I begin with aesthetics. So, you might say I’m an empirical realist.
The ‘object’ is an interpretation of fluctuating energies exhibiting a pattern.
There are energies with no pattern which are interpreted as darkness - also complex patterns are interpreted thusly, producing the confusion about what ‘chaos’ means.
For me chaos means ‘randomness’, the opposite of order.
The external world is independent from how the mind interprets it, but this makes an accurate interpretation more crucial to survival.
Currently erroneous interpretations are being sheltered from natural culling, for different reasons. Mostly because the promotion of poor judgments, and of superstition, makes a population more malleable to political and marketing manipulation and exploitation.
I’m a philosophical realist.
The mystical I associate with chaos and complexity - not to be confused as being the same.
Reality cannot be entirely known, but only interpreted sufficiently to promote survival and understanding.
Sometimes survival is inhibited by understanding, and promoted by superstition and mysticism. This is why it takes a particular kind of psychology to be a philosopher. A mind that places clarity and understanding above survival.
Nihilism projects mental abstractions into reality - absolutes - so as to ‘correct’ their absence. If they were to exist, outside their minds, existence would be negated. This is why I say that nihilism, the concept, is part of nihilism, the paradigm.
Nihilism is an expression of itself, and an inversion of reality.
In fact, the absence of absolutes, such as a one-god, universal morality and so on, is a positive because it is existence.
Nihilism is always idealistic, using semiology to ‘correct’ the real. This kind of idealism begins with the solution and then attempts to justify and validate it over time.
A realist, like myself, begins with the perceived and works towards establishing an ideology based on the experienced and perceived - cross referenced with other minds, and continuously validated against reality.
This establishes a higher probability, not a certainty.
Being controversial is a way of standing out from the uniformity of the herd.
It can be faked.
Yet, to avoid being controversial in times of popular deceit would necessitate parroting convectional lies without exposing them.
What did Orwell say?
He who controls how words are defined or understood, controls how the past is interpreted, affecting the present and determining the future.
But nature does not care for human contrivances.
Every so often a reality check sweeps the lies away.
Idealism is how one wants reality to be whereas realism is how it actually is
These are but two points on the same spectrum albeit ones at opposite ends
Idealism can be dangerous because of the consequences of applying it to reality which is why it should be avoided as much as possible
Instead I use observation as the foundation for understanding reality as best as I can because it is the basis of all scientific knowledge
I am a pragmatist and observation is entirely compatible with it and so is retained because of its usefulness
And the same is true of intersubjectivity and evidence and falsification for they result in greater knowledge
A philosophical world view must not contradict the scientific one and so ideally should not be rooted in either metaphysics or unfalsifiability
I do not think there is any meaning to existence but as that cannot be determined by science then it can only be an opinion and nothing else
And so I find meaning to my own life that again is rooted in pragmatism because doing nothing is not good for ones mental or physical health
That meaning is knowledge acquisition : I want to learn as much as I can and because of pragmatism it is something I can do very easily and consistently
I avoid philosophical dogmatism as much as possible because there is no way of knowing what is true outside of science and mathematics
I do not believe in God but I cannot be absolutely certain he does not exist in some form or other so I let that be
I am almost certain that death is eternal but yet again I cannot be absolutely certain so I let that one be as well
I avoid absolute opinions as they do not occupy the same epistemological status as facts and also because mind is always in flux anyway
On a psychological level I find detachment to be the natural default position because it is the least imposing of any mental state
I know I am truly insignificant in the grand scheme of things compared to the timespan of known existence so simply accept this
This may sound very suspiciously like nihilism but it is just as much a statement of fact as a philosophical position if not more so
And awareness of ones own insignificance is actually very positive since it is an excellent antidote against egotism and narcissism
Looking from a Gods Eye perspective my existence has zero consequence but from my own mind dependent perspective it is everything that there is
These two positions are just different points on the same spectrum so both should be equally acknowledged with zero preference for either of them
When the Sun goes red giant in another five billion years or so Earth will either be a fireball orbiting it or else completely atomised and zero trace of us will remain
So all that we have achieved as a species both collectively and individually will then disappear for all of time - this is not nihilistic but merely the nature of reality
So acknowledging it is therefore the only right and proper thing to do and is far better than the metaphysical idealism of the absolute otherwise known as religion
And idealism can built self-referential, yet self-consistent, alternate realities, by using words and symbols, in romantic, appealing, insinuating forms…similar to how a fArtist can paint an image that is meaningless and useless, but that allows the observer to project whatever he desires into tis convoluted synthesis.
Nihilistic idealism is impotent outside minds and so it is entirely political, and necessitates followers and converts that believe ni tis meaningless drivel.
Using prose and obscurantism and poetics, it seduces the mind with innuendoes and triggering words.
It is a form of psychological manipulation, becoming common in politics and marketing.
Brainwashing.
Words referring to concepts can also be connected to disturbing imagery so inhibit the mind from exploring them.
Philosophy has become that.
Nonsense piled on nonsense, insinuating implying and saying nothing.
Abrahamism is still alive and well in its new secular form.
See how the one-god has become the universe, and absoluter order, ro oneness.
See how words can be defined out of existence or defined in ways that makes them absurd and easily laughed at…like free-will, love, value, morality…race, sex…etc.
Are determinists more ego driven than free will enthusiasts?
