If things have changed it is so because they could not remain as they were. And when things remained in their state it is because there could be no change or rather, things are as they are not and are not as they are. That is the motion of the static, or the solidity of continuity...
How can this frail observer, crowning himself with the beacon of self-consciousness, who stands naked with wonder, confusion, attitude of judgement and ultimately wrapped in absurdity, divide the images of nature into representation and reflector? The one being that has discovered Mind, who lugs the burden of sentiment and the thwarting vestige of base animal makeup, is still faced with seeing himself in the movements of his surroundings. It seems as though he simply cannot shake the afterbirth of his all too natural origin, and so his wondering eyes seem to gather water just like the ancient rivers on the earth where he now finds himself walking impatiently up and down, cursed by profound thought.
As this self-labelled intelligence struggles to become ‘the real human it ought to be’, it undergoes a certain kind of sadness at the same time; it senses the rain on the wearing skin and exclaims that the empty heavens are crying, and then again, that it is the sweat of crazed nature sweltering under the half-dying sun. When it pushes against the angry wind on its way through the wide-open spaces, it imagines a raging vortex in the eye of the storm about its own truthfulness flying off into blind direction; these winds of atmospheric motion mirrors the turbulent truths of the many minds about a single theory! What is force, what is frustration! Which damned force is against which other! Is it all a fight against itself? Is there indeed a war between the elements or does the individual occupation annihilate its own? Oh yes, the storm outside is an image of the discord within the human being.
But the sun has set and tomorrow it will rise again as always, or will it? Will the moon make its way before the observers recline to their lunacy and before they close the eyes of awareness for the very last time?
What is this insanity of thought, this sickness of the thinking organ? Will the skies ever really be blue without the end of fading into blackness at the cyclical realisation of dead reality? Can we resurrect this pretty dead reality without the fear of creating even more chaos with a living reality?
For sure, my fellow thinkers, reality is a very dead thing, because only the living can invent, and inventions are never alive; they would self- destruct in the most horrifying way if ever given the light of day. “And the un-real?” you ask, well, just look at the all too abstemious mind: it stares dead reality in the face and becomes drunk, intoxicated, even creative and levelled by fictional suggestion by the mere image of it! It smells reality and recognises the odour of deceased creation, and then it drowns itself in the ocean of a melted dream of truth…
Thus the representation and the reflector draw from one another; man notices himself in the nature of nature and is disgusted, even depressed about the actuality of similarity. He asks himself whether he will ever feel alien towards his natural beginning. It is a vital moment which mankind has reached long ago when it became an intellectual being; it is the moment of realisation that in order to become true intelligence unburdened by the core essence of its animal or natal comprise, it will have to necessitate the action of a transformation by some novel force of its own design into the realm of universal sovereignty; man will have to part from his participation in the form of a terrestrial species and assume the new form of a cosmic force…it must become a swift footed god who can move across the paths and dimensions of space and time, for only then will it be able to observe and to change the universe according to its own whims. It must do away with all faiths in higher powers and become such a power itself; it must believe in itself and become its own god.
It is time for philosophers to renounce their endeavour toward establishing unsubstantiated truths. For those who find it unsatisfactory to live with the unbearable questions and disappointments of existence have resorted to common and predictable methods of inventing cosmetic, simple and ordered universals and absolutes. They also bear no difference to the primitive ideas of religion and faith in an absolute creator of all that is.
Through out the history of existential contemplation there have been mainly two opposing modes of thinking: the one, which is Rationalism, and the other, Empiricism. These two forces have also very plainly been abstracted into their respective essences in order to be married into a brilliant, but nonetheless axiomatic, dishonest and utopian union of assumptive logic. This marriage was proudly done by the very optimistic Emmanuel Kant.
Fundamentally, the rational inclination utilizes the exercise of reason towards obtaining an absolute description of Being, untainted by the dirty senses of experience. The empirical side, on the other hand, gains its knowledge by means of pure experience through the subject or knower. When these two bodies of thought were married, the birth of Transcendental Idealism, took place. The latter describes to kinds of knowledge: Analytic or a priori truths; and Synthetic, or a posteriori truths. The Analytic truths are innate, necessities or absolute truths independent of experience. The Synthetic are those truths derived by experience. Kant argued that only by combining these two could we arrive at real knowledge.
The problem with these ideas is that they are hanging in the air suspended by their unfounded assumptions; they only make sense in terms of mirroring the seeming realm of dreaming appearance.
