There are words. And then there is the world that words were invented to circumnavigate, to describe, to assess, to [in any number of contexts] judge.
One way or another, we can only do our best to connect the dots between them. Language was not invented [re the biological evolution of life on Earth] in order to culminate in philosophy. It was invented first and foremost to sustain human interaction from day to day “for all practical purposes”.
In that respect [from my frame of mind], it all comes closer to the speculatioins of folks like Marx than to folks like Hegel.
Definitions can revolve around actual things and relationships [in the either/or world] we are able to demonstrate as “in fact” true. And the overwhelming preponderance of the words we use from day to day accomplish precisely that.
It is only with respect to the words we use to judge the behaviors of others as either “moral” or “immoral”, “good” or “bad”, that the dictionary definitions become increasingly more problematic when words acquire a use value and an exchange value out in the world of conflicting goods. Given a particular context.
Or when words are used to discuss and to debate the relationship between our day to day interactions and the really, really Big Questions:
why is there something rather than nothing?
why this something and not something else?
how do we to explain the relationship between universal reality and quantum reality?
do we have free will?
does God exist?
what happens after we die?
etcetera…
Or, rather, here and now, so it seems to me.
But, come on, I remind myself, what are the odds that, in the context of “all there is”, the infinitesimally tiny speck of existence that is “I” can ever possibly presume that his “story” is the one and only true explanation?
Whenever someone ends or begins a sentence with ‘from my frame of mind’ or ‘the way I misconstrue dasein’ then we can be certain, within a relative doubt, that he si saying that what he things is a standard we must all abide by.
It raises subjectivity as the presumed standard for everything that follows.
It seems clear that this individual will only, accept one answer:
All are equally wrong, and so we must gather together and make compromises, finding some middle ground in our shared error to live with.
It’s a way of excusing idiocy…one’s own.
Okay, let’s take your own “general description” assessment here out into the world and explore your point given a particular context.
What becomes the most rational standard by which to measure truth [universal or otherwise] in regard to a set of circumstances in which what is said to be true about particular human behaviors comes into dispute.
From what I know, to measure something,value or judge it…you must have an objective in mind.
Nothing is innately or intrinsically good/ or bad, valuable or worthless…but only in relation to an objective.
What is your objective?
Universal equality, peace on earth…an end to strife?
I practice something that I call “cafeteria style spirituality”: You take what you want and leave what you don’t want.
Now, I don’t agree with a lot of what the buddha taught, but I do carry this with me:
One of the Buddhas disciples asked the Buddha whether God existed or not. The Buddha taught this:
“If someone shoots you with an arrow, it is fruitless to ask who shot it and why, first you must remove the arrow, we have all been shot with the arrow of samsara.” To the buddha, the big questions were absurd, considering the context, and that we were absurd for asking such questions in this context.
Insanity has often been misconstrued for genius…primarily by the masses.
To geniuses insanity is always clear and it announces itself.
I’m no genius, like many of you purport to be here, but I’ve known some, and you people are anything but that.
I’ve never come across a forum populated by so many world-changing, self-promoting, messianic, self-defining geniuses.
This forum is a rare find. A friend pointed it out to me on twitter. Someone you may know…perhaps.
Existence is non-consensual.
We do what we must.
We are thrown into existence without being asked.
We fight and struggle for existence.
This is not a negative…unless you are insecure about the odds.
Well, the odds are devastating to the majority. Devastatingly negative…unless some entity intervenes to slant them our way.
Even so, how mush slant can one mass produce?
Not much…many masses, multiply the mass…but still, in relation to cosmic numbers, an insignificant amount.
By the way…I know you need tit to comfort yourself, but you, particularly you, deserve nothing.
Individuals earn it…and one way is not seeking consent.
Women think this politeness is a weakness. They are correct. Males do not ask, they tell a female what she wants, and she loves it.
But it never lasts.
Ae you one of those with an IQ of 135?
I know of another who claims an IQ of 160+ but has nothing to prove it but word-vomit and declarative occultism.
To declare yourself a genius only proves how idiotic you secretly feel.
I am no genius. My IQ has been measured, by experts, at 85.
But you do.
Teach me what it means to be a genius.
There are so many on ILP I think it has to do with birds of a feather flocking together…like flies on a turd.
I give you my consent. Teach me how a genius, like you, thinks.
Ah so this is a comparison….
I sense a brilliant Nietzsche scholar in you.
Compared to idiocy are you a genius, ro should I look elsewhere for such rare things?
In runes, for instance, or the course of planets.
Tell me about how you compare to the average. Are you exceptional?
Words…and more words. Show me.
I know nothing….when I am told.
An imbecile can tell me his ontology is profound and full of deep pragmatic insights and useful applications….and it does nothing to me.
Begin with telling me how much you worship Nietzsche.
I have real genius cred. I’m one of two people in all of human history to order the rational numbers in a unique way. People on this board often forget this about me, or didn’t even know it in the first place. Sometimes I remind them. No, you won’t find me on wikipedia. But in math circles, I am known. People feign to make a page for me because of my philosophy… it’s controversial, it’s radical.
I know a page will be made for me someday. But not yet.
This is not unique about you on ILP.
There are more than a few self-proclaimed geniuses, world changers, end of the worlders, absolutists, fucked up imbeciles that think they are some kind of rarity…but this is why I am here.
to learn form the ‘best’.
This is the place where the end of the world, meets the end of philosophy, meets the end of existence, meets the end of insight…this is…THE END. I want to taste it, before I end.
I offer my consent.
I’ve watched you for months…do you think a link can be offered to change my judgment?
I posted after watching…for months.
I know you inside out.
Nothing you can post or say, will change my mind, unless, UNLESS, it goes off-script, and you miraculously manage to surprise me. He told me much, and I saw more.
You, specifically, are simple. you wear your emotions on your sleeve…even these morons can read you.
I give you my consent, little boy. I have nothing to withhold form you…particularly not you. You are harmless…and kind.
I know you.
It was when I was ten.
I feel you. You are not evil. You are a poor soul looking for relief.
You feel the pain of others. But I’ve gone beyond it. I am empathic, not sympatric. You are trapped in your own weakness.
You never developed cruelty. You are trapped in kindness.