a new understanding of today, time and space.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
3601

IQ45 deserves every insult I give him and much, much more…
IQ45 is an insult to past presidents, future presidents, and human beings everywhere…

He was the single worse president in American History, and it isn’t even close…
because of his indifference, he managed to kill hundreds of thousands of American’s…
his only great accomplishment was a massive tax cut to the rich…
his filling the Supreme court will damage America for decades…
on top of his presidential failings, which were far too numerous to list,
he is also a failure as a human being…

his need for hookers to commit adultery, among one of his many violations
of the ten commandments…and that UR considers this a PLUS, is a
testament to the complete lack of ethics and morality among the MAGA crowd…
and to the village idiot himself…

his many personal failings have been quite documented,
sexual assault to rape to stealing to cheating to lying…
I could go on but why…

He deserves the type of hate we reserve to people like Hitler, Stalin
and Mao…

so, no, no I will not honor someone who has all the moral standing of Jack the Ripper…

Kropotkin

3602

lol you are nuts if you think Trump is as much of a plague to humankind as Hitler; Hitler managed to almost singlehandedly put Europe on its knees and make it into a subservient proxy of America and Soviet Union from the global and unrivaled superpower(and global moral authority in terms of civilizational level and progress!!!) that it was in the previous century and he wiped off 1/5 of Europe(culture, cities, roads, people etc.) into dust within 5 years, not even mentioning the nonsensical genocides and insane politics and war decisions that cost Germany the war and cost millions of people who could live their lives because of his manias and obsessions and arrogant stupidity… I dislike Trump but these are completely different scales of magnitude friend.

3603

we have three distinct and different aspects of the human being…

One: the creature that needs…I am hard pressed to think of a human activity
that doesn’t involved the pursuit of needs… at heart, the human being
is basically one with needs… that could be a working definition of a human being…
we need…

Two: we solve problems… quite often the problem is, how to meet our need…
it could be said that human beings are problem solving creatures…

Three: we are creatures that play… we play sports, games, we gamble on sports,
we watch sports… it could be said that the human being is about play…

But Kropotkin, you said three different things could be the human condition…
and three things could be the human condition… we could be about needs
and we could be about problem solving and we could be about the need to play…

just because one is true doesn’t mean the other two are wrong… one, two
or even all three statements could be right…

philosophy is an attempt to both solve a problem and meet a need… and in certain
circles, it could be considered play…

the same could be said about math, history, language, economics, biology,
and dozens of other disciplines… they could be both solving a problem
and meeting a need… what is sometimes lost in the disciplines, is the sense
of fun, of being a game… Nietzsche often treated philosophy as a game…
perhaps we should take a lesson and begin to treat such disciplines as
a game, math and history and yes, philosophy…

it might be said of the modern age is that we have lost our sense of fun,
and we have begun to be way, way, way to serious…

relax, don’t do it,
when you wanna go do it
relax, don’t do it
when you wanna come

and other words of wisdom that lay out our sense of play…

Kropotkin

3604

From the Translator’s introduction to “Being and nothingness”
by Jean-Paul Sartre…

“Ontology studies the “structures of the being of the existent taken
as a totality”; it describes the conditions under which there may be a world,
human reality, etc. It answers the questions “how?” or “What?” and is
description rather explanation. For this reason it can state positively.
Metaphysics, on the other hand, is concerned with origins and seeks to
explain why there is this particular world”

Metaphysics is about the why… and I believe in the why… it is the most
important question we have, but I don’t believe in “Metaphysics” per se…
I am not interested in what is behind the physical… In that regards, I am
a materialist…but my engagement is with the “why”…I leave it to scientist
to explain the “how?” or the “What?”…but Kropotkin, you are in contradiction…

here comes why we get into philosophical trouble… first of all, we are deathly
afraid of being in some sort of contradiction… fear of being in contradiction drives
must of the nonsense in philosophy…don’t run away from contradiction, embrace it…
it is our friend…as the prophet said,

"Do I contradict myself?
very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

secondly, we run into trouble because we use labels… our contradictions arise
from the labels we use, not the words we use…I can be a materialist and yet,
I can still engage in the “why?”… the only contradiction comes from the labels
we use…

seek out your thought regardless if it contradicts or not…
only a small mind is afraid of being in contradiction…

Kropotkin

3605

read a philosopher, pick one at random if you will, then read, really read
what they say and then imagine yourself acting upon their words…

try to engage with life using their own understanding of the universe…
take Kant for example, read, really read Kant and then try to
act as he has suggested… think about such stuff as “Being in itself”
or try to live life within the an “synthetic a priori”… basically you can’t
live the life that they describe… Kant thought that reason is also
to the source of Morality and that clearly isn’t true…

Take Sartre or Heidegger, try to live life as they have written it…
trying to live out one life, “philosophically” as the philosophers have
written it, is impossible…putting most of the philosophers words
into action leads us into problems because their words are not about real life…
their words are some sort of abstract vision of reality that has no place in the “real”
world… you cannot use their words to live out your life…

but must we go as far as Hume does?