In the case of Reason, it needs to be applied to something by something in order to be exercised. If there is no experiencing observer, how can exercise of reasoning be functional? If applied onto something, there need to be something external to the reasoned, but Leibniz, the leader of this line of thought argues that space and time, for instance, are intellectual constructs through which experience is made intelligible. This is in itself contradictory as he refers to the presence of experience, which in this case is dependent upon the mere intellectual construct of space and time, the very realm in which experience takes place! Furthermore, Leibniz also harbors the concept of innate ideas and absolute necessities – these are once again assumptions – clouds of thought formed by the rising damp of wishful, limited thinking!
Hume, on the other side, represents to us the full-blown development of empirical thought. He holds that sensory impressions are all we have to prove our experience as being truth. He does, however recognize the subjectivity of it all: what is true is only true for a specific individual.
We must, however accept that nothing can be accepted without doubt to be true in the absolute sense or in the subjective sense. The affecting factor here is the activity of doubt. Doubt is an omni-present disturbance in every instance of a claim to truth. One simply cannot say something is absolutely true, as there is no absolute proof external to the observer. Blind belief is not sufficient to substantiate a condition of reality. The same goes for subjective truth – nothing can be true even to an individual, because that individual cannot find a proof outside of himself, which will entirely appease his speculation. Validity fails in every instance of its event: there is always space enough for question and doubt. Meaning is the other thing that creates a problem: one can always ask what the meaning of the last conclusion is; if validity seems exhaustive in its objective, there is the question of its value and ultimately the meaning of that value. One can even advance to the extent that the meaning of meaning itself can be questioned. Doubt is indeed the one thing for which there is always room. Self-doubt fits into the void between the conclusion and its unconditional questionability. The cause of this doubt, if one can call it thus, is inseparability of the conceiving and the conceived: it is comparable to the mind using itself to think about itself. Being cannot be escaped, and it needs to be escaped in order to validate itself, but in the event of that happening, Being seizes to be at all.
To know is simply to postulate an absolute and to hide doubt. One can only prove a proposition by implementing and adhering to a definition, but a definition is nothing more than fiction or invention. One can doubt the meaning of the definition in its application to reality. One can doubt reality proper, or any meaning we apply to reality.
Any opinion is just that, even the theory I am compiling at the moment can be doubted – doubt applies to all conceptions and to all instances of anything! It is as absurd as that. All we can do is to accept the chaos and to live in eternal doubt. What is the meaning of our thoughts; what is the meaning that we apply to meaning? Like the madman, we are under obligation to doubt the meaning of every condition of our existence. We, what ever “we” means, are only really able to have questions – there cannot be any answers, as any answer can be doubted; nothing can be proved, not even to oneself(if something by this definition exists). The eye cannot see itself without looking– there is no sight without the eye; and with or without the eye, there is only chaos and doubt!
The wise man is the one who is aware of the infinity of questions, rather than comfortable answers trying to wrap chaos into a square box as a gift to those who seek the truth.
This doesn' t seem to be a biography to me, more reflections where we can respond to.
__________________
I am not driven by people’ s praise and I am not slowed down by people’ s criticism.
You only live once. But if you live it right, once is enough. Wrong. We only die once, we live every day!
Make poverty history.
philosophicus, u might think u have answers to questions that u asked urself, u might think that u are lost and have finally found ur true self, u might think that u are misunderstood and see things in ways other people can not even imagine, but what u fail to see is that in trying to widen ur horizons, in trying to understand things, u have simply gone on a single track wich wont lead u anywhere,in other words in trying to think freely u have gottena one track mind, it is best to look at the simple things first for they are the most important, indeed u would not have to ask or answer many questions to begin with if u understand or perhaps devote urself to more basic and simpler ideas.
i am not gonna rip on you man, you sound very poetic in some of your lines i liked it. I think you should write a novel in this manor and describe your characters and backgrounds and situations like you describe your philosophy. It would be very entertaing I think
__________________
I have no speech, no name. I live in the action of death, blood cry and the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute and alone.
To peterKSL who wrote "why are you torturing us to read your ""life story""?" - Don't waste your time with philosophy if you can't ask an intellectual question, and stay quite if you don't have something meaningful to say.
To frodo34X - Are you intimidated by a real, intensively contemplated philosophical problem in which I endeavored to establish a meaning? Comments like yours are typical of unintellectual individuals not capable of philosophical thought.
