A Defense of Immaterialism: The Debate - Page 20 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14944715
ingliz wrote:Example:

Your argument/Berkeley's 'master argument'.

If you can conceive it possible for … any sensible object whatsover to exist without the mind, then I will grant it actually to be so... (DHP 200)

P1) If it is possible to conceive of a sensible object without a mind, then it is possible that those things exist without minds.

P2) It is not possible to conceive of a sensible object without a mind.

C) It is not possible that there are sensible objects without minds.

Logical Form:

P1) If P, then M

P2) not-P

C) not-M

Denying the antecedent is a fallacy in formal logic where in a standard if/then premise, the antecedent (what comes after the "if") is made not true, then it is concluded that the consequent (what comes after the "then") is not true.

You committed this formal fallacy in the 'master argument'. The argument is invalid because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion.


If Claim-Of-Reality-Proven (P), then Knowledge-of-Reality-Demonstrated (Q).

Non Q (No Knowedge-of-Reality Demonstrated); therefore Non P (No Claim of Reality Proven).

Modus Tollens.

My argument is valid.

If you claim a certain reality (mind-independent substance); then knowledge of such must be demonstrated, since it cannot be done so without contradiction, then the claim is invalid.

Thus my argument is established.

ingliz wrote:More language games.


More Wittgensteinian nonsense.

Its amusing your only refuge is verbal relativism after the likes of ol' Wittgenstein, the analytic tradition's discount version of post-structuralism and literary deconstruction. :lol:

Wellsy wrote:In regards to VS, I wonder if his position is perhaps hostile to/suspect of natural philosophy/science and has gone back to a scholasticism where it's confined within limits that harmonize logical forms with God/scripture.
Better if religion was left to being a matter of faith and not try to rationalize it and be indifferent to content and only interest in the form of arguments apparently independent of the phenomenal world.


My critique of natural science is that it is fallacious and therefore ought to be rejected.

Wellsy wrote:So in the end I think we might not be solving the relation/correlation between mind and matter in terms of mapping the nature of the brain in a way that would satisfy us.


Fallacious reasoning should never satisfy us unless we enjoy presuming the erroneous as if it were truth. Which may be the case with many.

Wellsy wrote: I do find VS intriguing in that he exemplifies an aspect of America that I don't really understand as I'm so alien to it. How does one come to be a person such as he? What is the nature of the world he has experienced to result in all this so far?
Well I don't think I'm the one to draw him away from where he is exactly, all I could suggest is that if he follows the path of criticism, he should presumably end up a Marxist


:lol:

Just ask and I will tell you why I am what I am and Why I believe what I believe.

Wellsy wrote:As in have I come across the peculiar musings in which he and his wife publicly express a want of men's authority over women? I've seen bits and pieces. But I haven't inquired so far as to see how 'faith' based they are. Though I do believe he is missing some crucial elements in his justification for it.
But that is a difference of me finding sympathy in Marx and he in others.


Indulge me.

Wellsy wrote:I do imagine he'd whirl my head.


Why is that? You seem more than capable.

Wellsy wrote:Really I haven't followed this thread in too much detail and I'd draw VS to certain points of my own interest as I haven't the ability nor motivation for an immanent critique of his views.


Give it a shot. I can link the actual argument if you'd like.

ingliz wrote:"To be real is to have causal powers."


A ridiculous definition, not based in proof or axiom.
#14944716
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If Claim-Of-Reality-Proven (P), then Knowledge-of-Reality-Demonstrated (Q).

Non Q (No Knowedge-of-Reality Demonstrated); therefore Non P (No Claim of Reality Proven).

Knowledge-of-Reality has been demonstrated (See Szabó 2005)

Hylas can meet Philonous’ challenge. He can conceive a tree to exist which is not conceived, without absurdity.

It's amusing...

Die Ideen exis­tie­ren nicht ge­trennt von der Spra­che. (Marx, Notebook I)

Ideas do not exist separately from language.


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 06 Sep 2018 21:31, edited 5 times in total.
#14944718
ingliz wrote:Knowledge-of-Reality has been demonstrated (See Szabó 2005)

Hylas can meet Philonous’ challenge. He can conceive a tree to exist which is not conceived, without absurdity.


I already addressed this is horseshit.

The conceived unconceived is a contradiction or else assumes what has yet to be proven, i.e. naive realism.

ingliz wrote:Die Ideen exis­tie­ren nicht ge­trennt von der Spra­che. (Marx, Notebook I)

Ideas do not exist separately from language.


:)


Sure, but if language is made relative and meaningless, then the ideas represented become so as well.

Which is my point.
#14944808
Victoribus Spolia wrote:If...

If Claim-Of-Reality-Proven (P), then Knowledge-of-Reality-Demonstrated (Q).

Q (Knowedge-of-Reality Demonstrated); therefore P (Claim of Reality Proven).

Modus Ponens.

My argument is valid.

If you claim...

Since knowledge of a reality independent of finite minds can be demonstrated without contradiction (Berkeley 1710*; Moore 1903; Wittgenstein 1967; Tipton 1994; Marsonet 1995; Szabó 2005; Brassier 2011; Victoribus Spolia 2018*), the claim is valid.

Thus my argument is established.


* neither I nor Berkeley deny that objects can exist apart from our own individual minds

we only deny that they can exist apart from ANY mind (contra realism).

The explanatory virtue of naturalism:

a) Theism has no explanatory advantage over naturalism, since both appeal to infinite regress, but naturalism is more parsimonious than theism, hence it is preferable.

b) An initial supernatural state is no better, from an explanatory perspective, than an initial natural state (regardless of whether we take the initial state to be necessary or contingent). So, from an explanatory perspective, the hypotheses are again equal, but from a simplicity perspective naturalism wins again. (Oppy 2009)

I already addressed this is horseshit.

No.

You called it 'Wittgensteinian nonsense' and ignored it.

When words describe reality, talking about what reality is requires that you understand how language works - This seems undeniable.

A ridiculous definition, not based in proof or axiom.

Whatever has a native power, whether of affecting anything else, or of being affected in ever so slight a degree by the most insignificant agents, even on one solitary occasion, is a real being. In short, I offer it as the definition of be-ings that they are potency - and nothing else.

