Observations

Robert Lockhart

The Human Condition, irreducibly, is objectively unacceptable. As a direct consequence this circumstance unambiguously precludes the possibility of a Creator God. - Just had the slightly epiphanic realization that, given the accuracy of the observation concerned, you can actually know that. (Though, as the Greek philosophers long ago understood, "The Good is not the source of Being, but is its' goal.")
Anyway, given this, consider the scene where a priest, in privacy, subjects himself utterly before a religous icon. On what then should the meaningfulness of his act validly be predicated - the literalness of the truth purported to be represented via the icon before which he stands or the concept attained by the priest in his mind? - I happened to serendipitiusly come upon such a scene. The experience persuaded me that only personal observation can provide the answer to such a question, and how it is that the answer thereby provided may confound our reasoning - inasmuch as I now know it to be, even if it initially seems paradoxical - that the latter case is the answer.

Terrapin Station

I have an understanding of all of the words you're using, and most of the phrases you write make sense to me, but put together into sentences and chains of sentences, I have no idea what you're talking about overall.

"The Human Condition, irreducibly, is objectively unacceptable" for example. I have no idea what you're referring to there. I'm fine with "The human condition" as a phrase. No problem with the word "irreducibly." "Objectively unacceptable" I think has problems but I can just ignore the "objectively" part.

However, I have no idea why you're saying that the human condition is unacceptable. I have no idea why it would be "irreducibly unacceptable," or what a "reducible/irreducible acceptability" distinction would amount to. I could go on, but the same sort of thing happens when I read the rest of your post.

Robert Lockhart

Irreducible means when it's reduced to its basic reality, un camouflaged by pampering technology, - which prevents people being exposed to famine by the ever threatening vaigeries of climate, etc. Objective just means not conditioned by the outlook of your own personal individual circumstances but how it actually is when all accidental or artificial man-made benefits are absent!

Terrapin Station

Okay, but why is the human condition irreducibly, objectively unacceptable in your view? (And what do you do about it if that's the case?--It seems like if that's the case, there should be nothing you can do about it.)

Robert Lockhart

That it is, is I think something you can only perceive to be the case through personal experience! Why it is, is I think because everything characterising it exclusively results from automatic logical causes. You can do zilch to change that. They say though that you can, as a byproduct, gain happiness and maturity through attempting to assist those who suffer from the vaigeries resulting!

Terrapin Station

I'm not following. Why would it be unacceptable that you can only perceive the human condition to be the case through personal experience?

Robert Lockhart

I mean that only personal experience can indicate how the situation humans ultimately are in is not one that they could justifiably be required to accept. - Sorry, got to go now!

Terrapin Station

↪Robert Lockhart

Okay, but so then why is the human condition irreducibly, objectively unacceptable in your view? In other words, what is unacceptable about it?

I like sushi

I think you could work on presenting your ideas more clearly, or "unambiguously". If you mean "clear" say "clear", not "unambiguous". If you have specific/unambiguous reason for using "unambiguous" be clear about it or it looks like you're either trying to look smart or purposely confuse the reader (althouhh that purpose has not been presented "unambiguously").

See what I mean?

Wosret

Eschew obfuscation.

Barry Etheridge

Eschew obfuscation. — Wosret

That's a 90% reduction in posts then! ;)

Robert Lockhart

If even the word '' unambiguous' - which I thought conveyed my meaning more accurately than the generic term '' clear' - is deemed pretentious then I give up!

Ciceronianus

That's a 90% reduction in posts then! ;) — Barry Etheridge

Not to mention the reduction which would result in our communications, generally.

I like sushi

Just saying ... also the very first sentence starts with a "The Human Condition" without an explanation of what is meant.

I am not saying it is pretentious only that your style of writing needs, in my eyes, a little bit of translating.

I picked out "unambiguously" because I thought you may be referring to Heidegger's use of this term ... plus I tryvto adhere to the loose rules Orwell presented in his essay "Politics and the English Language".

Robert Lockhart

Well, glad you were impressed anyway! Though, to be honest, I personally think my previous post's probably my greatest achievement to date - inasmuch as it was crafted using only the microscopic keyboard on my smart watch! I'm not complacent though, and am aware I'll likely only attain to a state of full philosophic transcendence once I've successfully met the challenge of posting from a smart watch using just my toes - in which endeavor however, despite considerable perseverance, I have as yet attained (I won't deceive you) only a disappointing level of profiency...
- Wonder what Heidegger would have thought? :)

Observations

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions