Hi all, I’d love to hear helpful suggestions and criticisms on something I typed up yesterday.
Human beings have senses, logic and feelings. The three constitute the entirety of the human experience. The senses are five and their functions are independent in that you can not see with your ear. Logic is the ability of grouping and segregating the sensuary experience. And the feeling is our emtional disposition as conditioned. But the three are not shared by all individuals, for not all of us can see, not all of us can think, and not all of us can feel. We are all different, and the meaning of the difference I attribute to psychology. For the rational, debating individuals, all they are doing is impressing their peculiar psychological make up on others. An argument is a psychological battle in which the sides attempt to make others agree to their point, so as to make others think like them. The rational individual want the world in uniformity to himself. For the rational individual, the eternal truth is that he wants others to be like himself. Since we have established that truth, I would like to impress my psychology onto the readers. Briefly, I will talk about the senses, logic and feelings.
Senses
We have the five senses and they contribute to the rudimentary experience. The rudimentary experience is strictly unique for we are individuals. Your sensations are yours alone, you experience your own sensations. Some talk of ‘feeling’ others pain, is an impossibility. When others are in pain, they cry out, which invoke in us, our own feelings of pain, but the pain we feel is ours, not theirs. The rudimentary experience can not be explained, they are knowable only through direct sensation. Some say sensations came from objects. It can be said, as long as the object is a part of sensation and not independant of it. If from object came our sensation which we experience, how do we know it is from an object? The claim that there are in ‘existence physical objects’ is nonsense. It is absurd to ponder about the previous assertion, the task is not whether we experience sensations but how do we react to them. From sensations, we derive sensations of objects. When I see a chair, it is an object, it has colour, extension, hardness, generally properties of sensations. For the purpose of interacting with other ‘like’ sensation of people, we speak and found out that always the sensation of people talk back. Since we learn by repetition, we become psychologically conditioned to talk. The words we use correspond to each sensation.
Words, sentences, language
A spoken word is a sound. It corresponds to a sensation. A noun is an object which we are psychologically conditioned to believe to contain the five sensations. Words would ideally be referring to a particular sensation, but the words often refers to many sensations. Strictly logically speaking, no two things are the same for they are of different sensation. Children are the most logical. Children have problems doing basic additions. When you draw two ‘identically’ visual bananas, and ask how many bananas there are, some do not know, because despite the bananas being visually identitical, they occupy different space. Fingers are of different sensations, a thumb is a different sensation to an index finger, how could one thumb plus one index finger give two thumbs? Numbers are adjectives, it is most illogical to think of them in ‘abstract’ terms independent of sensation. Numbers arise out of a certain madness, our psychological disposition at recognising forms. Words that are general are talking about the form of things. We group words together to form sentences, which again evolved from you communicating with sensations of people. Words and sentences represent sensations, but they themselves are not new sensations. Sentences are rarely complete sentences, and philosophy arise from such misunderstanding. Philosophy is a misunderstanding of the words, or ill constructed sentences, or both. If we apply an extension, we can say all human misunderstandings are of a philosophical nature.
With words, we express ‘our’ feelings which is an invokation on the feelings in another sensation of people.
When I mention sensation of object, I will drop sensation, I ask the reader to keep that in mind.
Knowledge and its concept
The above concerns the dealings with the natural world. Knowlege in this part deals with our interaction with people. We communicate by means of propositions. The proposition from people by experience is true, false or ambiguous. Most part is ambiguous and thus we have a responsibility of seeking clarification to avoid misunderstanding. Propositions that can be immediately true or false are entirely analytic. The truth of a proposition is always contained in the concept of the proposition itself. Snow (is white) is white. Then there are conceptual propositions that are true contingent upon the realisation of an event are asynthetic. If it rains, my cloth will get wet (in the rain). It will be true assuming the contingent eventuates. Defining words is for the purpose of achieving uniformity in our dealings with people. Words defined are strictly true. If all crows are black and a white bird with crowness is identified, that bird is not a crow despite having crowness. Our ability to recognise the ‘ness’ of sensations is a great curse. So far it is a psychological mystery to me which deserves further research.
My observation
Psychological structure in terms of area of dispute
Logic - mathematics
Feelings - ethics, religion
The observations I made are concerning rational beings, not the whole world. The world is as it is, swarm with as much psychologies as the lowest order of life. Of all things, is an exertion of our psychology over sensations of people. It is a rudimentary element of psychology of which we can not speak of. The question of why aims at finding a further cause, it is impossible to ask for I can not speak of beyond the rudimentary. Often it is not so much ‘why’ the party is interested but the expression of indignation which is a psychological tool of persuasion in itself. Of all things said, nothing can be said because a ‘why’ is as much psychological force as ‘why not’. The world is a battle in psychology and nothing more. ‘will to live’ and ‘will to power’ are psychologies as ‘will to die’ and ‘will to lose’. We can form a culture that encourages the spread of various aspects of our own psychology. I can speak of my own psychology but not of others. For I can only bear witness to myself. For all human beings that are rational, there is this psychological desire for uniformity. All questions of ethics, religion, feelings are psychological components, they are rudimentary, they are changable but not communicable rationally. Therefore, debates are essentially a battle of psychology. Not all rational individuals have the will to power, but all rational human beings all have the will to uniformity. This is only my psychological disposition as a member of the set of rationals, it is a reflection of my psychology. The end is to make others to think like me, and the means of achieving this task must be through psychology itself. A person is mad if he has a different psychology, does that not imply each one of us have degrees of madness. How can we speak about a subject that is rudimentary that can not be spoken of? I have a psychology, and my actions are a reflection of my psychology but judgements upon that psychology is psychologically inexpressible. When an action is deemed wrong, as opposed to common understanding that the speaker is passing judgement on the rudimentary. The speaker is preventing the repeat of the action. Therefore all language is to prevent and change. The common tool is ‘why’, there is no more ‘why’ than ‘why not’. This is why the acients rarely speak and only act, because nothing can be said. There is no more reason for uniformity than for disuniformity, those who do debate do not understand the propositions.