Category Archives: General Philosophy

Me Saying I’m Not You is Not the Same Thing as Me Saying, “There’s Only Me”: A rebuttal to accusations of subjectivism

General Philosophy, Metaphysics, , , , , , , , ,

The knee jerk reaction to my ideas is to assume that when I appeal to the SELF–the individual human being–as the metaphysical irreducible and thus the only rational moral and epistemological absolute Standard (“epistemological” in this context meaning, how we know that what we know is in fact true), that I’m making the contention that my SELF is the only salient Self.

Several attempts have been made by people whose intellect I admire to link my ideas to Kantian Subjectivism in this manner…the thought being that since I deny a Standard of Truth and Morality outside of Self, that “reality”–as they call it, “external reality” (an illogical definition entirely) must necessarily be based upon whatever whim I, alone, devise.

Now, it isn’t that I don’t understand why some people believe this, it’s just that I think it is simply because they have been functioning according to the “this or that” dualism of Aristotle vs. Plato for so long that they aren’t able to integrate any truly new ideas.  Indeed, even averring that I am presenting “new” ideas would likely be taken as a grand apostasy.

But it is a logical fallacy to believe that just because I declare that I am ME and YOU are YOU, and absolutely so, that this must mean that I am the only one who actually exists; which is precisely what I am accused of asserting.  The loose logic is that since all knowledge is a function of the senses (it isn’t; its a function of the ability to sense, which is a function of the ability to conceptualize SELF as “he who senses”) which observe “objective reality outside you”then we must assume that “objective reality” is a function of the “cause and effect” of (invisible) physical laws which “govern”.  In short, any appeal to a Standard of Truth except that which the senses first observe is labeled subjectivism.

As ostensibly rational as this argument is, its fatal weakness is that it doesn’t come close to answering the question: What is man?  And as I have submitted on numerous occasions, if you cannot rationally answer that question then the rest of what you believe about anything is immaterial.  If there is no definition of man–and a definition of man cannot be: an absolute function of a reality OUTSIDE himself because that is a rank contradiction, and makes man a direct function of that which is “outside of him”…or said another way, of that which is NOT him–…yes, if there is no definition of man then there can be no relevance to what he believes. Because “he” must be declared something, and even more, something capable of being aware of his own relevance to the existential equation.  And this awareness cannot be a function of that which is outside of him, because that makes his awareness not his own, in fact, but whatever “caused” him.  However I submit that awareness must be an innate function of man’s ability to be himself; anything else removes man from his own consciousness, which makes all appeals to man’s existence a lie.  For a man who is fundamentally unable to be aware, and this awareness of himself, cannot be said to know anything.

Man’s ability to be himself IS his ability to KNOW himself, and his ability to KNOW himself is his ability to conceptualize himself as juxtaposed to the conceptualization of what is NOT himself.  Both the SELF of man and the Environment of man are predicated upon man’s ability to know–to conceptualize–them both.  There is no thing, “inside” or “outside” of man, which is not conceptualized in order to be understood, made relevant and efficacious, and applied to the promotion of man’s identity.  And there is nothing conceptualized which is not a function of man’s inherent ability to conceptualize.

From this I argue that reason is simply the internal rational consistency of the “conceptual paradigm” as I call it (I’m not a linguist by trade; they probably have an “official” name for that to which I am referring).  Meaning, man’s ability to take the concepts he uses to organize and reconcile himself to his environment, and thereby create his own specific identity, cannot contradict one another.

In other words, man’s relationship to his environment cannot be paradoxical (as in “contradictory”), and the only way to assure that this is not the case is to reject  descriptions of reality which are, within the conceptual framework–which is man’s only means by which to reconcile  himSELF to his Environment (the basis for “existence)–mutually exclusive.

For example, if we believe that John Immel (of spiritualtyranny.com, and a friend, a philosophical critic of mine, and a brilliant thinker and deft writer) is both determined by God and yet also has free will, we have violated conceptual consistency, since “determined” and “free-willed” cannot both have the same absolute reference.  John Immel cannot be given the characteristics of abstract concept X and Y when X and Y are conceptual opposites.  And this means that the assertion must be false.  John Immel cannot be both determined and have free will, because it defies reason (conceptual consistency) and thus cannot be a valid explication of “reality”, since “reality” is, in fact, its own concept.  And if reality is a concept then its definition must be non-paradoxical; that is, it cannot be defined by conceptual characteristics which are antipodal.  If we attempt to explain “truth” by appealing to conceptual opposites as its fundamental basis we have violated reason; and since reason is the only way to arrive at truth, we cannot violate reason and still claim truth.

