'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 A Question To Philosophers

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: A Question To Philosophers   Thu May 17, 2012 5:15 pm

I want to ask a very important question that I personally believe separates the men form the boys in philosophy, and I believe it is an ethical one:

What justification can you produce for publishing philosophical thought?

The answer should probably read like a mission statement, but who knows?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4213
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Thu May 17, 2012 6:55 pm

Shouldn't the text itself justify its publication? I mean the philosophical element, the evolutionary agent.

I have published a handful of short philosophical texts on media other than free access fora, but I would not make explicit my motive for their publication to the platform where it is published.

The beauty of a philosophical idea is that it is not integrated by a mind on the terms of that mind, but that it rewrites these terms, breaches them and installs new ones.

I don't want to install half ideas. I wish to publish on value ontology only when it is also taking on the shape of a cosmology, wherein a narrative may take place. In other words, when it is clear to me what it means for it to rule.

For it to rule elsewhere I have to let it rule my own psyche and actions - and this requires that I make choices in terms of historical truths. I can't hold a birds eye perspective on the historical dialectic, anymore, I am in the process of cutting ties with false or thin loyalties and identifying my weakest necessary links. This world is in danger, as mastery over it is not yet an overt claim, even if it is the objective. All this can still be an advantage to us (you, Pezer, me, the others who are reading). The danger to the world consists precisely in the lack of an ontology of value. "Flexibility" is the enemy of this philosophy.

I do not wish this to be the enemy to the beneficiaries of the current science of value, to the realm of speculation. I remind myself to see the historical relation between banking and the renaissance, to the creation of real 'surplus' or splendor using an imagined capital. A Trust. The world runs on trust, placing investments. Capitalism is where it's at, or is at where it is. There are a few basic syntax errors, benefitting conservative holders pf large real value, enabled and suggested by completely isolating the capital market from the market of goods.

Value ontology is of course a tool to identify different types, categories of value - it helps to connect aims to real possibilities, and to project corners to turn and transformations to sustain and dominate in the future, given a certain valuing become action. Not only would it be more difficult to get insanely rich overnight over the back of a couple of million others, but it would become harder to lose value in investments. I do not think that any wealth should be redistributed, but I do want existing wealth to be invested into projects benefiting the cultivation, from this violent testtube content, western civilization, of a veritably super-human type. It's the only way out of this reaction for us, apart from disintegration. It will certainly happen to a segment of the population in some way - the abyss between master and slave is widening. "99%".... the term says it all.

I am not unmoved by the historical symmetry of Greece's antithetical behavior to the ethics of the Eurozone - perhaps I should go and see with my own eyes what is going on there, to make up my mind on what is worth saying, and how it deserves to be said.

What is required is an ethics of power, which is to say that real power needs to be understood as arising from truthful, ontologically sound ethics. Searches will be enabled into the real mechanism of every power structure. Conniving will have to attain levels undreamt of by Machiavelli or even Spielberg, and sound ruling will become a much more easy task.

"Heisenberg says: Relax."
















 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Thu May 17, 2012 8:21 pm

My justification for writing books is that I have something to say.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Thu May 17, 2012 10:52 pm

For the record, I am including internet forum posts in my definition of publication.

"Because I have something to say" sounds lazy at best, meaningless at worst.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 753
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Fri May 18, 2012 5:44 am

Spoken like someone who truly has nothing to say.




 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Fri May 18, 2012 8:47 pm

I was attacking your ideas, not yourself.

Why do you get emotional? Most distasteful.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4213
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Mon May 21, 2012 7:12 pm

I thought it wasn't a bad summary of the justification of writing philosophy.
A newspaper writer doesn't necessarily have something to say. Neither does the writer of a sitcom or a commercial. A philosopher writes with blood, Parodites may have understated.

Style is the skeleton of clarity.
A philosophy reliant on production of value is not a philosophy of terminology, it is a philosophical turmoil of strength and wisdom, a threat to society. Breaking the laws we are subject to when managers and women are the ones writing history.

Philosophers are like dragons - man can not tolerate them in his life, but needs them in his myths. He just not always needs myths. Philosophy is in a sense a luxury, provided by the abundance of mans dominion over other species.









 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides


Last edited by Fixed Cross on Mon May 21, 2012 7:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4213
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Mon May 21, 2012 7:22 pm

No other species seems to create danger for itself, as man does.
Philosophy can be this danger, has been - it has accompanied man to the discovery of the means to his self-destruction. What Nietzsche concluded as the ultimate danger was true, the means he himself took to overcome it were false. But he knew this, it seems; he who turned out well - ceases to enjoy something when it is no longer wholesome for him.

But what is wholesome?
What could Nietzsche have done on that eve of the Apocalypse, but surrender to madness? This was the honest thing to do. This is where all philosophers are sick: they do not cease to enjoy truth when it is no longer wholesome for them.






 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Tue May 22, 2012 12:08 am

I paraphrase here, but Nietzsche said something along the lines of "Through my Pride, my Truth. And if one must go, let it be Truth."

Still, Nietzsche did justify his publications. That is, in fact, what set him apart from sand castle philosophers.

"Because I have something to say?"

No offense, but this is a teenager's response. Yours, FC, was indirect, but sincere and with content.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4213
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr

PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   Tue May 22, 2012 8:38 am

The most direct answer I can give you now would be something along the lines of: I came into a world insanely ignorant of its drives and direction. Only twice or three times I found a thinker who had the vaguest clue as to what is going on. I drew what they touched with their fingertips into my full grasp. Now I could try to communicate this understanding to people who are otherwise content running around randomly and uttering fragments of long shattered possibilities.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: A Question To Philosophers   

Back to top Go down
 
A Question To Philosophers
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: