Derrida rests things on the immediate, that which comes to the senses. Yet, just because what comes to the sense is immediate for us does not mean that it is immediate for reality but only for one small space of it. That is why Metaphysics is posited with such starting points as God or Aristole’s Prime Mover but unlike former Metaphysics it may be possible due to the works of Transcendentalists particularly Kant, Ficthe, and Schelling. We can posit that our experience is not immediate reality but merely an immediateness of a product of reality something finite. It is stupid to rest our ends on direct empirical evidence which can only unveil finite things of which Derrida conceives as merely a series of unconnected moments which is by far the most anti-transcendental purely empirical view of the world one can conceive. Yet, the world is still bound to necessity to an explanation of such phenomenon as the series of unconnected moments, mere flashes to sensation. What serves as a necessary explanation for that which is most immediate and in a sense most real for us is the value of truth. The immediate is nothing more than the ideal, the most finite and delusionary objects of nature. There is a necessity that unconnected series of moments are infact connected for it is by necessity that everything that is unconnected is in a paradox absolutely the same and connected. What appears immediately to our senses is merely on side of the reality, in that what appears may have two parts, one which is presented in the immediateness of the senses while the other is brought to light only in reflection. The reflection of what is most immediate cannot be seen as an abstraction if infact that what is reflected to be constituted in what is presented immediately in our senses is necessary in order for what immediately appears to appear at all or in the same manner. Consciousness only provides content for itself through sensation or what appears immediately which by virtue of the nature of the consciousness, which was first established by Ficthe with his concept “for-itself”, is constantly striving toward consciousness of itself, or it is striving to meet itself, or “for-itself”. Such is constituted by the nature that it is pure activity in which it is eternally bound to itself in which by virtue of its activity which is always going to be “for-itself”. Thus when the reflection upon the objects formed from certain activities occurs if in such reflection a necessity is formed in what is found in reflection and what is found in the appearences is congruent a transcendent (beyond direct empirical evidence) truth is found. This transcendent truth certainly depends upon the content of what immediately appears in experience but its activity is of consciousness alone which makes use of the content “for-itself” for its own purpose and end. We are consciousness and due to this we are selfish creatures by which we continually are stuck in a narcistic crisis always striving for completion and perfection. Experience thereby is never valuable in itself for us but serves our own ends and that is the purpose of it. Its purpose is not for truth but for the development of self alone, thereby in not abiding with the very nature of our reality and by itself it is useless, it is not true but what alone comes of it through consciousness is valuable. To use it to understand ourself and then in this actually achieve a truth by which establishes the necessary connection of things from the most fundamental (God, or Prime Mover) to the most finite that immediately appears to our senses.

I’ve noticed that you are using more commas nowadays. Great. Makes for a smoother read.


  1. You are confusing Derrida with Hume

  2. Derrida would scoff at your notion of the ‘immediate’. For a Derridan the differing/differing is always taking place, there is no pure, immediate experience.

  3. Consciousness is not the origin of experience. No matter how many times you claim this it is nothing more than idle speculation, for reasons I’ve outlined several times already. I’ll do it again if I must, but only if you will modify your writing to include such contemporary inventions as paragraphs.

Reading this post made me think of the term “consensus reality”!!

The term Consensus reality has two usages. To those who adhere to the materialist philosophy, it references the overall space-time reality believed to exist irrespective of anyone’s perceptions. For those who don’t adhere to the materialist philosophy, it refers to the predominent agreed-upon version of reality.



How I am confusing Hume with Derrida?

Derrida may actually be right to scoff at the so-called immediateness of experience but I think a more appropriate conception is that experience is finite or limited to the one small space and section of time of which one experiences from. Is this more agreeable? It does not change my concurrent argument however.

I will accept the seeming speculation of my viewpoint but you have to realize that to belief consciousness is passive to experience is equally as speculative. Kant already established this because what unites self-consciousness and consciousness is consciousness. Self-consciousness is active but we cannot assume that consciousness in-itself is passive or active at least not from the viewpoint of self-consciousness. This is because self-consciousness is at once empirical and subjective and thus we can distinguish one from the other from our point of view thus it is pure speculation to claim that cosciousness is empirical or subjective in nature. This reasoning is pretty solid, no? My seeming speculation is however no speculation it was due to the works of Schelling that my mind changed however I have so far as I have read Schelling it merely bein speculative taking consciousness from a subjective point of view. I am getting informed on the Idealist perspective of consciousness which transcendentalist call Intuition and then I will inform myself of the completely opposite view. Then I can make a more assured decision. Nonetheless by the lack of knowledge on the nature of consciousness at this point I am more convinced of the subjectivity of consciousness rather than it being empirical in nature. If my belief is more to one way I will argue completely for it so that I can meet opposition with the greatest energy thus able to create the greatest conflicts in ideas thus creating doubt for my positions or for the others.

Now, in this activity I feel you are not really trying to hard but you constantly make statements without demonstrating the basis for them and keep refering to Derrida without explaining and writing in more detail about. I would like nothing more than to hear your point of view so please be more explicit if you would not mind.