Further, if truth is the means by which man’s SELF, man’s identity, is affirmed, a violation of truth is in fact a violation of morality, since man is the root conceptualizing agent and thus all truth rests with him as reference.  If he is denied, nothing can be called good (or evil), because “good” can no longer be defined, since the means to apprehend truth, man’s ability to conceptualize SELF, is invalidated.  Truth and morality are corollaries, I submit, and both are a function of reason.

Therefore to concede conceptual paradox as the basis for “reality” is both false AND evil, is my point.  Man’s existence is affirmed by truth; and since man is he who possesses the ability to conceptualize, he is the one whom truth serves.  And for truth not to serve him is evil.  Put simply:  insofar as truth and morality are corollaries, so are evil and lie.

*

That which is said to be true cannot be predicated upon conceptual opposites.  Concepts are used by man to promote the primary concept of SELF upon the Environment, and this is not possible if those concepts used to promote the SELF are found to contradict on their way to concluding with the SELF as the metaphysical absolute.  This is the philosophical equivalent of doing a maze puzzle and claiming you arrived at the “END” by drawing a straight line from “START”.  You cannot blow through all the dead ends and say you’ve correctly arrived at the logical conclusion.  It just doesn’t work that way.

According to all of the above rationale, in order to condemn me as a subjectivist means that one must show how I can proclaim conceptual consistency as reason, and reason as truth, and truth as goodness, while at the same time denying that other human beings can be conceptualized any other way except as full-fledged metaphysical singularities.  In other words, as THEMSELVES, or OTHER SELVES.

But here’s the problem with doing that:  Since they can recognize ME as not THEM, and consistently and empirically use and apply the concept of I, and ME, and MYSELF, just as I do, it is impossible to define them except as SELVES without violating the conceptual paradigm and thus violating reason and truth and morality.  Therefore, in the interest of maintaining conceptual consistency, according to my philosophy, I must assume that I am NOT the only SELF in existence.  It would be a violation of the conceptual paradigm to call ME the only true SELF, and then relegate all other human beings to the status of mere objects.  Rationally, this simply does not work.  A chair, a car, a tree, a breeze do not use the pronoun “I” or “me”; nor do they refer to me as “YOU”.  Not even Artificial Intelligence (which is a completely false threat, and is based on the assumption that human awareness is a function of unconscious particles coming together as a function of the “causal” laws of physics which “govern”…which, um…yeah, unconscious cannot by defintion = conscious)…yes, not even Artificial Intelligence can refer to its own “style”, its hopes and dreams, placing itself at the very center of a conceptual paradigm by which it is understood by the very structure of what comprises it, that Truth is meant to serve it, and not the other way around.  A talking computer cannot pontificate upon or exegete its feelings or dreams or make itself as the subject of a “future” or “past”.  Only the human being can do that.

And even if the computer could do this it would not invalidate my argument; for we define a sentient being not by its body or its “objective” material form, but its ability to recognize itself as its own existential constant; its own metaphysical absolute.  “I” means not the body, it means the root by which all that is defined as existing, as an IS, has any relevance or meaning or purpose or truth or goodness at all.  In other words “I” is a metaphysical concept, not a physical one.

But what my critics argue is that somehow my philosophy demands that I observe humanity as a thing, not as a SELF; which I declare is impossible according to my rational plumb line: reason.  Which I define as conceptual consistency.

On the contrary, it is not my, but their objectivist, empiricist philosophy which demands human beings must be things, not metaphysical singularities; not sentient agents; not thinking SELVES.  They are the ones who demagogue “objective reality” as being a function of the “laws of physics”, which are unseen, unknowable apart from “material reality”, and unable to effect or affect anything at all absent material reality first, and man’s ability to conceptually organize reality before that.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny any that another human being outside of oneself has any intrinsic character.  Their philosophy must proclaim consciousness an illusion and assume that all references to one’s own awareness are either illusory or madness.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny any real efficacy of the senses, and ignore another person’s appeals to “self” and “me”, and to reference “you” and “us”, and dismiss them as merely the predetermined ramblings of programmed organic robots who have no actual understanding of such concepts because such thinking agents simply cannot rationally exist in the “real world” of the “objective” causal universe.  Outside of oneself of course.  After all, someone must be privy to the “truth”.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which must deny human conceptual consistency as that which is reasonable, fundamentally destroying and rendering inert both truth and morality.  It is their philosophy, not mine, which must observe human beings as external objects which can have nothing to do with those concepts which affect the “objective, observing self”, because “self” in this paradigm can only be defined exclusively as the one who can observe his own consciousness–“me, and no one else”–and thus the only one who can claim to properly observe and thus parse reality “objectively”.

