not push a huge boulder over, through mythologizing it differently. And yet, he might insofar as this becomes the value of all humans, and they solve the problem how to move the boulder. And this re-valuing is demonstrable as a truth actually determinable.
It’s not obvious. When one knows how to pour water into a cup, that’s perfect knowledge. What more is wanting? The problem arises in a mysterious way.
In truth, I see no evidence anyone troubled themselves with such things prior to Kant. Perfect was never a mentally strange notion in former times, it was plain.
Practically, what is the equivalent in antiquity to the problem of so-called “bounded rationality”? Perhaps the “I know that I don’t know” of Socrates. this, however, was bounded by diotima, for she said, the gods don’t philosophize. Ergo, it may be our (modern) common sense…
The group says. Sheer religious verbiage without object, the stuff of vacant logomachy.
The group says, sheer religious verbiage. What on earth is matter, answer: a conception made up with words.
The group says: what the hell is nature? Answer: sheer nonsense religious swaddling cloth talk. A transformed tradition out of the Greek notion of phusis, which is set off against psuke and means nothing outside the context of the tradition of faithful prattle.
Which collapses the distinction and shows the talk the group is involved with, “matter able to ponder”, is vacant prattle. What is the ostensive definition of consciousness? Point to the picturable thing. Wie?
The group says, this is a deep and large mystery, is it not? Remembering, that the conception of truth, too, is such a believed thing.
The distinction is a concept, just like the second part of the distinction. The group thinks this is group delusion.
The group, in what is written above, is stuck. Like someone in dark glasses who keeps saying, show me a brilliant color, oh!, you fucking can’t do it! To this, the group answers, drop the conception of cause. This is what the group is working at.
The group notices, conceptions are not so arid, or wordy, as the group thinks…
Practicality is a conception. Mere words.
The group says, are you joking? Did the group never here of Herbert Spencer’s phrase, “survival of the fittest?” That answers the question about biological existential cause, as the biological conception. Such is one of the basic sciences, in its conception of all beings that are.
The group says, “reduced” is not the point. Rather: Made clear through analogy. You presuppose the conception of the practical as a deep mythological motivation.
The group says this is absurd. Does “he was executed at the mideweak” speak more exactly than, “He died by execution, under supervision of correctional personnel.” Infinite other similar true sayings could be brought out pertaining to anything.
The group says, what does abstraction mean. Does the group know by pointing? Is the group unaware that definitions are the means to getting the group together to investigate the subject matter? Or does the group remain ingenuously benighted as hell about what it is doing?
Does the group discuss the apple tree, or what comes to mind when one is named? Where is the limit of this? Can it be pointed to? Is it the same for any two group members? Does the group live on mars, or here, where shit is vague and strange as hell?