A Descent into the Maelström

No, this is not the case at all. You’re basically saying that anything a person claims is a “maelstrom”. How then does “maelstrom” mean anything at all? I don’t think you understand the concept, as I’m using it. I don’t understand the concept as you’re using it.

The way I’m using your word is: maelstrom = monotruth.

Two responses

  1. two sided coin or not, we are dependent on it.
  2. ‘intuition’ is not really a something. There are many intuitions. While it might not makes sense for peson A to trust his intuition in areas B X and W, it might make perfect sense of B to do this.

How many cultures must one take into the mix to know one has the right balance? Are all philosophies equally true? and how do you know this?

Or one third of them are, so if you move on like he suggests believing all of them are (equally!) true you are out of balance and confused.
How does one mix radical skepticism with the others? If solipsism is true how does one mix this with local realism?

It seems to me that a philosophical maelstrom would be like latching onto certain beliefs and never letting go–never believing anything other than what you believe–which could suck you down into an abyss of close-mindedness and intellectual suffocation. A philosophic maelstrom could be a political ideology, for example–or the offshoot of that, an adherence to what may not be ‘true’ (conspiracy theories; belief in what ‘your party’ says, despite the proofs otherwise.) It could be a religious ideology, as in Evangelical Christianity or Islamism. It could be an economic ideology, as in capitalism vs. liberalism.

It means, to me, to be logic-tied to one idea only. It means that only your ideas are correct and everyone else should embrace your ideas.

It kind of fucking reminds of Lyotard’s metanarratives, like.

Liz is soooooo status quo, it hurts. I say anticonspiracism is a negative maelstrom.

I’m sooooooo sorry if I offend you; but I don’t know what you mean. Please explain.

@Moreno Well, I’ve thought about the various philosophical dichotomies, and I think there’s truth in all of them. I mean, come on, egoism vs altruism, you’d have to be a fucking moron to think man is completely egoistic or altruistic. These dichotomies are obsolete… passe. Absolutism/Relativism, Objectivism/Subjectivism, I can probably prove the truth is more/less in the middle, across the board.

i apologize to lizbeth and anyone else i offended last night, had a bit too much of the bubbly.

Right, but then you’re saying that any critique of monotruth is itself a monotruth. That’s a philosophical perversion.

As I thought about the idea more I got more clarity about its specificity. I think a maelstrom in the way I’m conceiving it can only be a philosophical position. It is not just devotion to an ideology like you would find in religion or politics. It must be unfalsifiable, but it also must possess a person’s mind in some way. Not any unfalsifiable belief is a maelstrom, and not any absolutism or fixed belief is a maelstrom. I do agree with your partial description that it is “to be logic-tied to one idea only”.

A philosophical maelstrom begins with mistaking a description for a discovery - it is about making a truth out of a description, and then submitting to that “truth” and even obsessing over it.

Is it in the middle though? Do each of these positions (absolutism, relativism, objectivism, subjectivism, etc.) actually sensibly mark a territory of some sort that truth is inbetween?

Determinism is falsifiable. You only need to show that truly random processes exist. If those random processes take place in the mind, then free will is possible.

Discovery and description are closely related. One could say that a discovery is a special kind of description. No matter what, you have to describe what you discover.

It’s impossible to show if something is truly random.

I mean’t discovery in a certain way - I meant a metaphysical discovery. I can discover a new plant species, but that’s not what we’re discussing here. We’re talking about taking descriptions to be truths.

I was thinking in the statistical sense.

Are not all truths just descriptions?

Sounds about right.

You’re right, it is perverse.

They do and they don’t.