it sounds like an altered state of consciousness - something I’ve experienced myself. There are various triggers, what were yours? What was the lead up to this? — I like sushi
Either way your philosophical proposal falls before it even starts as you attach absolute claims to sensible items. Logic is abstract not existent. That is how you open your and that is why it fails instantly. — I like sushi
By this, if it isn’t clear enough already, I mean that you flip from logical abstraction to objects of perception as if they are interchangeable. If A is a part of B and you then say both A and B are existing objects you’ve stepped outside of pure logic yet you continue as if you haven’t stepped outside of pure logic. — I like sushi
Claims of some mystical truth that will change the world followed by fear of plagiarism don’t add up. You mean to put your fame and pride before the benefits to humanity? That doesn’t sound like a particularly ‘loving’ or humane rationale. — I like sushi
If you’re coming from a phenomenological perspective then say so. The phenomenological approach is the only instance where the so called ‘real’ doesn’t matter. It is essentially a science of subjectivity and so cannot then be extended as an existent absolute. — I like sushi
Even if you do actually have something slightly original to say I fear your lack of attention to the concepts used will make it illegible - definitions of definitions and a requirement to address epistemic and semantic problems. It will be a very hard thing to do and require concentration and luck; and you’ll never be able to express something tangible to anyone else, ‘felt’, without physical evidence to back you up. — I like sushi
Humility will kill you, but clearly you need to die before you can get off that treadmill. That is my honest view (if I’m wrong then I guess we’ll see how things pan out for you over the next few years). — I like sushi
can’t find anyone to read it and critique it who can give constructive feedback, unfortunately, I can’t even pay anyone to critique it. — TheGreatArcanum
Humility? Don’t you mean egotism? don’t you think I was chosen to have the experiences I have for a reason? they pretty much force me to write everyday, not because no one is going to read or be inspired by my writings, but because man are. I’m going to be the best human to ever do it., this I am sure of. — TheGreatArcanum
My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche (for example) have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's a gleam in the eye. It's divine malice and golden laughter, etc. — ghost
Thanks for the answers. I guess what I'm trying to specify is how much you associate rationality with mysticism. Clearly you are interested in concepts. So the truth as you see and value it has a conceptual aspect. So that leaves me trying to figure out where the mysticism comes in. — ghost
My take is that some 'internal' experiences are as rare as they are potent. So descriptions of that experience aren't going to mean much to most people. I'd say that people who really love Nietzsche have probably all found a mirror there for something that they suspect is missing in many others. It's golden and yet connected to brutality, a kind of holy violence that laughs at all things mortal. Personality becomes a transparent mask for the one greed for status. The mask is also the primary tool of this greed. — ghost
This is creepy, obviously, but it only describes an aspect of a personality who also loves deeply in the usual way and fits in with the world, just with an extra wicked gleam in the eye that comes and goes. A person can forget that they are only pretending to be someone or resume pretending that they are outside of all that is trapped inside. Perhaps you'd call this a left handed or demonic path. Altruism is not at its center. Yet it's not cruel without reason. Why should 'it' interrupt its self-satisfaction and sober joy for some low level bullshit? — ghost
I'm surprised that you money isn't talking. Are you ambivalent about being critiqued? I'd think that there are lots of underpaid philosophy majors out there. — ghost
But...that way of looking at people (common/rare impotent/potent) leaves you liable to being dashed against the rocks, over and over. If you think most people are missing something, you won't blink an eye at flattering people just enough to carve a space where you can supply what they're missing. What do you think? — csalisbury
It is unusual for people to pay to have their philosophy critiqued so it’s no wonder people are unwilling to believe you’re genuine (I don’t and I’m talking to you). — I like sushi
I emailed like 20 professors from various respected universities around the country and even several from the local D3 college in my area and I got zero responses even despite offering to pay money. — TheGreatArcanum
Who needs professors though? Is there some validation to be had from academia? That's the tension in your position for me. If it's reason alone, then it's philosophy. If there's an appeal to rare experience, then most people will want to call it religion or mysticism.
You could always just pay a skilled writer to organize it so that it sings. That writer wouldn't even have to understand or agree with everything. — ghost
You're the one quoting "Rorty;" loser...stop wasting our time. One cannot be both a philosopher and an anti-mystic. those who aren't mystics and call themselves philosophers are just playing pretend. — TheGreatArcanum
What I’m trying to have edited isn’t my prose, but my philosophical axioms, principles, and definitions, the logical basis and framework of my philosophy. — TheGreatArcanum
People usually respond the way this sushi guy does, with contempt and disbelief. — TheGreatArcanum
It's complicated. I guess it depends on how one values that missing thing. Obviously it's got to be talked about carefully. It's not far from madness in the emotional sphere. It might be as rational as you please, coldly rational, ironic (as I think you know.) And in my more Nietzschean youth I used the charisma that comes with this 'gleam' in ways that look pretty shoddy now. But I also made people feel empowered. It's related to faith, I'd say. Christian heresy. — ghost
It's awkward to talk about. It's mostly that one expects to be misunderstood. I enjoy talking about these things, but they push all kinds of buttons in people. Have you seen Unforgiven? Eastwood is the mystic. Hackman is the scientist. Faith is just 'always being lucky' or feeling a kind of fate/luck that is ultimately beneath all reason or justification. Or that's one spin on one kind of faith.It's funny you mention faith. Coincidentally, that's something I'm interested in. It is complicated. — csalisbury
Kierkegaard, as I'm sure you know, found he could only express his faith through a hodgepodge of various personas. & That's a whole question unto itself. What is the function of a persona? — csalisbury
Is there a difference between a collection of personas arrayed radially around a central topic as opposed to a series of personas taking different, though similar tacks? How would we understand the difference between the two approaches? — csalisbury
Well I guess you are asking for a difficult thing. It sounds like you want a co-creator of the philosophy. Even if people were willing to do it, they'd be afraid that they wouldn't know how. — ghost
We learn most from rhetorical wounds scored fairly against us and from overhearing ourselves as we try to make ourselves understood to the stranger. — ghost
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.