This person was more open and thoughtful than most, which was nice. The conversation was decent, and I made some good progress on her (I am fairly sure it was a female, by the way she talked, but I don't know for sure). She ultimately disconnected without saying goodbye, but I think she simply reached the limit of her ability to think like this, to exist like this, to... philosophize. To be philosophy-being.
This is what I am, and what I aim to be, and to link everything together under that ethos and method and raison d'etre. I am perpetually surprised at how other people almost never do this too; well they do, in their own ways, it is just that their limits oppose them quite often, as in the case with this person below.
You both like philosophy.
Stranger: How is life?
You: good, you?
Stranger: My life is pretty decent. Thanks for asking. Is there anything you'd like to talk about?
You: anything really, i dont have any one topic i need to bring up atm
Stranger: That is alright. How about this, what separates us from murderers?
You: the fact that we have not (presumably in your case) killed anyone
Stranger: Good one. Are there any other reasons than this fact? What would lead someone to murder someone else.
You: one of a hundred different things or situations
You: there is no one thing
You: that is universal to all cases
You: at least not that i can see
Stranger: You don't think that there is an universal element to murdering someone else. However we already found at least one which is the fact that you murdered someone.
Stranger: Would it be unlikely that there are anymore elements that are perhaps as simple as the deed itself?
You: im not sure i understand what you are asking
Stranger: You are bringing nuance to the table in expressing how uncertain you are. Your statement is that we are too unsure about it to be able to find out.
Stranger: I don't think that we are too unsure to find it out at all.
You: no, i just meant that i dont understand the question you asked, i dont know what you mean by "Would it be unlikely that there are anymore elements that are perhaps as simple as the deed itself?"
You: can you rephrase it?
Stranger: Perhaps there are more elements to murder which are universal.
You: like what?
You: do you mean universal elements that are not present in non-murderers?
Stranger: That is the idea, yes. Else the statement would be very clear. If you remove time and don't know when someone is going to murder someone else than anyone could be a murderer.
You: you are trying to do what Husserl called eidetic reduction of the phenomenon
You: that can be pretty interesting, but i tend to do the opposite method
Stranger: Which is?
You: Well he takes the phenomenon as a kind of continuum or pyramid, an inverted one, and then moves down and down until he finds the most isolated aspects of it, the most universal and necessary aspects but which are also unique to that thing itself... whereas I tend to see these phenomena as more upright pyramids, or not even as pyramids at all just as spread of continuum up and down, and I like to move up more so than down
You: I like to find commonalities rather than isolate for unique aspects
Stranger: You like to draw a map.
Stranger: Then what kind of connections do you see? What are the roads that you have laid down?
You: You mean in terms of murder or some other phenomenon?
Stranger: You could take a different phenomenon.
You: Let's take the phenomenon of love
You: so what kind of connections do i see here?
You: love, how i see it anyway, is the entangling of two souls together
You: in a very real and literal sense
You: this allows for much more excess to be shared between these two souls... each soul can transfer a lot of its own excess, both good and bad, into the other soul
You: in this way, both souls become closely linked
You: and share each other intimately
Stranger: Is that true? One soul could fall in love without the other soul being in love.
You: yes very true, that is how it is for me actually, with this girl I happen to love... but nonetheless, excess still transfers, only it tends to be more one-way and I have to be careful not to give her too much of my excess, so that I do not burn out her capacity for that
You: but we are still very much entangled with each other
You: philosophically or phenomenologically speaking
You: it is very obvious when we hang out, for example
You: we "click" perfectly
You: and it is effortless
Stranger: Your roads are weird, there are too many different kinds of roads. This stops you from laying connections but instead forces you to focus on the definition and effect of your connection. Perhaps that is exactly what you want.
You: i see it exactly opposite, this does not limit me at all, it is merely formal
You: every content and situation is specific and itself
You: but formally or structurally speaking this is indeed how it works
Stranger: But what if the road is wrong, you'd have to reconnect it and then change all the roads that were affected by it.