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics,
for instance; let us ask, does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning
quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning
concerning matter matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to
the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

no, I do not think so… even words of “metaphysics” can enlighten us…

a no answer is just as good to guiding us as a yes answer… in fact, we might learn
even more from a no, then we learn from a yes…

a fool can teach us as much about living as the sage… understanding what not to do
is as important as what to do…avoiding the fool’s path is also a lesson learned…

When I read a book, I ask myself, does this help me answer or to see what my
questions are… good, then I shall continue to read it…I have my questions
that I need answers, as you have questions you need to answer…

that my questions are different then your questions is a given…
and therein lies the crux of existence… my questions are different,
and so I seek answers in a different fashion then you do…if IQ45
answers your questions, then it must a really stupid question, but
hay, they are your questions and answers, not mine…

but in any case, broaden your mind… seek questions that force you
to expand what it means to be human…rise above your needs and
wants to understand the eternal questions of existence… “why?”

“what am I to do?” “What should I believe in?” “What should I hope for?”
“What values should I hold?” I wonder why we should waste our time on
such low hanging fruit as questions of politics, which are low hanging fruit…

make your engagement with existence something higher then
adoration of an idiot like IQ45…

reach for the stars in the questions you seek to answer…

“what is my meaning?” “is there a collective meaning to existence?”
“how does the one, me, fit into the collective, the all?”

Kropotkin

3606

Socrates once said, a man who knows the good, will choose the good in
regards to his actions… and we might consider Socrates to be wrong…
we have seen, indeed, we ourselves have chosen to bad/evil over the good
plenty of times, even though we did know what the good is…and yet, we still
choose “evil” over the good… but the question remains, why, why would
anyone choose to be bad/evil over the obvious good?

I don’t hold that the question of good vs evil is a question of ignorance like
Socrates…we are not that ignorant…no, I hold something else makes/allows
us to chose bad/evil over good, even when the path of goodness is easier
and a better choice…

It lies within our needs… sometimes I, for whatever reason, feel the need
to be downright bad/evil…I will act with malice towards others if when
it is a more convenient route to be good…It is human nature one might say,
but yes, why?

at times, to fulfill a need within me, I act with evil intent… it gives me,
dare I say it, pleasure, joy to act in this fashion…at times, I am a shit disturber,
and I fully admit it… at times, I like to create chaos and trouble… but why?
because it fulfills a need within me… but what need could possible be about
creating chaos and trouble? In everyone, in various amounts, lies the need
to destroy, to cause chaos, to be a three year old and wantonly knock down
the carefully built object of someone… a sand castle for example…
one might say instinct, perhaps, perhaps… but that choice lies within
everyone…

the trick is to become aware of that need, of that urge to destroy and cause
chaos and trouble… and at times, at times, that urge, need is actually
useful and beneficial… sometimes things need to get knocked down, destroyed…

Thomas Jefferson once said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then
is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the
physical” …

and it is true, in fact, without thunderstorms and lighting, the earth-atmosphere
electrical balance would disappear in 5 minutes…so we can make an argument
that sometimes we need a storm, chaos to return things to balance…

perhaps that is what the recent capital insurrection did for us?
we see what extremism can lead us to do… the right wing extremist
always claims that their extremism is somehow good for the country but
left wing extremism is somehow wrong/evil… let us say that
extremism either way can be wrong and destructive, but at times,
at times, a storm can clear the air… and we had such a storm recently,
perhaps we can learn from it…

sometimes even in the midst of balance and moderation, we need to
explode and act with evil intent, with evil destruction… and that
comes from some deep need within us… become aware of that…
learn to channel and focus that dark need to cause trouble and chaos
into a creation of something positive…into something that returns balance
to the order of things…

but to return order and balance to the universe, we must first learn
to see what is order and balance in ourselves, in our society/culture/politically
and to see what actions need to be taken to creatively, creatively,
to act with chaos… to return the universe to balance…

it is a tough, tough balancing act…
to stay on this side of chaos and not fall into the trap of the French
revolution and go too far…for example, the Thermidorian reaction is
an attempt to balance out the French revolution…and it failed, but why?
perhaps it didn’t go far enough to the other side to balance out the
one sided reaction of the French revolution?

remember, everything is an equation, every side must balance out or
the equation fails…so how do we find this balance? we must, closely
watch and understand what is happening to see what is the correct
action to balance out the current equation that is out of balance…

so does that mean that my own personal attempts to create chaos
and disruption is a means to create balance? You would give me
far too much credit if I were that balanced… I too am seeking to find
my own state of balance… and perhaps, perhaps my attempts at
chaos and disorder are a means to find that balance within my life?
or not?

