Category Archives: General Philosophy

Because of Man’s Moral and Intellectual Agency, Need and Want are Corollaries

General Philosophy, individualism vs collectivism,

It is impossible to separate need from desire. That is, it is impossible to separate one’s needs from one’s idea of how these needs can be most satisfyingly met for oneself. Thus, to strip a man of the freedom to act as he so desires in pursuit of his own needs (i.e. to live his life as he sees fit according to his own existential reference) is to in fact make it impossible for his needs to be met…because “he”, the individual, has been removed from the equation. If a man may not choose his food, his shelter, his clothing, then these things must become death to him. They are a mark of his oppression, not the givers of life or vitality; they are a festoon of the tyranny which murders him.

🍀

Modern Science’s Metaphysical Failure: When the Observer Becomes That Which is Observed (PART 1)

Determinism, Epistemology, Ethics, General Philosophy, Metaphysics, reason, scientific determinism

The observer must be distinct…that is, autonomous and not subject to–and rationally understood and defined as such–that which he observes (i.e. processes and objects). To reject and deny this necessary fact, and to launch into a philosophy (an explication of axiomatic Truth with respect to existence) based upon the objects and the processes which “govern” them, and this absent a rationally consistent definition of “observer” which does not subordinate him in the metaphysics sense (meaning he has moral and intellectual autonomy) to these objects and the processes which “govern them”, is the apogee of laziness, pseudo-intellectualism, and irrational, hypocritical, and self-nullifying mysticism. And worse yet, this will and must wreck the very thing–the only thing–which guarantees morality and therefore life and liberty: moral and intellectual awareness via absolute agency referenced to the individual (metaphysically singular–one’s “oneness”, you might say). And agency implies an agent, and by  “agent”, I mean: the Self. That is, he who observes and, more importantly, conceptualizes what he observes in order that he may cognitively (which means, practically speaking, intellectually and morally) organize his environment to the promotion and perpetuation of the Self–himSelf and Other Selves.

And what is the Self?

The Self is the conceptualization of, again, one’s “oneness”.  The Self is he who is inherently Able to define life–“life” being the practical manifestation of one’s will and choice via his ability to conceptualize his existence within a distinct environment–by referencing it to his own  moral and intellectual agency. Further, by this ability to define a moral and intellectual reference for life–for existence–which is himSelf, distinct and autonomous from the objects and processes he observes (from the environment, that is), he may recognize both its truth and goodness, and therefore quite naturally carry a desire to possess it. For he knows that HE is True and Good. And this Truth and Goodness are axiomatic and irreducible; not subject to the objects and processes he observes and conceptualizes, a subjection in the metaphysical sense which would wreck any distinction between himSelf and his environment, thus nullifying the only rational reference for existence at all, which renders moot his ability to conceptualize, which nullifies his ideas, which destroys morality and truth.

Aphorism of the Day: Scientists are the Court Jesters of Philosophy

Aphorisms, General Philosophy, reason, scientific determinism, , ,

In the capacity of science, scientists are brilliant, and hard and tireless workers. But as philosophers they are the most intellectually lazy and obtuse bunch of rubes I have ever come across; for even the most basic rational contradiction seems entirely beyond them.

🍀

Aphorism of the Day: Violation of identity, the mortal sin against reason

Aphorisms, General Philosophy, Metaphysics, reason, , ,

A thing’s identity–whether that thing be an abstraction or a concrete–is violated when it is said to be or do two mutually exclusive things at the same time.

(Examples: God is infinite and God is distinctly Himself; man may choose and man is governed by God’s will/natural law; the Big Bang began with an infinitely dense and infinitely hot singularity (what is infinite cannot be valued and thus it cannot be measured, you see, and it also cannot be compared, so it is impossible to claim it “hot” or “dense”–appeals to a thing’s infinite existence preclude appeals to any specific properties); God created everything from nothing (ex nihilo)–nothing by definition cannot beget something–“is not” and “is” are categorical antipodes; time has a beginning (time cannot be subject to itself–logical fallacy); space can be folded (implying that there is space between space which must be mitigated via folding it–again, logical fallacy.

These are just some of my favorite specimens.)

The Paradox of Existential Plurality

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, Physics and Metaphysics, , , , ,

The following is a true paradox, not a contradiction in terms presented as a paradox because some people are too lazy to fully and properly think it through. (And by “some people” I mean many scientists, as well as most (other) religious people, especially and including Christians.) 

