Autonomously or not?
Nominally this parting shot returns into the contradictory nature of the reduced state of mind and modus operans.
That analysis in this mode, failed in most practical purposes, is history by now, however, it is through this recognition. that the newer forms of transcendental awareness became feasable.
That the process of analysis can not totally stop because its relationship to each other, it can not become a primary focus: as a choice between this, OR that.
The existential primary cognition being before its realization can not operate in its self as subsisting In Its Self, its own Being, exclusive Cogito Ergo Sum, because of this existence shown to be not to BE essentially a contradictory relation with its Essence.
The essence and the Existence of Being was originally were appreciated as an Ex- Deus process between God and Man.
ANd god, this assumption can not BE negated by an assumltive adoption of the idea that ’ god is dead.
The proposition " god is dead’ is tantamount to negating god, as a Nothingness, his being negated, contradicted, as if such nothingness disqualified his being as an existent.
You may interject this by the assumption that the above is too constructive, and less relevant.
Here again the thought has to be again has to be mentioned again, that here again a return ( and it seems again an eternal endeavor) that an absolute basis is sought, to reinforce the idea You are asking for: what is the primary contradiction that the reductive reasoning appears to rest on.?
The logic of contradiction subsists in am adoption of ‘if This, then not That’
This is exclusive of That, where the idea that This can include That as exclusive and bounded groups, start on the wrong end.
The inclusive logic of a continuum where boundaries actually can evolve to be inductive / reductive in partial segments , processing from unity toward separation , dos not occur largely until mathematical demonstration by Leibnitz. The logic mathematics pre-empty, any formal argument that a mathematical preference could have founded logic.
In fact, the idea that logic and mathematics can be proposes in an absolute sense as either/or itself begs the question.
At this point to argue about how to bring all this down to earth, is not possibly, at the level of something or nothing ; as absolute choices, since at this minimal level has not been transcended, meaning too large spaces Existed between the attempted jumps, and this is now a-propo in our attempt for Existential Jumps.
In fact the jumps appear as drastic at this level and the abyss to deep and we might as well stay put, where we are.
The gradual passage of smaller and smaller , diminished differences are new relatively speaking, of Leibnitz can be considered relatively new: as a modern philosopher.
After all , thousands of years of ancient and classical philosophy, dwarfs the few hundred years of modern thought. And that means, ancient and modern thought are necessarily related, and the adaptation of modern existence needs functional derivatives in terms of both: both kinds of logic in terms a new evolution of them , synthetically, as Hegel, Kant and Marx would have it.
Again how does that relate to the ideas we present mostly in the spheres of the ‘i’ of the individual caught between am exclusively trapped reality and unreality, between Being and Nothingness?
We have to travel through a shortcut time, where the shortcuts are increasingly codified into more and more inclusive signs, signs upon which and with which modern thought has to deal with.
In fact the whole idea of a derived logic umderstood through more and more diminished particular boundaries push the argument toward less and less particular boundaries, psychology ally regressing the idea of the relevance of the existential notion of the phenomenological reduction.
Imbigious, its not that You have to understand the meanings behind such modern terms as ‘alienation’ and ‘existential jump’ . hi then You too, get trapped in an unending loop of what possible answers imply without their derivation.
We as thinkers could not have possibly gotten here, wirhout the development of our mind within larger and larger separation of parts of our mind within a simoltenious participation of others, and it took 2000 some years to find the principle of contradiction. missed the point that the Universal identification was not an assumed basis of.our existence.
Contradiction is the basis of denying circularly individually appearing undesirable traits to another, and it is this defense that uses contradictory arguments to one’s advantage.
However a realization of this mode of argument of not self defeating, even self deluding , shows the unwanted even unearned utility for such defense.
Defensiveness is below the realized treshold of a very negative such as that Rousseau rejected, which presumed man as a noble and progressively evolved creation, hiding the fact that without this presumption, we will envision man merely an animal , into which we are condemned to again return . formally and decisively.
It is a.choice between heaven and he’ll, but in a scheme with a dead god, we have only ourselves to blame.
This has probably happened eternally, choosing to return over and over.again, with the usual promises to god , that this time, we have really learned, and this time , we will over come the usual mechanics to karmic mechanisms to enable a jump to a totally new Enlightement, bereft of the cruel eternal struggle to leave an infinitely long karmic struggle, which if it were to ever even begin to take off, may benedit merely a civilization very far in the vast future.
Who really can learn the severe and painful lessons of history to be condemned to ever new and most likely failed trials?
Denial should be rejected, as Kant may have and really did point out, and the only thing to fear with identifying us with the ideal God we set up early on, as us included in His realm , is to believe that He will t