Plato, Sophist 247d–e


:)
#14944930
Victoribus Spolia wrote:My critique of natural science is that it is fallacious and therefore ought to be rejected.

Is this based in what seems to be your return to Berkeley and his idealist monism in regards to reality, destroying the subject object relation based on the lacking of both empiricism and of contemplative materialism of the day?
Fallacious reasoning should never satisfy us unless we enjoy presuming the erroneous as if it were truth. Which may be the case with many.

Indeed formal logic protects us from fallacious reasoning and helping us keep away from error.



:lol:

Just ask and I will tell you why I am what I am and Why I believe what I believe.

If I'm curious about anything specifically I'll ask, but it's more than you as an individual but elements of the US and the circumstances that historically lead to certain characteristics in it's population.

Indulge me.

I haven't fleshed out the view but it relates to human nature taken historically and the nature of universals not as abstract sameness but more terms of Goethe's Urphänomen. Where one identifies an empirically existing thing which is the simplest unit of a complex whole and is the genus of all particulars.
Where I wonder whether you end up with emphasizing inessential features based in an arbitrariness of identifying the sameness across time rather than see how human nature develops in conjunction with society such that what I imagine to be your beliefs about the nature of women posit a false human nature in regards to women that have already shown themselves obsolete in certain circumstances. Where there is an attachment to certain ideas irrespective of the world that once gave them some rational foundation.

But if we pursue it, it'd perhaps be better in an older thread of yours.

Why is that? You seem more than capable.

I haven't engaged with some subjects and schools of thought to have ready made views that I could deploy consciously. Though I guess discussion is the place to develop as much.

Give it a shot. I can link the actual argument if you'd like.

I was quite serious in regards to an inability to do an immanent critique. It requires an extensive understanding of a subject in order to see the relation between different ideas in order to know the limits where the relative truth of something becomes erroneous and to then synthesize the truths of different positions of understanding.
Plus I would need to have already studied Hegel and have a conscious grasp of his asserted dialectics, but I'm far off from studying him directly.
#14944997
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Your argument here assumes a Kantian notion of mental categories creating perceptual reality out of bare sensory mush. Which is not only unnecessary, but silly and unprovable.

Silly and unprovable?

No.

We perceive what we know. (Locher et al. 1993; Willis and Todorov 2006; Carbon 2011b)

It is the connection between sensory inputs and our semantic networks that enables us to recognise objects.

Example: The man-rat-illusion where an ambiguous sketch drawing is presented whose content is not clearly decipherable, but switches from showing a man to showing a rat - A demonstration of the highly constructive qualities of our perceptual system.

What we will perceive at first glance is mainly guided through the specific activation of our semantic network. If we have been exposed to a picture of a man before, or if we think of a man or have heard the word “man”, the chance is strongly increased that our perceptual system interprets the ambiguous pattern towards a depiction of a man—if the prior experiences were more associated with a rat, a mouse or another animal of such a kind, we will, in contrast, tend to interpret the ambiguous pattern more as a rat. (Carbon 2014)

Image


:)
#14946786
B0ycey wrote:But RT, nonetheless perhaps you can answer the very question which is being debated on this thread. What to you creates the percepts you witness? God, light or something else? What does philosophy teach you when answering this question?
I plead the 5th (US constitution) and advise you to turn off the computer and go outside.


@Wellsy Yo bro, there's more to life than Western-Germanic ideas. Your perspective is very limited, but it isn't your fault. Human thought is fragmented. :lol:

ingliz wrote:We perceive what we know.
Oh so that's why you guys are arguing like children. You're both an amalgamation of consciousness and its properties.

It is the connection between sensory inputs and our semantic networks that enables us to recognise objects.
Sure, the medium is the message. You can reword it however you like. I'd like to point out that plants do not have a neuronal network, yet they adapt and recognize 'objects' through signal response. Likewise, many unconscious activities occur in your body, conscious awareness is not needed. Photomorphogenesis and thigmomorphogenesis will take place, and the plant doesn't need to cognitively recognize the stimuli. Human perception or noogenesis will take place, and it doesn't need your feedback. The flesh is enfolded in a cloud of stimuli, which contains layers and layers of unrecognized processes unfolding right now. It's impossible for you to perceive everything simultaneously. We need one another to make sense of sense. There's a crack in the mirror, but you don't have to fight yourself.

Example: The man-rat-illusion where an ambiguous sketch drawing is presented whose content is not clearly decipherable, but switches from showing a man to showing a rat - A demonstration of the highly constructive qualities of our perceptual system.

What we will perceive at first glance is mainly guided through the specific activation of our semantic network. If we have been exposed to a picture of a man before, or if we think of a man or have heard the word “man”, the chance is strongly increased that our perceptual system interprets the ambiguous pattern towards a depiction of a man—if the prior experiences were more associated with a rat, a mouse or another animal of such a kind, we will, in contrast, tend to interpret the ambiguous pattern more as a rat
Poor example. The treachery of images doesn't define what's real. Be it man or rat, such 'things' in reality do not shapeshift in reality. This is just a thought experiment, and while it illustrates cognitive association, it doesn't magically negate the fact that a man and a rat have definable qualities and characteristics in reality. :lol:

Furthermore, like I said on page 19:

There must, in the nature of human things be a mental language common to all nations, which uniformly grasps the substance of things feasible in human social life, and expresses it with as many diverse modifications as these same things may have diverse aspects. A proof of this is afforded by proverbs or maxims of vulgar wisdom, in which substantially the same meanings find as many diverse expressions as there are nations ancient and modern.

This common mental language is proper to our science, by whose light linguistic scholars will be enabled to construct a mental vocabulary common to all the various articulate languages living and dead... As far as our small erudition will permit, we shall make use of this vocabulary in all the matters we discuss.

-Vico


Etymological archetypes support and reflect a common perception.