A thing which has no parts cannot exist; and therefore all things must contain an infinite number of parts.

“A is A”…as opposed to what?: Why “A is A” is a woefully insufficient metaphysical assertion

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, Objective Relativity, ,

A is A only because it is not B.

This would be the rational way of rendering the famous metaphysical claim.

Remove B, and A cannot be defined as A. Because A, in a vacuum of itself, has no comparative attributes…it is not relative to anything else, which means that A has no distinct location…for it is infinite. Its left is its right, its inside is its outside, its top is its bottom.  And thus if A cannot be said to exist somewhere, it cannot be said to exist at all. Further, if A is A, and infinitely so, then it cannot be valued. It is…to an infinitely exclusive degree. It has exceeded the possibility of its own “existence”, again, to an infinite degree.

All of this is simply to say that is impossible to say what something (like A) is unless you know what it is not.

Therefore, A always and necessarily and absolutely implies B. A cannot exist, because it cannot be known or relevant, without a comparative and relative distinction from B.

This means that the claim that A is A is incomplete at best. At worst, it is a lie which ruins Truth.

Why “All Lives Matter” is the Rational and Moral Declaration

Authority, Ethics, General Philosophy, individualism vs collectivism, Metaphysics, Violence, ,

It is a pathetic and frustrating thing to be labeled a racist (as I recently was) by simply pointing out that humanity is rooted in individuals, not groups like “blacks” and “whites”; that racism is a function of individual beliefs and action, and therefore cannot not be ascribed to individuals because of some trite, subjective group/institutional affiliation; and it is also exasperating to hear it asserted that saying “all lives matter” is–by some backwards, inane Marxist “logic”–an anti-black declaration when in fact it is merely pointing out THE objective ontological fact which makes Truth, Reality and Morality possible at all.

When someone calls you a racist for saying “all lives matter” they are simply proclaiming their collectivist beliefs, which necessarily spawn ethics and politics that hold violence to be the primary and ultimately only efficacious way of compelling moral behavior. In other words, those who declare it racist and thus evil to express the rank ontological truth and fact that all lives matter is implying that they really believe that NO lives matter.

Not black. Not white. Not yours. Not mine. Not their own.

Experience is Not an Argument

Epistemology, General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , ,

Today on Facebook, Breitbart News posted the following quote from Holocaust Survivor Martin Greenfield:

“The United States is the best damn country the world has ever known. Anyone who disagrees with that hasn’t been where I’ve been, hasn’t seen what I’ve seen.”

As lovely as that sentiment might seem, and though I respect Holocaust survivors immensely, the assertion is really nothing more than a non sequitur. In a couple of ways.

First, it is a categorical fact that no one has been where anyone else has been nor has seen what anyone else has seen. This is because any given person, by definition, cannot be anyone else. Everyone, simply by virtue of their being born, has their own absolute frame of reference by which they experience life.  The very fact that I am not you means that I cannot and will not experience existence as you do. I will never be where you are or see what you see, because we are infinitely different.  And because this is a simple ontological axiom, and therefore is universal to human experience, one cannot base an assertion upon it. Because the presupposition of such an assertion is that if you had seen what Mr. Greenfield had seen, and had been where Mr. Greenfield had been, you would, in fact, agree that the United States is the best damn country the world has ever known. But the infinite distinction of individual experience makes this an impossible scenario. And because it is an impossible scenario, precluded by the facts of rank existence, it is an illegitimate argument. It is irrelevant.

Next, we should remember that experience is not the equivalent of reason. What you have seen or where you have been is not a legitimate substitute for what you think about what you have seen and where you have been. You simply cannot base an argument upon perception alone; you must base it upon a rationale.  That is, a philosophical interpretation of reality (how you define what is true), which is rooted in your belief system.

So, when Mr. Greenfield says “America is the best damn country the world has ever known”, he is not, in fact, arguing from experience…because this is impossible. Why? Again, because observation is not reason. He may think his experience as a Holocaust survivor suffices as an argument, but reason demands that this cannot be so.

If Mr. Greenfield wants to argue that the U.S. Is the world’s greatest country he must provide an actual reason, not merely a perception. And if his reason, rooted in his fundamental beliefs, is not rationally consistent, then it is false. Period. Full stop. And no amount of experience, no matter how profound, can make it true.