Kropotkin

3607

Epistemology: the theory of knowledge, especially with regards to
its method, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation
of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion…

Ontology is the investigation of the what and how of something, not
the why of something…

metaphysics is the investigation of the why of something…

the modern preoccupation is with investigating epistemology of something…
the validity and scope of something… for example, modern philosophy,
say after 1900 has been quite keen on its investigation of consciousness;

consciousness: the state of being awake and aware of one’s surroundings,

the awareness or perception of something by a person…

the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world…

these are three possibilities that exists for what we might call
consciousness… let us look at the ontology of consciousness,
the what and how of consciousness, but not the why which is
metaphysics…let us see the limits and scope of consciousness…
which is of course epistemology, or the limits and scope of knowledge…

we see ourselves being conscious of something… to be conscious means
to be conscious of something…so far, so good…and here is where philosophy
loses it… most philosophers like Sartre go on and try to define the limits
and scope of consciousness…try to make consciousness fit into some sort of box,
a label if you will…

the average philosopher will try to make some sort of connection with a inanimate
object like a table and try to discover what consciousness relationship with a table…
they will often go on about the passive attempt or an active attempt to
understand a table in the conscious mind…the ontological attempt,
to fix a how and what to something, but again, not the why…

this attempt flows from Husserl Phenomenology…to “bracket” an item,
“to the things themselves” was Husserl motto…to look at an item
and see it in context of its ontological value or its how and what…
but not its why…

and all of this looks good, but it fails… and why? this attempt at
“intentionality” fails because it fails to take into account how we learn
about tables in the first place…as a child… I learned about what a table is
when I was a small child, as did you…we learn from our parents as they
seat us at the table for dinner and breakfast and lunch…and later when
we did our homework at the dinner table, as I am currently writing this
on my kitchen table… as I learned as a child…we learn the how and what,
very early in life, about kitchen tables anyway…and any sort of intentionality,
that we might use in “phenomenology” for example, cannot, cannot change
what we have been taught about a kitchen table since birth…for me anyway,
ontologically, a kitchen table is just a kitchen table, no matter how hard I might
try to change its function…I cannot become anymore aware of a kitchen table…
as I already have a how and what about that kitchen table… now I might learn more
uses of a kitchen table, a useful place to have sex, to play cards on, to
be a sort of poor man storage unit, right now on my kitchen table beside the
computer I am currently working on, I have my water bottle, several books, a
water spray bottle in case the cat tries to attack me, a couple of maps of Europe,
a notebook, a bag of kitty treats and a case of various pill I take in the morning,
which I forgot to put away this morning…

any sort of “intentionality” won’t really change my awareness of my kitchen table…

in other words, phenomenology or intentionality, doesn’t change my current
understanding of my kitchen table…should I use my kitchen table as a poor man
storage unit? that is certainly a question my wife will have for me, as she hates
random items on the kitchen table, for her, a kitchen table is for eating and only
for eating… any other use of a kitchen table is not acceptable to her…
and as for me, I am much more casual about the uses of a kitchen table…
as I am the slob of our household… I don’t mind a mess as now there
is a empty plastic bag that once held graham crackers… crackers now
in my belly… and does this addition bother me? nah… my wife however,
yep…

phenomenology simply ignores how we learned about objects in the first place,
as children… trained by our parents or siblings…

now one might say, phenomenology/intentionality is best used on idea’s or ideals…
but try the use of phenomenology/intentionality on an idea like, say love or hope…

I focus on love to see what love, back to the things themselves, can mean to me…
but I cannot escape what I have learned about love during my lifetime…
we are taught about love as children, but that sort of love, is a simplified
version of what love is… when I was a child and I told my mom, I love you,
it has a different meaning today and it is different from when I tell my wife
I love her and when I tell my daughter I love her and when I say, I love my books,
or when I say, I love my cat… each version of love is different for each object…
“so back to the things themselves” as Husserl would have it, becomes something different
for each type of love… because each object is different and thus will get different
types of love… how do we sort out the various type of different objects with
its type of love? given what we know about phenomenology/intentionality?

what are the limits and scope of love? what is the epistemology of love?
let us think about our knowledge of love… perhaps that is what
phenomenology/intentionality means? to think about the limits and
scope of love…the how and what, but not the why…
we are attempting to describe what love is, to create an ontology
of love… but not the metaphysics of love, which is the why of love…
to describe the how and what of love is ontology…

to discuss what is the nature of being, in this case, the being of, what is love?..
what does it mean to be in love? the how and what of being in love…
what is it nature, what is it scope and limits? so in this case, epistemology
and ontology seem to be the same thing? much to think of…

Kropotkin

3608

what does it mean to say, “I know this to be true”…

what are the limits and scope of that statement?
I believe I have knowledge… so what is the evidence, scope and
limits of that knowledge?

"I hold that “IQ45 is still president of the United States, as of March 25, 2021”

Is that a factual statement? What are the limits and scope of that statement?
Can I “prove” that statement?