Consciousness is an intangible & inalienable prerequisite for experience. Here it unfolds, creation is proof.
#14946833
RhetoricThug wrote:@Wellsy Yo bro, there's more to life than Western-Germanic ideas. Your perspective is very limited, but it isn't your fault. Human thought is fragmented. :lol:

Indeed there's a lot to life and I don't consider my life wholly encapsulated with German philosophy. Though I think it plays a important part in the development of human understanding and is useful when it comes to the repetition of Berkeley's monist idealism.
#14946952
Wellsy wrote:Indeed there's a lot to life and I don't consider my life wholly encapsulated with German philosophy. Though I think it plays a important part in the development of human understanding and is useful when it comes to the repetition of Berkeley's monist idealism.
We wouldn't fault you for trying, Wellsy. Come, walk with me... I must ask, what's available to other philosophers that's not available to you? Why do you wish to emulate or emulsify mediated experiences, when such experiences can be gained directly? After-all, what is German philosophy, monist idealism, etc; if not chapters in a book? Who writes the chapters in this book, and who is responsible for this book of knowledge?

What can you gain from this book that cannot be gleaned or shaken from the living tree of nature? See, learning is remembering, you must remember who you are! You must remember the SOURCE... Only then will you bear fruit and become a resource. But you see, it's not your fruit... You didn't plant yourself here, you didn't fertilize the roots (but you will). You're somewhere else in the cosmic cycle. Your body and mind buds and blooms and the soul of the world reaps the harvest.


I want you to remember so you can teach us something new. The flow of existence is a paradox. The ebb & flow of the whole repeats itself, but its parts arise anew. Tis the season of the soul, found within this inescapable moment.

Sincerely,

-The Universe
#14947739
RhetoricThug wrote:We wouldn't fault you for trying, Wellsy. Come, walk with me... I must ask, what's available to other philosophers that's not available to you? Why do you wish to emulate or emulsify mediated experiences, when such experiences can be gained directly? After-all, what is German philosophy, monist idealism, etc; if not chapters in a book? Who writes the chapters in this book, and who is responsible for this book of knowledge?

What can you gain from this book that cannot be gleaned or shaken from the living tree of nature? See, learning is remembering, you must remember who you are! You must remember the SOURCE... Only then will you bear fruit and become a resource. But you see, it's not your fruit... You didn't plant yourself here, you didn't fertilize the roots (but you will). You're somewhere else in the cosmic cycle. Your body and mind buds and blooms and the soul of the world reaps the harvest.


I want you to remember so you can teach us something new. The flow of existence is a paradox. The ebb & flow of the whole repeats itself, but its parts arise anew. Tis the season of the soul, found within this inescapable moment.

Sincerely,

-The Universe

What is available in the work of others that isn't given to me is that they have already worked over some problems so that I can go over their work to see the problem and their solutions so I don't have to try and retrace the path of the entire history of human knowledge in isolation.
The concepts/language I use has been developed through the effort of other and I am not so bold as to think I would discover all the answers others have already achieved.
Better that I learn than attempt to recreate the 'wheel'.

Gained directly? I don't know how you consider knowledge is acquired and developed.
The knowledge of things isn't immediately in me as much as it's part of the human culture I'm born into and am part of. If I were born isolated from society, I would likely be as primitive as an animal.

But I wonder if you're possibly giving some emphasis to the present moment to which I would express that such immediacy is but a moment in consciousness and I don't think it should be made an absolute.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean02.htm
Pure Being is the world an instant before you see it, it is the world through the eyes of a new born baby. Like the Zen teaching that demands of the devotee absolute awareness, absolute "thoughtlessness", it is, for consciousness, an unattainable moment - even though it is equally the beginning of all consciousness!
...
Being is the immediate, that is, un-mediated, given in itself and not by means of something else, in a round about way. But right from the outset, Hegel makes it clear that "neither in Heaven nor on Earth" is there anything that is not equally mediated as immediate. "Being is immediate" is not an absolute, but a relative truth. To elevate it into an absolute (like the ancients and like the gurus of "awareness") is one relative moment or stage of the Absolute Idea.


The truth of things is to be found in reality, but the essence of things doesn't reveal itself directly in the appearance of things otherwise there would be no need for science as the truth of everything would be plain to see. But the truth of things aren't given in the present moment although such immediacy is important.
#14949447
Wellsy wrote:What is available in the work of others that isn't given to me is that they have already worked over some problems so that I can go over their work to see the problem and their solutions so I don't have to try and retrace the path of the entire history of human knowledge in isolation.
Yes, but you're prone to repeat their mistakes too. Furthermore, there's no such thing as 'isolation.' :lol:

Here is a relevant story:

Thompson imagined the Maya as an empire of peaceful people ruled by mystical priests, not unlike the Anglican Church. This view persisted until 1952, when a 30-year-old Russian ethnologist, Yuri Valentinovich Knorosov, working alone, published out of the blue an article that would lead to the cracking of the Maya script.

By the 1930s, British researcher Eric Thompson was the world's foremost expert in glyph studies. His achievements included deciphering signs related to the calendar and astronomy as well as identifying new words from the Maya lexicon. Thompson also developed a numerical cataloguing technique, the "T"-numbering system, for each glyph (left). This enabled experts to easily discuss symbols that had yet to be fully understood or identified. Nevertheless, glyph studies nearly came to a halt during this time, in large part because Thompson had most scholars convinced that each of the symbols in glyphs stood for entire words or ideas. For instance, the glyph for "west" included a well-known symbol for the sun and an as-yet unidentified symbol depicting a nearly closed hand. Thompson suggested that the hand meant "completion." And so "west," where the sun sets, was symbolized by "completion of the sun." It was a reasonable guess, but one that, along with Thompson's more general take on the glyphs, would be proven wrong.

While glyph studies languished in the West, a Russian linguist in Moscow was making his own groundbreaking discoveries. In 1952, Yuri Knorosov (left) postulated that the individual symbols in Maya glyphs stood for phonetic sounds, much like English letters do. Knorosov knew that Maya had too many glyphs to be a true alphabet but too few for each glyph to symbolize an entire word. (Maya's 800-plus glyphs compare to the several thousand characters of Chinese, for example.) He determined that written Maya, like Egyptian hieroglyphics, contained a combination of these elements. Because "west," in spoken Maya, is "chik'in," and "k'in" is the word for sun, the hand represents the syllable "chi," as Knorosov concluded. Fortunately, American scholars Michael and Sophie Coe began publishing Knorosov's papers in the U.S. in the late 1950s. Otherwise, his important (though incomplete) findings might have been inaccessible to Western scholars until the end of the Cold War.


The concepts/language I use has been developed through the effort of other and I am not so bold as to think I would discover all the answers others have already achieved.
Better that I learn than attempt to recreate the 'wheel'.
True progress requires bold theories. Most minds run subconscious programs and rarely challenge such programs consciously.