You: yes very true
You: i did map some of this out recently
You: in terms of our social connections to one another
You: it is very complex and hard to trace though
You: anyway these roads form without our knowledge or consent, which is good
You: since we do not understand them or how they work, we could not do a very good job deliberately building those roads anyway
You: so we can trust nature and instinct and unconsciousness to do that for us
Stranger: But then you would not be caring about the roads, you'd only be caring about the effect it has.
You: yeah, that is how it is, i think
You: for everyone
You: but i do actually care about the roads, because i try to philosophize this stuff
Stranger: How do you make sure that a road gets the care and treatment it needs?
Stranger: How do you tend to your roads?
You: well for me, i am aware enough and concerned about about these things, that I do take care with them to keep them healthy, but for most people i notice they do not really care for their roads much, the roads sort of maintain themselves or decline naturally
You: it would be a good question to ask about the differences between that natural maintenance and natural decline
You: which occurs unconsciously for most people
Stranger: It's not a good question though. Perhaps because I don't really enjoy having questions placed in my mouth and on the other side.. neurons.. they do the same thing.
You: i think it is a good question, because this is unexplored territory
You: if you dont enjoy thinking about such things, you probably dont much like philosophy
You: which is ok, if that is the case
Stranger: Ad hominem.
You: not at all
You: why would you think that?
Stranger: If I don't enjoy thinking about such things I must not be into philosophy.
You: you do not agree that a person who does not like thinking about these sort of questions, is probably not much into philosophy?
You: what is philosophy if not liking to think and ask these sort of questions?
Stranger: I'm just bouncing back your own words "if you dont enjoy thinking about such things, you probably dont much like philosophy"
Stranger: It's an Ad hominem because you base the worth of my philosophical knowledge on which question there are asked
You: yeah, that seems obviously true to me... i said nothing about your philosophical knowledge, only made an observation about whether you are interested in philosophy or not... if you are interested in philosophy, then why does the question I asked not interest you?
Stranger: Because it seems overly obvious to me.
Stranger: Especially because it was not a question out of my own interest. You have the interest to ask these kind of questions and know the answer already.
You: i dont know the answer to that question, " it would be a good question to ask about the differences between that natural maintenance and natural decline"
Stranger: You know that it's a good question.
Stranger: Perhaps it's not a good question at all.
You: it is a good question because it brings into focus an area of unexplored territory that is significant
Stranger: Then why is it significant?
You: because these roads are significant, and therefore how and why these roads are maintained or decline is also significant
Stranger: Things decline because they don't get attended to.
You: yes very true, or because they are abused
Stranger: What is your definition of abused?
You: being treated in such a way that causes damage beyond the normal regular wear and tear of use
Stranger: But that is simple ain't it. Let's say we have a small child, would you agree that children are fragile to this kind of abuse?
You: absolutely yes they are very fragile
Stranger: The child gets to hear from everyone around them that they won't make it in life, it's not going to happen.
Stranger: Following your observation, what would happen with this child?
You: well by "roads" i was talking about the phenomenological connections between two souls that constitutes love or friendship, i would need to expand or amend my definition of abuse if we are talking about children and the case you bring up... however, off the top of my head, i would say this child would end up with damage to his/her soul that would constitute abuse
Stranger: Could you rephrase that?
You: if you tell a child, "they won't make it in life, it's not going to happen" that is abusive
Stranger: But what would the effects of this abuse be?
Stranger: Which roads are going to be damaged?
You: the child would perhaps suffer internal pain and confusion about him/herself, be less courageous and brave, less ambitious, more cautious and risk-averse, suffer from excess sadness or depression, hopelessness, anxiety, will not reach his/her fuller potential
You: of course it is different for every person, these things are pretty individualized
You: but i would say there are general tendencies too
You: also because of those damages, the child will eventually seek out ways to compensate for that, with things like drugs, drinking, etc.
Stranger: You make it sound very complex because you believe with your entire soul that this is a complex issue.
You: yes i think this is a complex issue
You: you do not agree?