It is clear from the current facts that no, IQ45 is not president of the United States…
there cannot be more then one president of the U.S… AND as Biden won the
election and was certified by congress on Jan 6, 2021… and then he was inaugurated
on Jan 20, 2021… which means he was sworn in as President of the U.S…
there is no possible scenario in which IQ45 is president of the United States…

now one can hold that belief until the cows come home, but it isn’t going to
change the “truth” of the question in hand…

so what can be gained by holding onto a belief that is clearly
and unambiguously wrong?

there is a psychologically need to hold onto that belief, even if it is wrong
and demonstrably wrong… I hold clear and and logically proven evidence
that Joe Biden is president of the U.S… and I can clearly and logically disprove
that IQ45 is president of the U.S…and anyone with the common sense of a dog
can understand my evidence… but still there are those who hold to a false,
wrong statement that IQ45 is still president…but even UR and Observe have
shown that they know for a fact, that IQ45 lost the election… UR has said
that IQ45 won 2016, 2020 and will win 2024 and even 2028 (in violation of
the U.S Constitution) but to admit that he will win in 2024 is to admit he lost
in 2020…but what does this say about UR and Oberve that they still
hold to the clearly false statement that IQ45 won the 2020 election…

what psychological need are they fulfilling when they hold on to facts that
are clearly and demonstrably wrong?

they are engaged in as the existentialist said, “bad faith”… Which is when you hold beliefs
that can be clearly and demonstrably proven wrong… like holding to the belief
that the earth is not round, it is flat… holding onto the belief that IQ45 won
the election is to hold on to a belief that the earth is flat, there is no difference
between the two beliefs…and both beliefs are not supported by the facts or
evidence… so what is epistemology? the study of knowledge and what are the limits
and scope of that knowledge…so if you hold beliefs that is not supported by the
facts, you are violating the known knowledge or facts of a situation…you hold
these beliefs in “bad faith” because there is no means or method of proving
what you believe to be true, to be actually true…whereas I can prove, factually
and logically prove that Biden is president of the United States… as I can also
prove that the world is round, not flat…my evidence/ facts/proof is clear
and unmistakable… It cannot be disproved by any logical, rational, factual
means…

now take what we have just talked about, and apply it to other beliefs
you hold to be true… do you have actual facts and evidence that
a belief of yours is in fact, true?

that is what it means to be a philosopher… to engage in your beliefs
and working out if your beliefs are factual and truly real… not just
imaginary facts and evidence like Santa Claus and the Easter bunny is real…

if you cannot or will not conduct a through investigation into your beliefs,
then you are not a philosopher, you are a fanatic holding beliefs because
they make you feel better about yourself, not based on facts or evidence…

who is courageous enough to examine your beliefs to seek out whether those
beliefs are in fact, true and proven? to seek out the scope and limits of
one’s own beliefs… to overcome the “bad faith” that is inherent within those
fanatics who hold beliefs because it makes them feel better about themselves instead of
being true and real…

Kropotkin

3609

I am on page 62 of Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness” and have yet come
across a paragraph that I could use to live out my life…
in other words, I have yet come across an answer to the questions
of existence…

“what am I to do?” “What should I hope for?” What should I believe in?"
“What values should I hold?” there isn’t a paragraph, so far that will help
me answer any of those profound questions of existence…not one…

he has just started on nothingness and it sure seems like nothing to me…

but I was lead to the point of asking, why now, why has this question of
nothingness hit during the modern age? What was it about the modern age
that brought the question of nothingness to bear on human existence…

I think that the question of nothing comes from the nihilism that
surrounds and permeates modern existence, like fog in the morning hovering
over everything…some aspects of Buddhism explore the idea of emptiness…
but is that the same thing/idea of nihilism or nothingness of modern existence?

to be empty and to be nothing, seem like two different concepts…

the goal of Buddhism is to become empty, but at no point of modern existence
is the goal is to become nothing…

Nothing: not anything; no single thing

Emptiness: 1. the state of containing nothing
2. the quality of lacking meaning or sincerity; meaninglessness,
3. the quality of having no value or purpose, futility…

given these two definitions, we should really be engaged in emptiness,
not in the idea of nothing…

the modern age is empty and that sentence makes total sense,
whereas I can’t say, the modern age is nothing…

perhaps the failure of understanding nothingness comes from the fact
it isn’t the concept we should be working with, dealing with…
we should be engaged in emptiness… so Sartre work should
be titled

“Being and Emptiness”

perhaps he might have gotten somewhere if he had chosen the right word…

Kropotkin

3610

in looking for some light reading before I go to bed, I
bring out my book, “Walt Whitman” the complete poems…

and I start to read… and in the introduction, this line appears…

“poets are vessels to remember history”

and I ask, why must we leave it to poets to remember history?
Much of modern day life, politics, economics, socially, is about
rewriting history…IQ45 said that the capital insurrectionists were
“kissing and hugging” the police at the insurrection… I wonder if IQ45
has any idea that 5 people died that day? rewriting history…
and it is a task done daily… even around here on ILP, history is
being rewriting… often on a daily basis…

and what poets of ILP will be vessels of remembering history?