Gained directly? I don't know how you consider knowledge is acquired and developed.
The knowledge of things isn't immediately in me as much as it's part of the human culture I'm born into and am part of. If I were born isolated from society, I would likely be as primitive as an animal.
:lol: The story of a feral child and the critical period hypothesis [1] doesn't explain when or where human knowledge or society/culture began. Again, I ask, when did intuition become reason? But that's a different epistemological topic. We mimic nature, and nature is our first teacher. We adapt to the environment, because of the mind-matter interface and how we experience 'things' in the environment. We're engaged in an information feedback loop, your body is a bridge, and being present is an information bias.

To summarize this principle, of nature being our first teacher, I point to the airplane or the concept of flight. Humans had to first observe flight in nature before we could technologically replicate it. This is what I mean when I say what can you gain from this book that cannot be gleaned or shaken from the living tree of nature? Any form of knowledge in any book is comprised of compressed visual symbols we use to organize and communicate an experience. Formal education is indoctrination. In reality, life is a classroom, and it contains all the subjects.

Experience is filtered by media or environments. The potential energy that unfolds in nature is shaped by its interaction and experience with other forms of potential energy. When I drop a pebble in a pond, the water shows the rock and the rock ripples the water. Now if I want to tell you about the pebble in the pond, I'd use a medium called language (in some shape, form, or fashion) and tell you about my experience. But until you directly experience the pebble in the pond, my story is just an image in your head, and your imagination (be it self-referential) will fill in the blanks. The imagination is a double-edged sword. It's an Interpreter & interrupter, it can imagine things unseen or not experienced and it can distort reality as well.

[1] The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.

I simply ask you to re-imagine yourSELF from time to time and forget everything you think you know. :)



-RT
#14949556
RhetoricThug wrote:
Spoiler: show
Yes, but you're prone to repeat their mistakes too. Furthermore, there's no such thing as 'isolation.' :lol:

Here is a relevant story:

Thompson imagined the Maya as an empire of peaceful people ruled by mystical priests, not unlike the Anglican Church. This view persisted until 1952, when a 30-year-old Russian ethnologist, Yuri Valentinovich Knorosov, working alone, published out of the blue an article that would lead to the cracking of the Maya script.

By the 1930s, British researcher Eric Thompson was the world's foremost expert in glyph studies. His achievements included deciphering signs related to the calendar and astronomy as well as identifying new words from the Maya lexicon. Thompson also developed a numerical cataloguing technique, the "T"-numbering system, for each glyph (left). This enabled experts to easily discuss symbols that had yet to be fully understood or identified. Nevertheless, glyph studies nearly came to a halt during this time, in large part because Thompson had most scholars convinced that each of the symbols in glyphs stood for entire words or ideas. For instance, the glyph for "west" included a well-known symbol for the sun and an as-yet unidentified symbol depicting a nearly closed hand. Thompson suggested that the hand meant "completion." And so "west," where the sun sets, was symbolized by "completion of the sun." It was a reasonable guess, but one that, along with Thompson's more general take on the glyphs, would be proven wrong.

While glyph studies languished in the West, a Russian linguist in Moscow was making his own groundbreaking discoveries. In 1952, Yuri Knorosov (left) postulated that the individual symbols in Maya glyphs stood for phonetic sounds, much like English letters do. Knorosov knew that Maya had too many glyphs to be a true alphabet but too few for each glyph to symbolize an entire word. (Maya's 800-plus glyphs compare to the several thousand characters of Chinese, for example.) He determined that written Maya, like Egyptian hieroglyphics, contained a combination of these elements. Because "west," in spoken Maya, is "chik'in," and "k'in" is the word for sun, the hand represents the syllable "chi," as Knorosov concluded. Fortunately, American scholars Michael and Sophie Coe began publishing Knorosov's papers in the U.S. in the late 1950s. Otherwise, his important (though incomplete) findings might have been inaccessible to Western scholars until the end of the Cold War.


Mistakes are part of the process of learning and the development of understanding in going beyond the limits of a previous view, hence Hegel's emphasis on scepticism of a thing on it's own terms.
https://ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/story-concept.htm
The question is not the correspondence of the subject to the object, but of the capacity of a mutually constituting subject/object, that is, a formation of consciousness, to withstand sceptical criticism. Under the impact of sceptical attack the subject and object will both change. The object changes because it is constituted by the subject, and vice versa. The Gestalt is a subject/object which understands its own activity and its own production according to its own thinking.

The dynamic in the “Phenomenology,” the driver which pushes it on from one Gestalt to another, is its vulnerability to sceptical attack from within, in its own terms. He demonstrates how every one of the Gestalten at a certain point fails to withstand self-criticism and collapses. Some new Gestalt which is proof against this line of reasoning and can withstand the type of attack which the previous Gestalt could not, is then able to develop. And so it goes on.

One inevitably ends up making mistakes unless one somehow has absolute knowledge for which there is no error.

I don't get what you mean that isolation doesn't exist.
When I said it I mean in isolation from the culture that has already overcome many limited perspectives.
Often people who don't look to such lines of thought do repeat the same mistakes in their own thinking and don't extend as far as the greatest thinkers, replaying same old problems already solved.

In the end I don't know what point you intend me to take from the summary of the ethnologist because it's unclear to me what isolation you're dismissing as non-existent.
True progress requires bold theories. Most minds run subconscious programs and rarely challenge such programs consciously.

Bold theories radically challenge what is known in going both beyond it yet retaining it.
For example Einstein's Theory of relativity displaced Newton's classical mechanics but it still held explanatory value for what was explained by classical mechanics.
Understanding doesn't appear from no where but in advancement of establish knowledge.
Spoiler: show
:lol: The story of a feral child and the critical period hypothesis [1] doesn't explain when or where human knowledge or society/culture began. Again, I ask, when did intuition become reason? But that's a different epistemological topic. We mimic nature, and nature is our first teacher. We adapt to the environment, because of the mind-matter interface and how we experience 'things' in the environment. We're engaged in an information feedback loop, your body is a bridge, and being present is an information bias.