Stranger: Why would I want to agree with that. I'd rather oversimplify than make something complex.
You: it isnt about what you want, it is about what is true
Stranger: That is a moral question. What is true is not the same as what is good.
You: so you are about the moral part, I am about the truth part
You: but even the relationship between morality and truth is something we can ask about
You: both from the moral and from the truth side
Stranger: We definitely could.
You: i am only interested in morality to the extent that it is coextensive with my valuing of truth; those moral aspects that are right there with valuing truth for its own sake, are interesting to me; the moral aspects that are different from truth, for example your aversion to asking these sort of questions because you would rather simplify than complexity, such things do not interest me
Stranger: Thus you don't attend to it?
You: I attend to it, but I prefer not to tell you how, because you would consider my statements not moral
Stranger: Aren't we both trying to be open?
You: yes i think so
Stranger: Then tell my anyways.
You: but you already told me that my statement was not a moral one
You: "You: it isnt about what you want, it is about what is true
Stranger: That is a moral question. What is true is not the same as what is good. "
Stranger: They are both different dimensions on which you can handle.
Stranger: Your truth is opposed by fiction and it's allure of creating new things.
You: yes, however, the fact that you are averse to asking questions that are not "simplifying things", means to me that you are actually not interested in or really capable of philosophizing to any great degree. however, if i say that you will simply accuse me of ad hominem again
Stranger: I'm averse to asking the question that you told me to ask.
You: i did not tell you to ask any question
Stranger: Then which questions did I miss?
You: i did not tell you to ask a question, i simply pointed out that it would be an interesting question to ask
You: but it is interesting that you interpreted what i said as me TELLING you to ask it
Stranger: I disagreed.
You: when that is not at all the case
You: disagreeing that it is a good question, yes
Stranger: It can lead to different questions, as it did.
You: and then later clarifying that you do not want to ask questions like that for moral reasons
Stranger: There is no need to be passive aggressive.
You: i agree
Stranger: Morals reasons. I believe in morality. More than I believe in the truth.
You: and that means you are not a philosopher
Stranger: If that is what makes us different is that not exciting?
You: it can be exciting yes
You: but philosophy is placing truth above other things like morality
Stranger: Is that your own definition of philosophy?
You: it is simply what philosophy is and means, at the core level
Stranger: Perhaps. Could I prove you wrong?
You: unlimited interest in truth, which means the love of reality, of existence, of what is the case for the sake of it
You: if you limit your interest and love of reality, of what is the case, of what is true, then you are not really philosophizing properly
You: maybe we could say you are a philosopher in a jar, within certain limits
You: sure, you can prove me wrong
You: (but everyone is a philosopher in a jar)
Stranger: (thanks, I like you too)
You: yes see, youre right. it can be exciting
Stranger: I was hoping. The truth can be exciting, on that we should both be able to agree. The question is if there is any true to what is say.
Stranger: We both know that morality can align with truth and that on these occasions you would consider me a philosophical entity again.
Stranger: If I were to step away from the truth but holding my standpoint on morality the same I would no longer be considered philosophical by your standards.
You: yes but again in that jar sense only, although perhaps more too
Stranger: Then what is your definition of the truth?
You: as i already intimated, truth is simply another word for whatever exists, whatever is real; what is the case, and how and why that is so
Stranger: Reality. The opposing concept to fiction and it's fantasy of being deluded.
You: whatever exists exists, whatever is the case, is the case
You: this is pretty tautological
You: or at least, trustic
Stranger: Let's say that there are two people in a room unaware of the outside world.
Stranger: They talk to each other, discussing the contents of the room as only they can see it.
Stranger: They find out that the paining hanging on the wall is that of a pink elephant and say, all elephants must be pink.
Stranger: Does this constitute as the truth?
You: you are talking about how to know truth or the limits of knowing it. That is epistemology.I am talking about truth itself, that is ontology
You: i am not saying i know what the truth is in any case, but i am saying i know what truth itself is and means, as a concept and as a reality
You: this is obvious in the fact that even in your example it is possible that the people are making FALSE assumptions about the truth
You: for their assumptions to be false, that means there is some truth about which they are mistaken
You: so that proves my point
Stranger: That is perfectly fine with me. You concern yourself with the idea of an universal truth.