They, not me, must assume that “future”, “past”, “love”, “want”, “need”, “hope”, etc. can have nothing to do with others they observe, because they do not concede that a rational conceptual definition of “other person” has anything to do with reality.  Other human beings are not products of their own ability to conceptualize SELF, thereby referring to themselves in the first person singular and placing themselves at the center of the conceptual paradigm, just as they do.

It is their philosophy, not mine, which subordinates all humanity to the subjective whims of the only one who can, by their rationale, be “real”.

And who is that?

It is he who calls himself: the observer.

But I do not preach the reality of the observer.  I preach the reality of the SELF, who must, in order to rationally define SELF, must define OTHER as his metaphysical equal.  Equally aware and equally valuable and equally entitled to the sum and substance of their own lives.

Limited Government is Absolutely Impossible

General Philosophy

You cannot have “limited” government because you cannot limit an absolute.

Let me explain.

In its true essence, “government” is an abstraction.  In other words, “government” has no inherent, autonomous, material (what I would call “actual”) value absent the objective and specific reference of the individual human being.  But by the false Platonist logic so pervasive in the world today, government is considered a full-on autonomous and active entity/agent in and of itself, possessing a singular and distinct will and causality, and, most relevantly/dangerously, the inherent mandated FORCE to compel outcomes.  And since “government” is absolute, this force is absolutely of government.  Thus, and necessarily, it can only be used in service to government.

What the assumption of “government-as-material-and-sentient” does is effectively bring to “life” what is in reality an absolute abstraction.  Now, I say “absolute” because outside of a material reference, abstractions are absolutely what they are.  For example, “blue”, absent a reference to some material thing which is blue (like a blue hat, or a blue car) cannot be defined except as itself.  Which is to say that”blue”, absent material, tangible reality, can only be defined as “blue”.  In other words, blue is blue…is blue is blue is blue.  It is what it is.  “Blue” in a vacuum of itself is absolutely–is infinitely–blue.  It is its own reference.

With respect then to the conceptual abstraction of “government”, once we give it the authority to compel outcomes, materially speaking–that is, effecting outcomes upon humanity and its material environment–we have conceded that what is absolute–what is infinite–has a not only the endemic power but also the endemic right to thrust its infinity of Self upon the world, subjugating everything else to itself, which it must do in order for it to maintain the integrity of its inviolable infinite nature.  When the conceptual abstraction is somehow (never rationally…it takes a sophist argument) given its own autonomous “reality” and “existence” there is no room for anything or anyone else.

In truth, a conceptual abstraction such as–well, let’s stick with “blue”–is a function of objects…what we might describe as material and tangible artifacts, accessible to the senses.  These objects are referenced to man…meaning they are given their own conceptual definitions.  These are thus the non-abstract concepts.  “Hat”, for example, is still a concept, but it is not abstract because it is a function of a specific (or specifically observed) material object; as opposed to “blue” which is not, itself, a function of any specific material object.  It is a subcategory of the the abstraction of “color”.  Just like the number “four” is a subcategory of the abstraction “integers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “numbers”, a subcategory of the abstraction “mathematics”.

These concepts are devised in the interest of promoting humanity’s comfort and existence, nothing more.  Any attempt to make these concepts something else…any effort to ascribe to them innate, autonomous characteristics, a unique and separate metaphysic and power, is artifice, either wittingly or unwittingly.  Do not doubt me.  It is impossible to rationally ascribe to any concept some actualizing force or metaphysically unique existence.  And all attempts to act from such notions must ultimately end in the destruction of humanity.

So, to reiterate: conceptual abstractions are referenced to material objects (which are given conceptual definitions, thereby making them non-abstract concepts) which are referenced to individual human beings. But in the Platonist world in which we live this equation is turned into its exact opposite, and humanity is referenced to objects (meaning that man becomes a direct function of the “objective” material universe “outside” of him–molecules, atoms, particles), and these objects are a direct function of conceptual abstractions.