To summarize this principle, of nature being our first teacher, I point to the airplane or the concept of flight. Humans had to first observe flight in nature before we could technologically replicate it. This is what I mean when I say what can you gain from this book that cannot be gleaned or shaken from the living tree of nature? Any form of knowledge in any book is comprised of compressed visual symbols we use to organize and communicate an experience. Formal education is indoctrination. In reality, life is a classroom, and it contains all the subjects.

Experience is filtered by media or environments. The potential energy that unfolds in nature is shaped by its interaction and experience with other forms of potential energy. When I drop a pebble in a pond, the water shows the rock and the rock ripples the water. Now if I want to tell you about the pebble in the pond, I'd use a medium called language (in some shape, form, or fashion) and tell you about my experience. But until you directly experience the pebble in the pond, my story is just an image in your head, and your imagination (be it self-referential) will fill in the blanks. The imagination is a double-edged sword. It's an Interpreter & interrupter, it can imagine things unseen or not experienced and it can distort reality as well.

[1] The critical period hypothesis is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to age. The hypothesis claims that there is an ideal time window to acquire language in a linguistically rich environment, after which further language acquisition becomes much more difficult and effortful.

I simply ask you to re-imagine yourSELF from time to time and forget everything you think you know. :)

-RT

I wasn't attempting to explain the origins of society from a child isolated from society :hmm:
Rather that a person who existed outside of society would likely be near to the state of an animal than one raised in society.
The difference between one growing up isolated in nature and another being those of us who exist in humanized nature ie society.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mikhailov/works/riddle/riddle3b.htm
In man, on the other hand, we encounter a diametrically opposite mode of inheritance. Man inherits part of the “species programme” of life-activity, but the greater part (and precisely the specifically human part) is geared into the “mechanisms” of his life by his mastering the objectified means of culture in intercourse with other people. He even develops his bodily needs and abilities in the process of mastering the historical ways and means of activity and intercourse, such as the need for communication, for prepared food, for “instruments” to consume it with, for objects that provide for the human functioning of his organs, creating the conditions for normal sleep, rest, labour, and so on. And, particularly important, the infinitely diverse and infinitely developing means of realising the inherited “programmes” of life-activity are acquired only in the form of the socially significant instruments of activity and intercourse created by the labour of previous generations.

Academician N. P. Dubinin writes: “The possibilities of human cultural growth are endless. This growth is not imprinted in the genes. It is quite obvious that if the children of contemporary parents were deprived from birth of the conditions of contemporary culture, they would remain at the level of our most remote ancestors who lived tens of thousands of years ago. Whereas the children of such “primitive people” placed in the conditions of contemporary culture would rise to the heights of contemporary man.” [2]

And I'm not going as far as to deny intuition/sensual reality as part of understanding, only that I would emphasize that it is a step in understanding, rather the task is to use reason in regards to intuition adequately.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean06.htm
In the next chapter, we shall look at the development of the Notion, from a simple abstract concept to a more and more concrete concept, but it must first be noted that we do not use the words "abstract" and "concrete" to contrast the ideal and mental versus the material and sensual. Rather, "abstract" refers to the simplicity of a single thing or aspect of a thing which is torn away from its connection with other things, other aspects, from historical development, while "concrete" on the other hand, refers to the combination of many aspects and interconnections, of many abstractions. Hegel remarks:

Sensuous consciousness is in ordinary estimation the most concrete and thus also the richest; but that is true only as regards materials, whereas, in reference to the thought it contains, it is really the poorest and most abstract.

We find truth in immediate perception because of the richness of its content, but the concepts that immediately arise from immediate perception are the most abstract and poorest (contrary to the obsession of bourgeois social science with statistics, surveys and so on). The dialectical notions which form the basis of rational analysis are abstract in their simplicity (such as the concept of the atom in the beginnings of the science of physical chemistry) but must be deemed concrete inasmuch as they contain within them the whole history leading up to their conception, negating all earlier concepts of the thing which have outgrown their limits and been negated and carried forward.


This part of your post emphasizing the pond makes me think you likely make an emphasis tied to the ancients.
Because reading it made me think of a post I once made
Wellsy wrote:As I'm reminded of a stone cutter who comments on some masters reading of an old text that he was wasting his time, when told he should explain why sufficiently or be punished, he explained how when cutting stone the act of doing so conditioned his body acting on it, one learns through practice. He could not teach his son by merely telling him what to do, and similarly because knowledge of practice can't be transferred but only replicated, the words of wise men in books couldn't imbue one with such knowledge either, one would have to come to it themselves.

To which I think it's a step further than empiricists who simply make the correct point of reality being the source of knowledge (although they are stuck being contemplative rather than engaged with reality).
So in this regard I agree with such an emphasis which is that knowledge isn't confined to book learning but outside of it.

To which I think we may find some agreement, but this doesn't mean that what one learns in a book is without any use except to the extent it is made entirely independent of activity.
#14950475
ingliz wrote:The man-rat-illusion where an ambiguous sketch drawing is presented whose content is not clearly decipherable, but switches from showing a man to showing a rat - A demonstration of the highly constructive qualities of our perceptual system.


This argument is irrelevant, as the idealist objection would be that how the idea is perceived and understood as it is disposed to a mind by the Source. This is neither an argument in favor of language-games or of realism.

Wellsy wrote:Is this based in what seems to be your return to Berkeley and his idealist monism in regards to reality(?)


No, it based on the fact that such is actually fallacious. :lol:

Wellsy wrote:Indeed formal logic protects us from fallacious reasoning and helping us keep away from error.


Agreed.

Wellsy wrote:but it's more than you as an individual but elements of the US and the circumstances that historically lead to certain characteristics in it's population.


What characteristics do you have in mind? You must have something in particular for you to muse as to why America produces people such as myself.

I would like you to share some of these musing with me further.

Wellsy wrote:Where I wonder whether you end up with emphasizing inessential features based in an arbitrariness of identifying the sameness across time rather than see how human nature develops in conjunction with society such that what I imagine to be your beliefs about the nature of women posit a false human nature in regards to women that have already shown themselves obsolete in certain circumstances. Where there is an attachment to certain ideas irrespective of the world that once gave them some rational foundation.