History seen right before our eyes is being rewritten as “fake news”
and who benefits from this rewriting of history?

the honest seeker of truth certainly doesn’t benefit from this rewriting of history…

only those who are false, untrue, liars benefit from the rewriting of history…

but who here is an honest seeker of the truth? I will be so bold as to say, there
are but two, two honest seekers of the truth… and we are attacked for it often…
and that is even expected… for those who are dishonest hate the honest ones… because
honesty makes some conscious of their dishonesty… and who wants to be reminded
that they are in “bad faith?” that they are being dishonest… guilt drives many a feeling…
those who are honest force the dishonest to confront their dishonesty… and that brings
out hate…

I will continue to argue for and fight for the holding of honesty,
despite the many who fight for dishonesty…

so call me a poet and I will not disagree…

Kropotkin

3611

resist much, obey little… that is thy command…

and how do I follow this command?

I hold to this creed far better then the self proclaimed.

I challenge the very fundamental principles of America

and you challenge getting shots… how bold, how brave of you…

When the bedrock of the nation is not in vaccinations or fighting for
forgotten dictators…

no, but a thousand times, no… the very bedrock of American values lies
in the baubles of existence… of money, of fame, of titles and of power…
and those are the fundamental principles I fight… and you attack saving lives…

if there is one thing you learn as you get old, is learning to pick your battles,
you don’t need to fight every demon you see… pick your battles and fight
the ones you have the energy for…if there was one piece of advice I would give
the young, that would be it… pick your battles…a fight over vaccinations is
not worth a battle but fighting for values we should hold as Americans, that is a
battle worth fighting…

what battles are worth fighting over? “What is worth spending your energy on?”
that sounds like a Kantian question of existence…

Kropotkin

3612

a continuation of the above topics…

my background is upper class, Midwest, somewhere in between the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat… to use rather old fashion terms…

my parents Aesthetic style is easy to describe… safe, boring, nothing
too challenging or dangerous… and that a description of almost all
the ARTS in America today…and that includes the movies, perhaps
the riskiest medium in America today…and that is safe, boring, nothing
to challenging or dangerous…the movie industry is a business, nothing
more and what makes money is safe, boring, nothing too challenging
or dangerous… the only time we see someone challenging the system,
is in historical drama’s…“Gandhi” is a good example…let us show what
happened in other countries, but never, ever suggest that it could
happen here…other countries and other political systems and other
economic systems could be wrong, but not us, not our systems…our own
time and our own systems, be it political, social, economic or historical
will ever be challenged or made to be anything but safe and boring…

people are about the core values that demand safe, boring, never too
challenging or dangerous… those values are the pursuit of
wealth, power, fame, titles and awards…how can I get my next movie
made if I am too dangerous or seeking to to challenge people too much?

I must make money and win awards and that requires movies and books
and TV, and movies to be safe, boring, never too challenging or dangerous…the movies
and books and music must be homogeneous and never too dangerous…
not because our entertainment is created by the same 8 people, but
because it has to make money to justify itself… no profits, no reason
to create…money becomes the reason for ART and money is always
about being safe, boring, never challenging or dangerous…

now you may talk about his “Rebel” or that artist “Rebel” but the fact,
is there are old artist and there are bold artist, but there are no old,
bold artist…they get drummed out of the business pretty quickly once
they stop making money…

and the ones who claim to be bold challenge the superficial aspect of society,
getting vaccinations is not a challenge to society, pointing out money
is a bauble that needs to go away and that is a challenge and those people
never last long…to truly challenge the system requires one to challenge
the bedrock, the core value of America and the West… money, fame,
titles, power… challenge those values and you are truly challenging
the core values of the West and America in particular…

Kropotkin

3613

let us think about the role of philosophy in the creation of a
“universal” transcendental philosophy…the last philosopher bold enough
to think they could create a universal/ transcendental philosophy was Hegel…

so how would we use philosophy in an engagement with the creation of
a “universal/transcendental” philosophy? on what basis could we use
philosophy to the creation of a universal philosophy? could we use the traditional
methods of philosophy to create a universal philosophy? Metaphysics, epistemology,
Aesthetics, logic, political philosophy, and ethics… which theory could we use to
establish a universal philosophy?