These conceptual abstractions can be almost anything, but the most common ones are: the Laws of Physics (or Nature) which “govern” (and which, you will notice, are “discovered”, as opposed to devised by humans), the Church, the Race, the Common Good/your Brother’s Good (Keeper), God’s Will, and the daddy of them all, and that which all of them inexorably imply, the Government/State.  And all of these “institutions” are ascribed one thing in common, and it is the only thing which really matters in the end:  Total Authority

For example, when we speak of limiting government power, notice how it is assumed that it must done through the apparatus of government.  This effectively makes any “decrease” in power really an increase… there is no difference.  There is no such thing as something self-limiting itself; this is pure contradiction.  The power of government to “self-limit” is in fact a direct function and therefore a direct extension of its power.  Thus, as I have argued, when we institute a conceptual abstraction which is and can only be infinite in its essence and imbue it with causal power, it must and can only increase while the individual must and can only decrease.  There is no decrease within the absolute of “government”.  You see, because it is absolute it absolutely increases.  While the individual–who cannot by definition be absolute if the concept to which he categorically ties his very existence is absolute–must therefore absolutely decrease.

In the presence of these all powerful magical, ethereal, transcendent causal abstractions which, it is assumed, must by their nature govern man (and this then absolutely), the Standard–the singularity; the non-relative constant–is no longer the human individual who perceives all life and reality and truth from his own singular, inexorable, indivisible, absolute and infinite frame of reference…from Self.  Rather, the individual becomes a direct and determined function of a Standard of Truth and Morality outside of himself, to which he is utterly and existentially obligated to subordinate (sacrifice) himself.  Because man is no longer a direct function of himself, he is considered a direct function of that new Standard…that abstraction which must fully govern him by its very nature, because man is an absolute extension of said Standard when the metaphysics are boiled down to their irreducible conclusion.

Okay, here we go.

This means that human consciousness and volition is an illusion.  Any claim to an individual identity of Self must be recognized as a lie; and in order for the individual to access truth–which means reality–he must reject all claims to innate epistemological adequacy because of the absence of any individual metaphysic.  Man can know nothing except the governing Rule…except that upon which his very survival, his very existence, his very Self, depends.   In other words, the individual must have his reality interpreted for him by that which is said to govern him, because alone, he is unable to grasp it, his consciousness being illusory and merely a product of his own inherently depraved nature–that is, a nature which makes existence of himself and therefore to himself impossible.  The only purpose of individual man’s life then is to sacrifice himself to whatever conceptual abstraction he decides he is dependent upon for his very survival, which, again, means his very existence.  And how many people do you know will ever acknowledge the idea that man can survive without the power and rule of a Central Authority to govern him “for his own good”…that is, without a formal (read “conceptually abstract”) codification of rules by a formally (read again “conceptually abstract”) established, authoritative institution which must inevitably and ultimately compel man by force into “right” thinking and behavior?

I have proposed that man does not derive his morality from obeying laws, but rather by his own absolute, infinite ability to be himself.  I have asserted this:  that reason dictates that the only rational and thus true moral Standard is the individual human being, and thus only direct violations of individuals merit and demand justice; that man derives his morality and innate Truth by being himself, a premise which, taken to its logical conclusion, means that man must recognized the inherent right of ALL individuals to be themselves.

When I present my assertion to even some of the most enlightened thinkers I know I am met with the response: “How do you render justice for any violations of individuals without the codification of Law as a rubric?”  With respect, this is merely a way of justifying the absolute authority of the State. What this means is that unless a specific group of individuals get together and come to a consensus on what constitutes morality, as a function of an abstract Standard (the “Law”), which is a function of their group, abstractly defined as the “State” or “Government” (in order to put distance between themselves and the inevitable destruction such a group must inflict upon all life and reality–to give themselves a moral get-out-of-jail free card), and then create the necessary army to enforce such a code by threat of violence upon another group of men, there can be no such thing as justice.  Justice then becomes the abstraction to which all individuals (except for those who somehow get a metaphysical and epistemological pass on their own inherently inadequate human metaphysic) is obligated.  Justice becomes merely then a euphemism for “government”.

And therefore what this means when all is said and done  is that a certain man or group of men must, by some magical/divine/cosmic mandate, rule all other men.  Completely.