In essence, you see human nature as tied to societal development, and if social conditions arise that make lifestyles more directly tied to these "inessential" features obsolete (I am sure you are referring more to biological sex-distinctions in this instance) , then insisting on them (my position) is actually to insist on something contrary to our nature (which is ironically quite the opposite of what the patriarchalist claims to be advocating) because such a nature changes with society. In addition, you think this is possibly tied to how one relates universals (categories) to their particulars (instances). Thus, Goethe's "unfolding" view of the universal is juxtaposed to the more "static" view of categorization usually employed in scholastic thinking, with the later being indicative of my position.

Does this summarize your analysis accurately?

I would love to continue this discussion with you and have my rebuttal "locked and loaded," as it were.

Wellsy wrote:Though I guess discussion is the place to develop as much.


Lets do it, check out my proof and give me your critique. It won't hurt, I promise. ;)
#14950555
"Pick a flower on Earth and you move the farthest star." -Paul Dirac

Due to the nature of holographic cosmology, I will blur the existential spectrum (individual-collective-cosmic) with this post. Remember to keep your head in the clouds and feet on the ground :angel:
I don't get what you mean that isolation doesn't exist.
The primordial emanation contains ALL. Any form of knowledge or ignorance is an aspect of the All. Knowledge is organized ignorance and the material world is organized immateriality. There's nothing outside of the universe (everything) that can help the intellect define what is actually inside of the universe and therefore the primordial emanation contains ALL. We're piloting the wave somewhere in existence.

Isolation implies separation, to separate. To form an island of experience. The word we are looking for is insularity. Insularity is metaphysically impossible. There's no prerequisite for consciousness and thus there's no prerequisite for BEING present. There's no separation in the present moment. Everything is NOW.

Knowledge is created by the movement of this inescapable present moment. Knowledge is memory and memory is the past. Intuition is instinct and instinct is the present. Imagination is the marriage of the past and present. The past is an illusion, the future is an illusion. ALL of IT is happening right NOW.

How can one be isolated from knowledge when everything I think I can know exists everywhere all at once? Sure, an isolated person couldn't 'catch up' with the past (collective memories) we've created, but it can recreate our past by being present. Knowledge can start at anytime and anywhere. :up: Hence the name renaissance, it's a rebirth or reawakening of knowledge. A renaissance is the retrieval of eternal knowledge. Knowledge that's always with us, because it is an aspect of the ALL.

In the end I don't know what point you intend me to take from the summary of the ethnologist because it's unclear to me what isolation you're dismissing as non-existent.
Now that I've explained what I mean by isolation, I hope the example makes more sense. I thought it was a straight-forward example. I said we're prone to make the same mistakes, especially if we form a judgement out of the crowd of authorities. Chances are, had Yuri Knorosov mingled with Eric Thompson, the "foremost expert" on the subject, he wouldn't of made his ground-breaking discoveries. In short, Knorosov didn't need to study any of Thompson's work, because it was completely flawed, and this supports the notion that the truth can be found in isolation (or at least your definition of isolation, which, again, is metaphysically impossible)... Cultural insularity doesn't always limit ones access to truth.

In-fact, cultural involvement can limit ones access to truth. I highly recommend the book Culture Against Man by Jules Henry. Culture Against Man is a 1963 book-length ethnography by anthropologist Jules Henry of his native United States culture. With the book's title in mind- I must remind you that some people, like Giordano Bruno, learn the hard way.

KNIGHT OF THE SUN, OR PRINCE ADEPT.

Excerpt:

Infinite Being penetrated the brain, and became the Soul: and lo, MAN THE IMMORTAL! Thus, threefold, fruit of God's thought, is Man; that sees and hears and feels; that thinks and reasons; that loves and is in harmony with the Universe.

Before the world grew old, the primitive Truth faded out from men's Souls. Then man asked himself, "What am I? and how and whence am I? and whither do I go?" And the Soul, looking inward upon itself, strove to learn whether that "I" were mere matter; its thought and reason and its passions and affections mere results of material combination; or a material Being enveloping an immaterial Spirit: . . and further it strove, by self-examination, to learn whether that Spirit were an individual essence, with a separate immortal existence, or an infinitesimal portion of a Great First Principle, inter-penetrating the Universe and the infinitude of space, and undulating like light and heat: . . and so they wandered further amid the mazes of error; and imagined vain philosophies; wallowing in the sloughs of materialism and sensualism, of beating their wings vainly in the vacuum of abstractions and idealities.

While yet the first oaks still put forth their leaves, man lost the perfect knowledge of the One True God, the Ancient Absolute Existence, the Infinite Mind and Supreme Intelligence; and floated helplessly out upon the shoreless ocean of conjecture. Then the soul vexed itself with seeking to learn whether the material Universe was a mere chance combination of atoms, or the work of Infinite, Uncreated Wisdom: . . whether the Deity was a concentrated, and the Universe an extended immateriality; or whether He was a personal existence, an Omnipotent, Eternal, Supreme Essence, regulating matter at will; or subjecting it to unchangeable laws throughout eternity; and to Whom, Himself Infinite and Eternal, Space and Time are unknown. With their finite limited vision they sought to learn the source and explain the existence of Evil, and Pain, and Sorrow; and so they wandered ever deeper into the darkness, and were lost; and there was for them no longer any God; but only a great, dumb, soulless Universe, full of mere emblems and symbols.


@Wellsy

I hope you enjoy the following quote ;) :

“May Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense - three-fourths cash and one-fourth crazy fancies - continue to pass for unfathomable wisdom without anyone suggesting as an appropriate motto for his writings Shakespeare's words: "Such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not," or, as an emblematical vignette, the cuttle-fish with its ink-bag, creating a cloud of darkness around it to prevent people from seeing what it is, with the device: mea caligine tutus. - May each day bring us, as hitherto, new systems adapted for University purposes, entirely made up of words and phrases and in a learned jargon besides, which allows people to talk whole days without saying anything; and may these delights never be disturbed by the Arabian proverb: "I hear the clappering of the mill, but I see no flour." - For all this is in accordance with the age and must have its course.” -Arthur Schopenhauer

Lastly, I've been rather consistent with my message across this forum. If you actually read my posts, and consider my superpositions, you'd realize that I've been philosophically sincere. Despite detractors and half-wits, I've delivered my encomiums. Praise be to

Qauntum logic shall bride the binary gap! The Noogenesis begins with 0 and its exodus ends with 1. You can call this post spooky action at a distance... There's no isolation or separation. We must overcome our observation bias and realize that we're co-generating this moment.