I don’t see any of those as being a basis for any type of a universal, transcendental
philosophy…

so let us branch out a bit, can we base a universal, transcendental philosophy
on such disciplines as history or as Marx did, economics, or perhaps sociology,
or perhaps anthropology? I don’t see it, although I can’t totally dismiss the possibility,
I just don’t see how we can get from here to there…

although I must admit that more then a generation did try to create
a universal, transcendental philosophy on the physics of Newton and
the mathematical principles of Descartes… they failed… to try to create
a universal/transcendental philosophy based upon motion as tried by 17th
and 18th century thinkers…

on what basis should we or can we create a universal, transcendental philosophy?

that does seem to be the question…

Kropotkin

3614

With the explosion of science, the times of great and universal systems are finished. There is simply too much knowledge for one individual to master in his lifetime and scientific progress gallops way to rapidly and is way too deep for a single human mind to be able to manage it. If somebody like Kant or Hume were to write their treaties now, they would be in need of updating and over-turning every 10 years…that cant be done.

3615

May be in 10 years when AI will realize that without transcending it’s own limitations, it will be impossible not to develop compensation for the neglectedly devolved atrophy of it’s own existential being. Maybe sooner then that.

3616

I thank everyone for their contributions to this thread…

several words thrown out at random…Transformative, understanding,
questions, overcoming, constitutive, reframing, problems and reformulating…
doubt and certainty…and what do all of these things have in common?

there are some, some of the techniques that are available to philosophers…

we can use any of these techniques to engage with philosophy…

what does the word philosophy actually mean? not love of wisdom, no,
it means inquiry… to inquire into what it means to be human, to inquire
what does knowledge mean, to inquire as to what is our role within the society
we are born into… and that means to inquire as to what “society” means?
to engage in metaphysics means to inquire into the “fundamental” nature of
reality… what is real and what isn’t… what is mind? what is matter? what exists
outside of the physical? is there such a thing as “god” or do we see what there is, as is…

the entire experience of being human is up for grabs in philosophy… I am one,
and how does this one, fit into society, which is made up of many? Political
philosophy is the understanding of how humans organize themselves… in groups
of two or more…

in philosophy, we are not seeking that which is day to day, of the political fight
about whether we should have the income tax rate for corporations at 23% or 30%…
that is unimportant in philosophy… for we are seeking the “rules” behind what rate
it should be… in other words, we are seeking the why? why should we tax at all,
or why should we tax at 23%… what is the theory behind that percentage versus
another percentage?

sometimes I think we forget what is the point of philosophy… that is to
work out and sometimes to transform and sometimes just to understand,
the various aspects of existence…to be “constitutive” which means to
organize into some sort of pattern, the chaos we see around us… so,
we could use this to understand philosophy… I bought a picture puzzle,
one of the puzzles where you have a 1000 pieces and you try to reform
the pieces into the picture you see on the box… and you spend days trying out
various shapes to fit into the overall pattern… that is philosophy…
when you reform a picture puzzles, you are physically doing what
philosophy does mentally…taking various pieces of the puzzle
and trying to fit them into some sort of pattern…

take a tree… how does that tree fit into some pattern of existence?

you might say that tree is because god is… and that would be a metaphysical
approach to an understanding of the universe… or you can put that try into
context using evolution/science… and that is a scientific approach to
the understanding of that tree…

but Kropotkin, why does any of this matter?

Because the approach we take to things, changes or shifts how we understand
things… if we approach that tree holding to the idea that “god” created that
tree, then by our very approach, we tip into one direction or another, our
understanding of that tree…that is why, philosophy/philosophers try to
approach questions of existence from a neutral standpoint…

by approaching the questions of existence with an already preformed idea,
we cannot reach some sort of true understanding of those questions of existence…
so, if we approach the picture puzzle with an preformed idea that the picture
we are assembling is of the Titanic… but the picture puzzle is actually a
picture of the planet earth, if we try to force our picture puzzle to come out
as the titanic, it will never work because our picture is of the Planet Earth…

no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to force our picture into
the Titanic… or how hard we try, we can never force our theories into
something that they are not…if we hold that god made that tree
and we hold firm to that, then we can never solve the question of
the nature and reality of that tree…our own preformed understanding
idea of the tree, prevents us from a true understanding of the reality
and nature of that tree…and most people approach philosophy
with a preformed idea of the nature and reality of the universe,
and thus they cannot reach a true understanding of the nature and
reality of human existence… so, if you begin with the idea that
god created the heavens and the earth, you have already preformed
your idea of the nature of and the reality of existence…that is the path
to failure in philosophy…so in one sense, Descartes had the right idea,
but his failure lies in the fact, he couldn’t work out his theory without
god hanging around in the background…so we see that sometimes
our preformed ideas doesn’t have to come about in the beginning,
it can come at the middle or even at the end of our inquiry into
existence… had Descartes removed the idea of god altogether.
not had it in any part of his inquiry, he would have done true, real
philosophy… as it is, he still changed the nature of philosophy…
but he changed it into a question of knowledge… what can we know,
what is the scope of knowledge and what is the limit of knowledge…
Descartes turned philosophy for 250 years into a question of epistemology,
a question of knowledge…what is knowledge, became the question
for philosophy…

but today, 2021, we are no longer working out that problem…
science has taken over in that particular area…not philosophy…