To Storm - Thank you. You seem to be one of the few who actually belong to the philosophical mind set we need in a forum such as this one.
I welcome your opinions and criticism.
To MornGlory - I feel sorry for you. Are you a slow reader or a slow brainer?
To leonheartmm - Simpler and more basic ideas as you put it, are for the simple minds with only basic capabilities. Anyway, I have arrived at my current point of thought after exhausting all 'simple' and 'basic' propositions and consequently taking on more advanced intellectual problems. Philosophy is not simple and basic - it involves the most complex intellectual problems posed to the mind.
To moviejunkie23 - Thanks for the compliment, I'll really consider your suggestion. I'm also glad that you find (my) philosophy entertaining, unlike these other idiots who don't belong here.
To carnival junkie - Rather watch cartoons then. The infantile mind(?) is always bored with the endeavors of intellectuals and vice versa.
I am happy that you like philosophy and that you thought aboot many things, even though I think sometimes even in philosophy there are simple things, but maybe you could step back from attacking memebers personally it's not necessary I think.
__________________
You are not telling nobody nothing
I respect what you say. Do you know why I don't attack you personally? Because you're comments don't merit such response - I only attack others personally when they exhibit needless and disrespectful comment. The members whom I've "attacked personally" are those who were rude themselves in their replies or who have wasted their breaths with useless and weightless criticism as you can see above.
Does anyone else here thinks that my philosophy is as KharmaDog describes it:
"You do the subject of philosophy no favours by trying to wrap it up in psuedo-intellectaul mumbo jumbo." ?
It seems that Storm and moviejunkie23 does NOT think so:
Storm: "This doesn' t seem to be a biography to me, more reflections where we can respond to."
moviejunkie23: "i am not gonna rip on you man, you sound very poetic in some of your lines i liked it. I think you should write a novel in this manor and describe your characters and backgrounds and situations like you describe your philosophy. It would be very entertaing I think "
Also look at how unoriginal kharmadog is: "Philosphy is the investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods. Logical reasoning dictates that soundwaves still carry in our atmosphere even though you may not be there to hear them. Common Sense dictates that you are not the center of the universe and things actually do happen when you are not around."
- he/she uses concepts like 'logic', 'empirical' and 'common sense'(philosophy is not common sense, then anyone would've been a philosopher) which is borrowed from Aristotle(logic) and Hume(empiricism). A philosopher must be original and not restate what philosophers before him has already said - that is not philosophy. Come up with your own original ideas and only then criticise others.
Well, to those who thinks it's "pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo", I would just like to say that you will feel exactly the same after you've read the complex philosophies of say, Sartre, Kant, Wittgenstein, Ayer, Hegel, etc. The point is that if you experience it as mumbo jumbo then you don't understand what you are reading - just because it's complicated doesn't mean it's meant to confuse or all just sound and fury - complex matters requires complex and in depth analyses.
He's right here, you can joke all you want HOWEVER this is a philosophy forum where a lot of stuff is serious. PM your jokes...its pointless to type them in his thread. it is clear he went thru a lot of trouble typing all of that. he must believe in it deeply. i admit it is a lot to read and honestly i have not read it myself but i'm not going to attack him because it is HIS thread...it doesn't bother me in any way. just leave this thread and read another much shorter one if you can't read long posts. to insult him in HIS thread for writing a lot or on his views or writing his life story.. is down right disrespectful, and i'm glad he "attacked them personally".
Thanks HarmonicFlo88 for standing up for me and for thinking intelligently, this is the kind of attitude we need here too argue about philosophy. I really did went through months of deep thought to produce the posts which others think is too long or just plain mumbo jumbo. I believe in it very sincerely...it's my whole life.
Gender: Male Location: between apathy and indifference
I am impressed to see that you feel that I warrant so much of your attention philo. If I can be such an muse to your rantings then perhaps I deserve more your gratitude than your loathing.
Also, as a Philosophy professor, you should know where I got that "unoriginal" definition of philosophy.
Perhaps the misunderstanding that occurs with some when they read your thoughts has more to do with the way they are presented than than they do with the intellectual capacity of the reader. A personal attack against me does little to prove your theories.
__________________ "I made a typo bif deal" - JacopeX
KMC Community Forums
Jan 6th, 2005 12:53 PM
there is no way I am going to read all that 