You: no, I'm not really talking about a universal truth
You: at least not yet
You: we were simply discussing what is truth itself
You: not any specific truths yet
Stranger: Truth by itself is subjective. It's true in the present but might change in time.
You: any given truth can be time dependent or time independent
You: it depends on what the truth is
You: "There is a cup on my desk" is a a time dependent truth, because it is true right now but not in a few seconds later when I remove the cup
You: however, the truth "there was a cup on my desk at such and such a time" is a time independent truth
You: it is true always and forever
You: even if no one ever knows it
You: i like to use ratios as a good example
You: 50 miles per hour is a relative measurement
You: because what is an hour, what is a mile?
You: relative measures
You: however, the ratio "100 mph is twice as fast as 50 mph" is objectively true
You: it is not relative
You: "twice as fast" is objective
You: because on both sides of the equation, the relative terms cancel out
You: and you are left with only a number, 2
Stranger: Does philosophy have to cater towards science?
You: no, it only needs to cater toward itself
Stranger: Then I don't see why reality should be all that matters.
You: i dont think it is all that matters, but it is the case that for something to "matter" it must also exist, be real, and in addition be significant to and for us somehow
You: i dont expect many people to be philosophers, they dont need to care about truth for its own sake like i do
You: they get along pretty well much of the time without that
Stranger: But you only seem to care about the branch of philosophy that cares about what is real.
Stranger: Which is the metaphysical part.
You: that is because this "branch" underlies every other branch of philosophy. in fact, i see no such branches or distinctions at all, for me philosophy is all one thing
You: and i think it is sad how academia has branched it and isolated things
Stranger: But Ethics doesn't always care about what is truly real, it also cares about how you appear to be.
You: how you appear to be is another aspect of what is truly real
You: there is no real separation here
You: an appearance is a REAL appearance
You: and it REALLY exists, as appearance, for some reason
You: from where do you think appearances come?
You: they come from a deeper reality
Stranger: But what if appearance opposes reality?
Stranger: Then both are a reality of their own?
You: that is a mark of a lack of knowledge on our part, an epistemological failure; for example, the thing about how looking at the ground of a lake through the water makes the ground appear to move and shimmer; philosophers like to use this as an example of a failure of the senses, when in fact it is not a failure, the senses are accurately showing us what things look like when light refracts through water
You: we just need to get to the point of understanding this fact
You: then we overcome the illusion
You: this shows the absolute necessity of philosophy
You: and how morality and illusions come from reality as signs for us to decode and understand, elevating ourselves higher upon the continuum of being
Stranger: Knowledge is reality.
You: knowledge is real, and knowledge is necessary to some degree, but i would not say that knowledge is reality
You: but yeah every existing thing must "know" enough to keep on existing
You: if i do not know that eating glass is bad, i may eat glass and then die
You: and then that one instance of lack of knowledge falls out of existence with my death
You: living beings that eat glass tend to be selected out of existence, although i think some humans are able to eat glass in small amounts, lol
Stranger: Reality is existence.
You: reality, existence, truth... all words for the same thing
Stranger: Then what opposed existence?
You: nothing could oppose existence, not really
You: by "opposing" something about existence it is actually affirming something else about existence
Stranger: Then why fight for existence if nothing opposes it?
You: if a person kills themselves, they are opposing some aspects of existence but affirming others
Stranger: No one is against existing, everyone and everything wants to exist.
You: there is no "existence itself", except at the highest level of philosophical abstraction; there are simply existing things, instances of existence, and these are often opposed to one another
Stranger: Existence opposes existence.
You: its hard to say that things really want to exist, more like they simply do exist because they have been assembled as the tail end of very long processes that produced entities with certain traits and characteristics that caused them to tend over time to act in such ways that tend to allow them to continue existing
Stranger: If it didn't want to exist, would it still exist?