so we must rethink our questions of existence to match our
current place in the universe… and I hold that the current question,
the question facing us today… is about Aesthetics and most importantly,
we face the question of ethics and morality… what is does it mean to
be “good?” what does it mean to be “evil?” and how does the question of
aesthetics have to do with the question of ethics/morality? Aesthetics
can lead us to an answer to what is moral/ethically possible for us…

we can better see what is right and wrong, better through ART,
then we can in any other possibility… ART can show us what is
right and wrong better then any other way… think of plays like
Antigone or the novel of Tolstoy, “Anna Karenina”…

these ART forms help us see the possibilities of what is “right” or what is
“wrong” better in just about every way possible…

these act of imaginations helps us see what is the philosophical understanding
of the ethical/moral far better then any other way…

we can put into action, via imagination, what is “right” and what is “evil”,
without any risk to us by actually acting… the act of imagination
can be a model of existence just like we have a model of the solar system,
we have the sun in the middle and the planets revolving around the sun,
this is a model of the solar system…and quite a useful model it is…

so we can use imagination, ART to play out various actions to see
what is “right” and what is “wrong” and what is “good” and what is “evil”…
ART plays the role of the canary in the coalmine…

ART can be a model of existence for us… and we can use that model to
work out what it means to be human…ART can transform our understanding
of what it means to be human… ART can explain to us the problems of
existence… for example, Henrik Ibsen plays can show us some of the
problems of existence… and that is what we can use… play, novels,
poems showing us the problems of existence and then showing us
possible solutions to those problems…and sometimes it is enough to
be able to explain the problem, not necessarily offer up a solution, but
to show us the problem… and so, as I have explained,
I see the modern problem being one of, what is the moral? what is ethically
possible for us? the modern question is the ethical problem…
not the knowledge problem that perplexed every from Descartes to Kant,
but our situation has changed and thus our problem has changed…

can we produce/create a universal, transcendental ethical theory?

and if not, now what?

Kropotkin

3617

let us look at one movie that showed us three different
possibilities for being human… 2001: a space Odyssey…

we have the one possibility of the apes, the second possibility being
the movie’s core and the third possibility being what happens to Bowman…
the movie itself doesn’t make much sense, but it does lay out three possibilities
of human existence…Past, present and future…now other acts of
the Aesthetics might bring out our possibilities in the past, or now or
in the future…using ART as a means of exploring our possibilities of
being human…one of the questions of existence is the question of,
what does it mean to be human?

so, what does it mean to be human?

ask yourself, what does it mean to be human and then
use ART as a way of exploring that idea…

we can use ART to think about our relationship with, AI for example…
what does Artificial Intelligence mean for us as far as what it means to
be human? Are we more then just our intelligence or is our intelligence
what it means to be human and then is AI, actually human?

ART can help us work out these answers and much more…

Kropotkin

3618

so we can understand it this way, from Descartes to Kant, they
used epistomolgy, what is the nature of knowledge, to
discover what it means to be human… and that is certainly
a part, a part of what it means to be human, but I am and you are,
more then just an understanding of the role of knowledge plays in our
life…because Epistimology, the study of knowledge cannot bring out the
why of existence… I am human because of the knowledge I hold?
I don’t think we are human because of our knowledge, or how we know
what we know or the limits of that knowledge… certainly it is part of
us, but only a part… and epistimology cannot lead us to the why of
existence… it can only tell us the how of existence… I existence
because of evolution and the creation of life and the formation of
the stars and planets and the earth and this specific combination of
chemical elements created life… those are important questions and
answers, but they don’t tell us the why of human existence, just the how…
how I came to be, not the why of human existence, of being…

and so we must achieve an understanding of the why and here comes
the various means/ways of understanding existence… we have various
theories, for example we have “Continental Philosophy” as a means of
explaining the why of human existence…we have many different theories
to explain what it means to be human…existentialism is one such theory…
as is analytical philosophy…I hold theories that begin with human beings
are a better start then theories that begin with god or logic or motion…

we have to work inside out, not outside in… so the starting point begins
with the human being, and not with something outside of human existence…

I am human because… as oppose to “god created the heavens and earth,
and then created man”…we don’t begin with the human being in the second
example of what it means to be human…we begin with god and then turn to
the human factor…

I have explained what human beings are and were and could be, by the
use of our basic and fundamental needs of existence… we need food,
we need water, we need health care and education… those are the basic
needs of every single living creature… and we are animals, living beings, and
so we need those things… that is the beginning of what it means to be
human…we have needs that must be met…and we cannot ignore or
push off those needs… be it physical or psychological needs of existence,
such as love, esteem, belonging, safety/security… those needs are as basic
to human existence as is food, water, shelter, air…
and we can explain much of, if not all of human behavior and actions via our drive for,
reaching for and meeting our needs…
but let us imagine what happens next, what do we do when our needs
are met?

what is the next step for human existence when our needs are met?

that should be the starting place for philosophy in the 21st century…

what is next is the next step of philosophy…

so what is the next step of being human after our needs are met?