If I say that you may not be as insignificant as you think for your existence has caused many things to transpire, I wouldn’t be lying would I? And would that make me more of a determinist by thinking this way?
But you would never find out your significance for it would be impossible to retrace. Could have been one smile/kind gesture or one frown/mean act that set off a reaction or occurrence of more magnitude than you would ever have imagined, from something as simple as timing.
Yes, strikingly these so-called humble ones, harbour a secret insecurity which makes them prone to believe in absolutes, feeling power through association.
What can be more arrogant than Christian belief in an after-life and in a god that gives a shit about their petty lives?
What can be more arrogant than to absolve one’s self of all responsibility, and imply that you are a universal agency of inevitability?
Like claiming you are god’s chosen, the determinist believes that nothing he or she can ever do or say can ever be wrong, because it is part of a universal plan, an order, an inevitability he could not have changed.
So, he never has to change because he can never make a mistake.
His/Her life is fated. He or she could not have lived any other life.
It’s comforting.
So the only determinism there is is in the past? But what is determined to have occurred in the past cannot be extrapolated upon to reveal its complete interconnectivity beyond the conscious you, your memory. The present and future are open to choices via free will. Sorry for getting off topic.
Realists take responsibility, idealists don’t. Do you think that there are more realists in the political right?
Yes…what has been determined is past, and past is made present. It is in the present where the future is being determined, in line with or contrary to past.
Choice is the action of free-will.
The present is fluid, not static, not absolute. We participate in the determination of our future options.
Most of our choices are subconscious and automatic, but the mind can override them to a degree, not completely. Will power.
Determinists only associate responsibility with the conscious awareness of one’s own actions and choices. They refuse to accept responsibility for their impulses and their continuous subconscious automatic choices.
They refuse to take responsibility for their nature.
The more contrary to reality an ideology is the more it must compensate for the absence of empiricism by connecting its abstractions to emotions, sensations, abstractions.
Emotions, sensations (hedonism) become validations for ideologies that cannot find validation in reality.
This is why the present identity crisis is entirely emotional.
You cannot reason with emotion, particularly when it is bound up in survival anxieties.
Nihilism and ideologies that are obscurantist and occultist must substitute reason with pathos.
Ego pertains to ones personality and can be completely separate from ones philosophical world view
A determinist is therefore not necessarily more ego driven than a free will advocate [ or vice versa ]
I cannot be certain of my significance on a human scale where no trace exists only on a universal one
But it is academic since all of human existence is merely ephemeral as we are all just passing through
I use ‘ego’ to refer to the lucid, conscious part of self.
A determinist must only accept the responsibility of his conscious self, and reject the rest.
This is why his choices and their consequences seem as if they are occurring to him, not by him.
This is the division of mind/body typical of nihilism.
He experiences his life as if he were not involved, because he only perceives and accepts responsibility for the conscious part, which seems to be helpless and only trying to make sense of what is happening to him.
Consciousness is always lagging behind, due to the time required for the mind to process data. So consciousness is perceiving itself in the past - as already determined - because the present is fluctuating and too fast.
For this reason cultivation is important as it trains the individual to automatically react ni desirable ways.
Words nowadays can describe realities that do not actually exist in reality only in the minds of those who believe in them
This is what Orwellianism looks like today because for some just saying something makes it true even if it is not true at all
Yes…they can contradict experienced reality and justify themselves by using the occult or by manufacturing some meaningless prose that seems to be saying something profound but is really meaningless drivel, triggering emotional reactions in others.
A determinist is still a moral agent capable of making decisions where there is a choice of alternatives
The mistake is to treat both determinism and free will as absolutes when they are merely conditional
So there is some determinism and some free will and they exist with each other in total compatibility
Definitely. I say there are no absolutes. Meaning free-will is not absolute will, to do and be whatever you want.
Free-will is restricted. Minimal. Yet, decisive, over time.
If you are a philosophical realist, you cannot be an empirical realist.
A philosophical realist is an empirical idealist.
A philosophical realist do not interacts but distance his aesthetics [confined to his mind] from reality with a reality-Gap.
An empirical realist embraces, entangles, engages and interacts with reality, i.e.
{subject ↔ reality}.
In this model, reality is interdependent with the subject.
A philosophical realist aka empirical idealist assumes reality is independent of his mind[subject] thus there is always a reality gap between the philosophical realist and reality, i.e.
{subject → reality GAP ← reality}
Example,
‘Subject’ -reality Gap - ‘the real table’
In this case the subject do not embraces, entangles, engages and interacts with the supposedly real table.
The subject only perceived what is supposedly the real table via waves and what is real to the subject are merely sense-data, thoughts [concepts and ideas] and brain activities in his brain.
Even if the subject touched the table there is still a ‘reality Gap’ between the ‘real table’ and the subject.
The question here is, is there a real table out there that is perceived, seen or touched?
Note Bertrand Russell’s dilemma;
That is the dilemma faced by the philosophical-realist’s position which culminated to the doubt, perhaps there is no real table out there at all?
The mind cannot be independent from reality because it is a part of reality so the philosophical realist cannot distance himself from it regardless of what he thinks
The only position that is valid is empirical realism as it is mind interacting with reality or more precisely one part of reality interacting with another part of reality
The term reality gap is therefore an oxymoron as the only gaps are ones of knowledge and nothing else