-One Love
#14951453
Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, it based on the fact that such is actually fallacious. :lol:

This response makes me somewhat curious. Gives to me the impression that your perspective is one of fine tuning it then.

What characteristics do you have in mind? You must have something in particular for you to muse as to why America produces people such as myself.

I would like you to share some of these musing with me further.

You're a young chap who seems intently religious and seem enamored with the old patriarchal relations and systems of governance. But the religious aspect is something about America that particularly gets my confusion in part not having been raised all that religious myself. I now live in a place with a lot of religious people now, but many seem culturally religious more so than religious. It seems curious with America being in it's foundations exceptionally liberal and capitalist even with it being filled with a lot of religious immigrants.
I don't quite get it's continuity or the state of religion in the US which is different from it in Europe where liberal revolutions were strongly based on persecuting the church and it's power.

The patriarchal stuff isn't exceptional itself except to the extent it is a rather strong and explicit assertion of it.
It just seems peculiar but I guess somewhat characteristic of the times in which the struggle for women's labor to be of equal value to mens has garnered some mainstream basis even for those who don't care for feminism (whilst in their actions reflecting the change of women's average position in society uknowingly).
Even when I think of people who defend the old relations, I guess it has a connotation of a way of life from their time. More commonly for men's anti-feminism today doesn't express a conservative masculinity (paternalist carer of women) as much as a hostility to the burden of conservative masculinity. Feeling tension between expectations of masculinity they don't like and reject but ambivalently also professing the need for women to not be the way they are in the modern age.
A confused bunch they are, reminscient more of urban individualist men who seem to resent their own attraction towards women and the difficulty of relating to them like urban men of old who were anti-feminist but felt restricted by masculinity, wanting to do as they pleased with women (fuck 'em, dump 'em).
I'm rambling now, bit tired after long travel to Australia.
In essence, you see human nature as tied to societal development, and if social conditions arise that make lifestyles more directly tied to these "inessential" features obsolete (I am sure you are referring more to biological sex-distinctions in this instance) , then insisting on them (my position) is actually to insist on something contrary to our nature (which is ironically quite the opposite of what the patriarchalist claims to be advocating) because such a nature changes with society. In addition, you think this is possibly tied to how one relates universals (categories) to their particulars (instances). Thus, Goethe's "unfolding" view of the universal is juxtaposed to the more "static" view of categorization usually employed in scholastic thinking, with the later being indicative of my position.

Does this summarize your analysis accurately?

I would love to continue this discussion with you and have my rebuttal "locked and loaded," as it were.


That seems apt enough of a description, where I think the assumed essential nature is a result of abstracting in an ahistorical fashion which universalizes the appearance of things in the present state in order to naturalize such tendencies.
To which the point should be to find the concrete universal which underpins human nature (labor) in order to explain how demographics change.
It is the same with race, blacks are viewed in a particular way because of the relations which they have come from and exist within.
The idea of an internal essence in itself is mistaken, because the essence of things isn't behind appearance but through the relations of things. Which is why efforts to abstract the individual thing outside its real world relations renders a thing empty, and unknowable as it has no content but is simply form.

But I would be curious to see you detail your view beyond my slap of other concepts.
#14951475
Wellsy wrote:I would be curious to see you detail your view beyond my slap of other concepts.
We wish you would help us end the war on consciousness.


"Paradise only exists in the heart, love is the missing link from here to the stars."

Impregnate the stars
viewtopic.php?f=92&t=170622
We hide and make love in plain sight.
#14952218
RhetoricThug wrote:
Spoiler: show
"Pick a flower on Earth and you move the farthest star." -Paul Dirac

Due to the nature of holographic cosmology, I will blur the existential spectrum (individual-collective-cosmic) with this post. Remember to keep your head in the clouds and feet on the ground :angel:
The primordial emanation contains ALL. Any form of knowledge or ignorance is an aspect of the All. Knowledge is organized ignorance and the material world is organized immateriality. There's nothing outside of the universe (everything) that can help the intellect define what is actually inside of the universe and therefore the primordial emanation contains ALL. We're piloting the wave somewhere in existence.

Isolation implies separation, to separate. To form an island of experience. The word we are looking for is insularity. Insularity is metaphysically impossible. There's no prerequisite for consciousness and thus there's no prerequisite for BEING present. There's no separation in the present moment. Everything is NOW.

Knowledge is created by the movement of this inescapable present moment. Knowledge is memory and memory is the past. Intuition is instinct and instinct is the present. Imagination is the marriage of the past and present. The past is an illusion, the future is an illusion. ALL of IT is happening right NOW.

How can one be isolated from knowledge when everything I think I can know exists everywhere all at once? Sure, an isolated person couldn't 'catch up' with the past (collective memories) we've created, but it can recreate our past by being present. Knowledge can start at anytime and anywhere. :up: Hence the name renaissance, it's a rebirth or reawakening of knowledge. A renaissance is the retrieval of eternal knowledge. Knowledge that's always with us, because it is an aspect of the ALL.

Your summary here makes me think of the distinction between absolute and relative.
Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ‘Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ‘Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. For dialectics, the Absolute is only the whole movement through various relative stages of understanding, but the progress of knowledge never comes to an end, so the absolute is relative. However, even a relative truth may nevertheless contain some grain of the whole absolute truth, so there is an absolute within the relative. Perception is relative to the observer, but the existence of an objective world is absolute.

Where reality as a whole is an absolute which we only get partial/relative understanding of. Abstracting pieces of the whole as we can't hold all of reality in our mind except in this emphasis of being in the present but this doesn't seem to allow a representation/rational explanation and confined to experience.