Kropotkin

3619

we often begin with, I was, and today I am… but what
we should be thinking about is, what can I be?

we explore the past and present via history, ART, economics,
social theory, Archeology, philosophy, and science…among other
theories… that explains past and present… but what of the third
aspect of human possibilities… the future…that seems to be
the exclusive territory of ART and Marxist philosophy…

Science Fiction seems to show us what is possible for the human creature…

we are not set nor fixed in who we are, we can become something else…
a lion, once its needs are met, can only do what evolution has determined
for the lion… the lion cannot escape what has been fixed by evolution…
a lion cannot read or write or think about the future… a lion is driven
by it evolutionary needs, nothing more…
but we are human and we can be driven by needs other then evolutionary needs…

Star Trek shows us what is possible in the future… once possible course
we can evolve toward… we can make that choice… and choice is something
that evolution does not allow… at most, we can ignore or delay our
evolutionary needs, for example, when frightened, I have a couple of
evolutionary possibilities…fight or flight…that is built into us by
evolution but as human beings we can rise above those two possibilities…
we have the choice to act outside of our evolutionary possibilities of “fight or flight”

so what we need to explore is our choices, our possibilities…
that is the role of ART…what possibilities exists for us?

and within and using our imagination, we can see other possibilities that are
available for us as human beings…the beginning of the future begins with
us imaging the future…what can we be/do in the future?

you might say we cannot become something more then we already are,
but yes, yes we can become something more… at one time, we were
animals, with nothing more then instincts to guide us, now we have reached
the point where we can use rationality and imagination to guide our actions…
we are no longer limited to instinct to guide our actions… we can reason out
or we can imagine other possibilities of action/actions to any given
environment or situation…

if this happens, I can do X, or Y or Z… in any given course of action,
and all of these choices are given beyond of or outside of instinct…
we can act from instinct or we can act from reasoning or we can act from
imagination… and we have other possibilities to base our choices
on…

so what drives you? do you work from the past or do you operate from
the present or do you imagine the future and work toward that?

if you been paying any type of attention, then you should know what I
believe and why… but is the future changeable? yes, because we
are not fixed or set as human beings…

Kropotkin

3620

Hermeneutics: the branch of knowledge that deals with
interpretation, especially of the bible or literary text…

in other words, Hermeneutics deals with context… putting things,
especially the bible or other literary texts into context…

I think we can expand Hermeneutics into putting the human being
into context…for example, are human beings “Homo Faber”…
the concept that human beings are able to control their fate and their
environment as a result of the use of tools… man as a tool making creature…

that is certainly one possible context of human beings, but there are other context
we can place human beings into…

we can also call human beings, Homo Religious… the religious man/human being…

we can also refer to human beings as Marx did, Homo economicus… the economic human
being…and again we can put human beings into context by following Plato,
that human beings are homo politicus… that man/human beings are political beings…

the problem lies in figuring out what we really are, are we one, some or all of, indeed
it is possible that we are none of these conceptual idea’s…

we have seen in both Nietzsche and of Foucault, the use of the word,
Genealogy, in for example the Nietzsche book, “On the Genealogy of Morality”
but what if, what if real understanding can come from the use of “Hermeneutics”
we consciously attempt to understand human beings though their context of
existence…

human beings can be warlike, indeed, many believe that the human being is
best described or given context by this use of human beings being warlike…
but that isn’t the only context we can bring up about human beings…
indeed being warlike is just a small part of human existence…
we also love, but we are also intoxicated by beauty, the sunset, other people,
a mathematical formula, a flower… we can and must expand our
definition of, the understanding of human beings to include the human
experience…the entire range of the human experience…to put into context
of the human being in regards to their experiences, real and possible…

as of now, we don’t explore the full range of the human experience,
we don’t give the human experience, context…because we are limited to
to words like genealogy or morality… without context, human existence
doesn’t make any sense…we limit it too much with the use of such labels…

“the will to power” is just another example of giving human beings, context…
we can see better what it means to be human, by such concepts even if
the concepts are wrong or incomplete…

using past, present, future, we give human beings context…
by understanding the goal of human beings, we give context…
by giving the starting point of human existence, we give context…

“I am” tells us nothing… “I am strong” tells us more, it gives us some
context… not enough, but it is better then “I am”…

that is another reason why Descartes failed, “Cogito, ergo sum” doesn’t really
tell us anything about human existence…it fails to give us context to what
it means to be human…it just says, “I am”… and that tells us nothing about
the human condition…

every single theory is a theory about the context of the human experience…

and some theories are right and some are wrong and some are incomplete…

so which theory do you hold that explains what it means to be human?

what theory explains the “human condition?”

what theory that we have, gives us the context of human existence?

Kropotkin