You: some people kill themselves, but even Schopenhauer said this is a manifestation of their will to life
Stranger: Exist exist exist exist.
Stranger: All things lead to the truth.
You: yes, just in one way or another, and to one degree or another
Stranger: Your nuance only ends in existence of another existent.
Stranger: There is no reason to speak of nuance unless you want more things to exist.
You: i dont really care how it ends for me, i simply love truth for its own sake
You: it is just how i am
You: often this hurts me
You: in practical ways
Stranger: it's definitely not practical to think like this.
Stranger: Who would even want to listen to the absurdness of perpetual existence.
You: well it can be practical sometimes, if done well, if you carefully select the kinds of people you are around for example.... but in general i agree with you, it is not very practical most of the time
You: i do not want perpetual existence, i am glad the ti will die someday
You: *that i will
Stranger: No. You'll just start to exist in new ways and keep to exist as you always have.
Stranger: We will always be able to claim that you have existed.
You: death is the end of our conscious existence, at least as far as I can tell
You: yes it will be a fact that i existed
You: but i will no longer exist to know this fact
You: and that too will be a fact
Stranger: Thus existence does not oppose existence?
Stranger: There is something else than existence?
You: if something else exists, then it is just another part of existence that we didnt know about
Stranger: Then you will die and exist.
You: i exist right now, someday i will die and then i will no longer exist
You: these are just facts
Stranger: What is no longer exist?
Stranger: What is the opposing force that makes you no longer exist?
You: what is "me" in the sense of my body, mind, consciousness, subjectivity, etc. will decohere to a point where these fall apart and stop existing sufficiently to continue being that which they are; my body will survive as elements in stages of decomposition, but "I" will no longer be the case
You: the opposite forces could be described as entropy in some cases, or just sufficient damage to structures that are essentially fragile and able to be destroyed
You: if i shatter a glass cup on the ground, i do not claim that the "cup" still exists just because there are now a million little pieces of glass
Stranger: Entropy opposes existence.
You: entropy is one thing about existence that opposes other things about existence, yeah
Stranger: Existence opposes existence.
You: some existing things oppose other existing things
Stranger: It could be the same existing thing.
You: as i said, there is not really any "existence itself" except as the highest philosophical concept
Stranger: Could it not?
Stranger: Existence opposes another Existence
You: one existing thing opposes another existing thing
You: but if you are talking about Existence itself, then you could perhaps say that existence opposes itself, yes
You: although that is not a very logically coherent statement
Stranger: It's not. Existence opposing itself would be tragic.
You: yeah it is tragic in many cases
You: 99.999% of all species on this planet have already gone extinct
You: but despite that, i can sit here with music and good conversation and my coffee, and be happy
Stranger: X opposes another X
You: so not all is tragedy
Stranger: Existence is the body of everything.
Stranger: You aim towards knowing what exists?
You: of course
You: with no limits
You: that is an essential part of who i am
You: to me this is what philosophy means
Stranger: Giving existence to knowing what exists is what makes a philosopher?
You: loving truth for its own sake, without limits imposed on that love
You: philo- "love"
You: but it is also about seeing how every other love and interest and passion and experience in life is connected to this truth-love
You: it is all connected
You: and through deeper truth connections, all of these other things are also connected to each other
You: which is pretty cool
Stranger: All things don't oppose all other things.
Stranger: I can't wrap my head around that.
You: the category "all things" is not logically coherent
You: unless you want to say "all things exist"
You: otherwise, you cant say much about it at all
Stranger: All existing things oppose all other existing things.
You: that is not true either, some things do not oppose each other so much as work together or simply have no relationship to each other
You: i do not oppose a moon around Jupiter right now
You: unless in the way that we are simply different things separated by space and time and differences in material structures, meanings, etc
Stranger: An individual existing thing can oppose another individual existing thing.
You: i would not say my heart opposes my liver, although you could make a case for this in some ways
You: but more like, they work together
Stranger has disconnected.