Interesting. I have no idea how Satyrs philosophy is in contradiction to mine, I have no idea what the dude is thinking at this moment, I can not detect any consistency really, because there isn’t really any logic to discern. Isolated remarks, usually of a comical and personal nature, completely unrelated to abstract thought, which obviously is the backbone of philosophy, as it is of science.
Now I have seen that Satyrs view of this week about my philosophy is diametrically opposed to my philosophy.
I don’t know what people find so fascinating about him. It’s probably the same thing as Justin Bieber or Kim Kardashian. It’s just not clear what the merit is, but they’re famous for being famous.
If you want to discuss philosophy, it really would be the best thing to come forward with a thought.
I fucking hate categories. But I suppose you mean it honestly. Even though you appear not to have read through the ‘entire’ thread.
If I have to choose, obviously I am a positive nihilist. This means that I affirm the absence of universal standards, and embrace the fact that we create and uphold and advance our own values simply by being born, growing up and being alive.
I can not compress my world view in a single sentence, that would go against my worldview really, which is the opposite of monolithic.
“Holy fuck, this is too awesome to process.” is probably the closest to a unification. Note that this closeness implies the affirmation of the impossibility, because of the excess value.
Any philosophy that does not rest on and root in pure affirmation is obviously stunted and a-priori incapable of attaining a single consistent term.
I asked about analytical philosophy after reading the Capable thread at your site. I found it interesting since it is the opposite to my own position
My views have not changed since reading it. But the important thing is to consider alternative interpretations which may invalidate mine. Nobody
has a monopoly on wisdom so logic dictates one is always going to be wrong about something. But nowadays I am less interested in developing my
own world view and more in simply processing relevant knowledge without making a value judgement about it. Am interested in how others think
without feeling compelled to agree with it. And so the sense of detachment makes me more open minded with regard to acknowledging positions
significantly different to my own. Such as yours and Satyrs for example. Although this is only partially true. For all three of us identify as positive
nihilists. I regularly lurk at Know Thyself since in all other respects Satyr and I are complete opposites. But as I said I am interested in processing
knowledge rather than making value judgements about it. I have seen your site too but it appears to be quite inactive so I do not visit that much
The reason why I asked you to compress your world view into a single sentence is because I can. Well actually three words : Atheism / Nihilism /
Egalitarianism. And if you want something slightly more concrete than that : Apatheism / Positive Nihilism / Universal Egalitarianism. For reasons
of simplicity the former is the one I normally use. Not set in stone but as of this point in time the most logically and philosophically rigorous one I
know of. But even if it were set in stone it would only be so for a relatively infinitesimal period of time. Since upon point of death it would cease
to have any significance to me. Which is why I try not to hold on to my world view too rigidly as it only matters in the here and now. And if death
really is an eternity of pain free non consciousness then that is where we are going to be forever once we cease to function. Now overcoming this
irrational fear can make one as philosophically free as it is possible to be whilst still being alive. And I have overcome it and so am now as free as
I have ever been. So death can therefore take me any time it wants
I noticed that Jakob asked people to bring thoughts. This is the problem with labels, they excoriate thinking and substitute in the place of thought a simulation of thought, a kind of image-machine that inputs a status quo regularity of terminology and outputs petty emotionalism and narcissistic cynicism. Not to mention a general baseline level of self-dishonesty that, eventually, over-writes any even pretenses to serious attempts at thinking through anything. The image-thought of the given becomes all.
I suggest you read Deleuze’s Difference & Repetition, also Kitaro’s The Logic of the Place of Nothingness and the Religious Worldview. Each of these works does a good job building on what Kant was working on. And in general you need to overcome or at least make questionable the fact that you’ve been made to believe that analytic philosophy is the given standard and only “real” or “really certain” or “precise” or “reputable” philosophy out there. The drive for certainty is what threatens to destroy certainty, since real certainties can be arrived at only by “uncertain” means.
Otherwise, again, I’d like you to actually explain your position on Jakob’s Value Ontology in order to defend you claim as to boiling it down to three terms, as well as explain the difference between your views and those you found on BTL forum, when it comes to “what is philosophy?”.
I agree with you about certainty. Which is why my own world view is not set in stone and can be modified or revised any time. I find dogmatism to
be both intellectually and psychologically restricting. And as far as Value Ontology is concerned I have no problem with it per se other than nature
is not aware of its supposed purpose. That is merely a human projection. Ontology [ and teleology ] are means by which humans try to understand
it all. Though it begs the question by assuming there is some meaning or purpose in the grand scheme of things as opposed to none at all. And so I
think the universe simply is. It has no nature or purpose. It just exists
This is already far more than I would dare to proclaim.
I do not know if there is a The Universe, first of all, and second, obviously I can not know if, if it exists, it has meaning or not.
An ontology, as seems to be unknown here, is the study of what is (“ontos” means “being”). Not of what should be or of what anything means.
Many modern guys think that they can know that the universe has no meaning. This means that they think that they are powerful beyond the universe that contains them. Obviously, anything in this universe could never make a judgment about what this universe is in totality.
For a mere human to say ‘the universe has no meaning’, would make this humans a radical ideologue, who makes a value judgment about the universe, without having any ground to do so. ‘No meaning’ is, as an Analytic philosopher can not understand, an expression of meaning.
Of course I do not know for absolute certain if the universe has any meaning or not. My position is not a dogmatic one. But I know that the human
desire to ascribe meaning to it is done for ulterior motive rather than a genuine quest for truth with regard to that question. Because that motive
is usually the justification for particular belief systems then I am naturally sceptical. So until I find a convincing non religious argument supporting
the universe having a meaning I shall carry on thinking the opposite
My point was more that to believe that the universe is meaningless, is to believe on a much deeper level, that it has meaning.
This may sound strange. But consider that ‘the’ ‘universe’ ‘has’ ‘no’ and ‘meaning’ are all meanings.
In short, you are already a very radical idealistic positivist compared to my, very humble, skeptical position.
What I investigate is words and concepts. Concepts such as ‘the universe’. It’s a pure superstition. No one has ever proven that there is a whole of which we are part.
In this same invisible way, hidden deep beyond what humans are trained to think about, are a number of other radical and blind assumptions in the phrase ‘the universe has/does not have property x/y/z’.
What an Ontology studies is Being. I.e. our own existence. That of which we can be logically sure that it exists. Not “the universe”. This may be just a figment of our imagination. Or not. We can’t know. We can only know what whatever does exist, must exist. So we study what it means to ‘exist’.
It’s far more deep and complex that Aristotle or Hume, or any one in between. Thales is still relevant. In fact no one has understood him yet.
The observable universe exists. To deny this one would instead have to accept it does not and is therefore a mental projection rather than a physical
phenomenon. But I do not think idealism or solipsism are valid philosophies as I think the universe is mind independent not mind dependent. You may
say how do I actually know this given that the brain processes everything we experience. My answer would be that on the balance of probabilities it is
more likely the universe exists independent of our perception of it. And for no other reason than we have not always existed where as it obviously has
[ using the standard definition of universe ] But of course I could be wrong and it is all an illusion but it would be rather academic as the illusion would
be so convincing we would not be any the wiser. First principles or axioms do not have to be absolute truths simply self evident ones and one of them is
that the observable universe exists. A logical refutation of it would make zero difference assuming the universe did not exist. Because the illusion is too
convincing like I said. So this particular first principle or axiom shall for all practical purposes I think remain unchallenged for long as we exist regardless
of what any non physicalists or non materialists may otherwise think