But that the absolute is always there in the ever present reality doesn't accord with how knowledge develops, as reality isn't knowledge although it's what we get knowledge of. Otherwise what would be the point of trying to understand anything with the perfect representation of everything is already in front of us.
Except our knowledge of things isn't directly given in appearance and experience but requires much deliberation. The essence of things isn't behind appearances (noumenon) but doesn't simply coincide with appearance. Otherwise the truth of things would be self evident and there would be no need for people to strive to understand things, no distinction between appearance and essence.
Our understanding of nature/reality exists only to the extent it becomes socially significant based on human needs.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/jordan2.htm
The world as known to man is a man-made world; it is the totality of ‘things for us’ and not of ‘things-in-themselves’. The only knowable is the world that appears in man’s experience, that is causally transformed by human action, divided into species and particulars, class members and classes, articulated into objects and their relations, into things with a definite form, arrangement, and structure, and cut out from the chaotic mass of the pre-existing world as it persists by itself. This humanized world is knowable because it is a world determined by man, the outcome, as Marx said in the first Thesis on Feuerbach, of ‘human sensuous activity’. As a natural being man shapes the environment according to his needs, and the needs determine the articulation of the world into separate things and their connections. External objects are, as it were, the objectified centres of resistance in the environment encountered by the human drives striving for the satisfaction of needs. If the needs were different, the world would look differently too, as it does to other animal species.

Although sensuous objects are different from thought objects, they do not exist in the form of objects unless they are made such by human activity. Cognition is not simply a matter of discovering or disclosing some entities which exist independently of us. The subject participates in the determination of the objective nature and order of things and, in a certain sense, creates it in the act of continuous world-objectification (Vergegenstandlichung). While according to Marx, man’s practical activity creates an objective world in the indicated sense, objectification should not be conceived as a spiritual but as a natural act and, therefore, as an act of production rather than that of creation in the proper sense, that is, of bringing something into being ex nihilo. Consequently, man’s capacity of objectifying what gratifies his needs and provides him with enjoyment presupposes the ‘sensuous external world’. This external world is the material on which man’s labour becomes manifest, from which and by means of which external objects are produced.[46]
...
The sensuous world ... is not a thing given direct from all eternity, ever the same, but the product of industry and the state of society; and, indeed, in the sense that it is a historical product, the result of the activity of a whole succession of generations, each standing on the shoulders of the preceding one, developing its industry and its intercourse, modifying its social organization according to the changed needs.[52]

So I give a strong emphasis to one's existence in relation to society as it would indeed be nonsensical to think of any being isolated from reality.
But one can be isolated from society or part of it yet still have a poverty of it's development through one's own stunted opportunities within it (relatively isolated from cultural products).

Reality is absolute but our ability to know things isn't, somethings seem incomprehensible and impossible to conceive of until society develops to a point that it can face certain problems and come to understand things in solving them. Not only when our ability and division of labor has developed but the types of problems that face us based on new needs have also emerged.

Now that I've explained what I mean by isolation, I hope the example makes more sense. I thought it was a straight-forward example. I said we're prone to make the same mistakes, especially if we form a judgement out of the crowd of authorities. Chances are, had Yuri Knorosov mingled with Eric Thompson, the "foremost expert" on the subject, he wouldn't of made his ground-breaking discoveries. In short, Knorosov didn't need to study any of Thompson's work, because it was completely flawed, and this supports the notion that the truth can be found in isolation (or at least your definition of isolation, which, again, is metaphysically impossible)... Cultural insularity doesn't always limit ones access to truth.

In-fact, cultural involvement can limit ones access to truth. I highly recommend the book Culture Against Man by Jules Henry. Culture Against Man is a 1963 book-length ethnography by anthropologist Jules Henry of his native United States culture. With the book's title in mind- I must remind you that some people, like Giordano Bruno, learn the hard way.

Ah, so your point is that he wouldn't have necessarily gained much by simply following the mainstream path in the wake of Eric Thompson.
In which case it would be impossible to disagree with the point that Yuri was able to discover something in spite of a major expert in the field's misguided attempt. And I think you have done well in clarifying and making a distinction I can grab onto between being isolated from the world/reality being impossible as different from cultural isolation/insularity.
I would agree such cultural insularity doesn't limit one's ability to get to the truth of a thing, I would even emphasize that it can be the outsiders perspective of those who aren't so inoculated into a mainstream that are better able to evaluate the limits of the mainstream and go beyond it.

I don't expect myself to become an original thinker on the frontier of some field and thus don't expect to be an original thinker, which in part why I retrace the steps of original thinkers.
My life isn't going into studying some field in order to make some break through, although even then people like Yuri develop tools through their own study prior to their works and eventual discoveries.


KNIGHT OF THE SUN, OR PRINCE ADEPT.

Excerpt:

This does sound like what I thought earlier of the emphasis of the Ancients with Zen and all that.
It even seems to reflect the point about the truth of things being beyond language.
Which appeals to me but as earlier I would emphasize it as an important and necessary point but one I would have as a stage rather than absolute.

@Wellsy

I hope you enjoy the following quote ;) :

“May Hegel's philosophy of absolute nonsense - three-fourths cash and one-fourth crazy fancies - continue to pass for unfathomable wisdom without anyone suggesting as an appropriate motto for his writings Shakespeare's words: "Such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not," or, as an emblematical vignette, the cuttle-fish with its ink-bag, creating a cloud of darkness around it to prevent people from seeing what it is, with the device: mea caligine tutus. - May each day bring us, as hitherto, new systems adapted for University purposes, entirely made up of words and phrases and in a learned jargon besides, which allows people to talk whole days without saying anything; and may these delights never be disturbed by the Arabian proverb: "I hear the clappering of the mill, but I see no flour." - For all this is in accordance with the age and must have its course.” -Arthur Schopenhauer

Lastly, I've been rather consistent with my message across this forum. If you actually read my posts, and consider my superpositions, you'd realize that I've been philosophically sincere. Despite detractors and half-wits, I've delivered my encomiums. Praise be to

Qauntum logic shall bride the binary gap! The Noogenesis begins with 0 and its exodus ends with 1. You can call this post spooky action at a distance... There's no isolation or separation. We must overcome our observation bias and realize that we're co-generating this moment.

-One Love

Here's a funny for you
Image

To an extent he was right though, because Hegel's language is quite unnecessarily difficult and his subject highly abstracted which is what makes it so generalizable I suspect.
But just as some take their initial glance at your language to be too much to understand and thus take it to be nonsensical and thus missing the content of what you do share. Hegel is rich in content in spite of his dismissal by many. So I don't doubt that you're not just spewing things without sense.
  • 1
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20

Trump has supposedly lost a billion dollars since […]

Fascism isn't coming to America only, it's coming[…]

So we agree that it would be illogical to arm ou[…]

You started the tariff discussion. I'm just askin[…]