Metaphysics is Art

The only thing that will be left to study in the future is philosophy. It is science that will end. Once all our practical scientific-technical problems have been solved, and we can manipulate all matter and ourselves infinitely, then only philosophy-metaphysics-art will be left, and that study will last forever.
This study will lead to inventing any arbitrary science and art form as knowledge. Any sequence of signs and pictures can become an invented irrational mathematics-physics.

Trying to understand metaphysical problems in philosophy always ends up questioning more fundamental assumptions as it proceeds. Why “understand” more or less ? Why use any form of logic ? What exactly are we trying to reach ? These ideas go on forever and as you proceed you slowly disassemble all thought processes, logic, reason, all intentions and you end up with everything and/or nothing. The end result is mostly aesthetic or artistic. Just invent arbitrarily anything etc.

Philosophy has no given goal. It doesn’t necessarily want to increase our understanding, some philosophers may want to decrease our understanding as “understanding” may not be such an interesting goal. Some philosophy likes the purely artistic view of things hence there is no relationship with science. Some philosophy likes to be completely wrong on everything because they are not using right and wrong concepts or non contradictions as taken for granted.

Philosophy, in the wider sense, is very much more general and abstract than science, it questions every conceivable assumption, demolishes every conceivable logic and thought process. Real philosophy is truly non social and has no use whatsoever. It is this that makes it so much grander than science.

One could say why search for the “truth” ? Why not search for the best lies, non-truths or try to get as far away as possible from the truth ? After all, searching for the truth is one of the assumptions we take for granted. Why not invent better and better lies ? why not contradict ourselves more and more ? Why is truth assigned a higher “value” than that which is “false” ?

Let’s play a game of demolishing all possible assumptions:

  1. why ask why ? so my philosophy doesn’t ask why anymore it just assigns arbitrary false facts…

  2. why execute any thought ? So my philosophy doesn’t contain any thought anymore

So I can say the mind is a car tire and it’s thoughts are a light bulb in your house. You can assign anything, any idea, concept; it becomes more and more an aesthetical - artistical construction. You can even go full circle and watch TV as that is the maximum philosophical achievment.

In your post you’ve assumed that an aesthetic distinction implies arbitrariness - seemingly adopting the popular manner which today causes people to consider “everything to be an art”.

In the classical sense, an aesthetic always implies profoundly strict adherence to esoteric, unspecifiable rules. I do not call such rules “complex” because they lie categorically beyond complexity.

One must realize that to speak of “the aesthetic” as you have done is exactly equivalent to the assertion of a perspectival world, a perspectivist philosophy. The perceiver is the only object of study. But the perceiver, a human being, is non-arbitrary.

To prove this to yourself, strike the keyboard of a well-tuned piano with your elbow - and compare what you perceive as a result with the perfection of a chord struck by an expert performer at exactly the right time, all in the context of a potentially endless stream of interacting, mutating, self-fulfilling consonances and dissonances. A perspectivist world-view is inseparable from its teleological assumptions. If these are lacking, uncertain, neither-here-nor-there, then all talk of an aesthetic becomes utterly superfluous.

THIS is the aesthetic (self-cognizant) conception of the world; it aspires to pass the highest value judgements and asserts that all perspectives are NOT equal and are decidedly NOT arbitrary.

-WL

You should read ‘The Case Against Art’ by John Zerzan. It both ruined and saved my life.

In theorizing that in the end, science will die and art will prevail, you fetishize the validity of art’s existence. While I agree with your assertions about the purpose of philosophy, art is one of the prevailing mediators of pure experience along with any other forms of symbolic representation (such as language itself).

Also, allowing philosophy to prevail in the future would negate the purpose of philosophy altogether. It would turn philosophy into an ideology, not unlike science, which arbitrarily stops thinking, assumes its own “truth” and is self-promotional.

We are talking about science as an expired process. After which only pure invention will reign. There are no constraints, anything can go. What is the square root of multiplication ? An invented symbol as an infinite number of others to create a purely invented science. So any image can be a language and can associate to any meaning-operation much like art. Even the most fundamental logic of dividing things up as separate or as one can be manipulated. 2 apples can be grouped as one and further grouped with the table on which they lay and this can be considered one unique object and manipulated with any kind of invention.

When science will have reached the point of manipulating our own neural networks, this will become apparent since then we will invent our own mind, emotional systems, thought structures etc. Art and science will become one and the same. Imagine a modified mind where all the information paths can be changed and all the associated emotional structures can be manipulated in billions of combinations, the space-time references can be changed, enhanced, new sense organs can be mixed and created since all the information in our minds is only electrical signals.

So then we would be using science to produce Art in the form of modified brains. But all we will ever perceive is extracted properties from objects. It is how you extract a given value or what given value you choose that makes an object perceivable, so science itself is always a pure invention. If you decide to measure the mass of a particle compared to another, you already simply invented a number since that given choice of property compared to another reference is a pure invention. We decide that that measurement is significant and important whereas objectively speaking, for the physical universe, there is no difference between that choice and any other such as the distance between 2 rocks on mars.