There is no such thing as “limiting” this kind of power, because the power to govern is the power to claim that everyone else owes you the entirety of their lives because humanity can only be existentially manifest by being a direct function of that which enables its survival: the government.  

The idea of limiting that which is the absolute reference, and therefore the absolute purpose and objective, of the entirety of human life is patently absurd on its face.  To concede that man needs governing is to concede that man does not possess the metaphysical attributes necessary to live as an autonomous, self-actualizing, self-realizing, singular agent.  This being the case, man, who thus needs governing to exist, absolutely, needs government, absolutely.

*

You cannot limit the power of a conceptual abstraction which is given material “reality” and “causality” by a humanity which has abdicated its  natural right, moral obligation, and rational claim to exist of and to itself.  You can however limit the the power of individuals (which is all government really is–a collection of individuals) over you, but this of course demands that you appropriate a metaphysic of the singular human Self as the Standard of all Morality and Truth.  But getting people to even consider such a thing is an exercise in severe perseverance and frustration, never mind convincing them to accept it.  Nevertheless, only when we accept such a metaphysic can we understand and aver the existential truth that no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately exist as a proxy for anyone else (which is precisely what the government does; it is its entire purpose).  And no one person or group of people may rationally, morally, and thus legitimately commandeer another individual’s property, their time, labor, or lives, nor compel their behavior by violence or threats of violence.

In short, because all people are autonomous in their person, having an absolute frame of reference for life–themselves–then all people are existentially equal.  Which means that it is not rational, and is in fact immoral, to argue that it is necessary and inevitable that man must be governed–that some people must be ruled by other people, in any capacity whatsoever.

Do Not Violate an Individual’s Body; DO Violate Their Sensibilities if it Suits You

General Philosophy, , , ,

Sensibility (opinion, based upon one’s own frame of reference) is much too broad, subjective, and capricious to be considered a practical moral standard.  For anyone can change their mind, and they almost certainly will, given the ever shifting nature of personal context.  For example, if I appropriate a new idea (I would argue it’s an axiom), such as “everyone is entitled to decide what a particular symbol means to them personally”, then I will be less prone–or not prone at all–to taking offense at symbols which might have previously offended me.  Clearly then it is patently irrational for others to not display the symbols they hold dear because of my “offense”.  And this is because my offense has been shown, by virtue of my decision to accept a new premise, to be a poor standard of the morality of other people’s behavior…it is obviously capricious, given to change depending upon what I accept as true.  And since no one else can have any control over my sensibilities, because these sensibilities are a function of my own unique and individual perspective, when I declare them the moral standard I hold everyone else hostage to my personal whim. This is not only irrational, it is unreasonable.  And more than that.  It is evil.  Ideas, opinions, beliefs, superstitions…sure, these things are fine in the pursuit of one’s goals and in the living out of one’s life, but because of their vacillating nature, and because they are a direct function of the singular perspective of each individual, they do not make a good moral standard. In short, ideas and thoughts are fundamentally abstract, and abstractions, being intangible, cannot be references themselves, because they don’t have existence.  They must be referenced to something which does exist; which has tangible, empirical essence; which is objective; which does not change; which is not a matter of opinion; which is not dependent upon any one person’s perspective; which cannot be said to somehow “exist” beyond the perception of the senses…the senses being the means by which we manifest ourselves upon our environment; which makes them the means by which we organize–to efficacious, rational, and thus moral purposes–our lives. On the other hand, the individual human body is an extremely practical standard.  It is not a matter of opinion or preference.  For anyone can change their minds, but in equal absolute measure no one can change their bodies.  We can all observe each others body, but in equal absolute measure none of us can observe each others sensibilities.  We can have a rational context for each others bodies; we cannot  have a rational context for each others sensibilities, or opinions, or ideas, or perspectives, because those are a function of absolute individual existence.  We can sympathize, we can empathize, we can commiserate, we can agree, we can love, but we cannot BE another person.  And so we can never have access to what they really think, nor ever absolutely or fully understand just why they think it. Do not violate another person’s body, but never enslave your own mind or body or actions to the subjective sensibilities of other people.  The former is the philosophy of lovers of life and peace; the latter the philosophy of tyrants, despots, murderers, deceivers, sociopaths, narcissists, Marxists, Fascists, demons, and the walking dead.