Such a minefield (and mind field!) of opportunity for cooptation and manipulation through language, especially trigger keywords that can derail or rechannel whole herds of those captured by the "spells." A tricky business espec. as quantum theory apparently reinforces the postmodernist/subjectivist view.
To me (subjective alert, LOL) the key insight here is exposing how such philosophical sleights-of-word are basically a way to rationalize and justify one's own worldview and interest in controlling the narrative to one's own political advantage.
This whole question of the relationship between words and meaning inevitably leads one towards several questions - Is there an independent reality existing apart from that of my mind? (My answer is to this question is a resounding yes, and I believe that I am in the company of all great philosophers here). 2. What is the influence of language upon shaping our perception of that reality? (Still thinking about this one, but the relationship of consciousness and language clearly presents a chicken-and-egg problem.), and 3. What is Consciousness? (Here we have arrived at the Great Mystery)... So although it may seem an absurd use of time to argue in defence of something that we all know exists (objective reality), it has led me to contemplation of what I think are the ultimate questions... So I consider this exercise a good use of time, as esoteric and abstruse as it might seem... we really should be able to answer the question "How do we know what we think we know?" if we really want people to listen to us... Personally, I think that there are satisfactory answers to the great questions, even if there are limits to the knowledge we are able to attain as mortals.
I agree with the premise that there is reality independent of our minds and language. The problem lies in the same area as political shape-shifting: how do we describe that reality in a consensus fashion? Where you and I may agree, Dr. Soandso apparently may not. So whose reality check will prevail?
To answer your question, I think that we must return to first principles (as Paul argues in Towards An Anarchist Metaphysics), and re-establish a basis of unity based upon what we can all agree on... And in doing so, I think that we should not assume that everyone is acting in good faith... Some people are not trying to orient themselves towards the truth, and at this stage engaging with them does not seem beneficial to me. A clever lawyer can argue that a table is an onion or that a corporation is a person or that snow is black, but by doing so they will have added absolutely nothing of value to the discourse. For me, part of this whole process involves learning to listen to the intuition, which is the domain of the right hemisphere of the brain. Personally, I dont think that my left eye is more important than my right eye, and I think that the belief that left-brain rationalization is superior to right-brain associative processing is akin to such a belief.
Good question! Its one Ive been working on... I'll post a couple of thoughts here which I will flesh out in future posts.
I
In his important essay Necessary Subjectivity, Paul Cudenec presents two statements about objective truth. They are:
1. It is impossible for us to be completely objective about the truth.
2. There is such a thing as completely objective truth.
II
If anarchism is to survive the ideological collapse of the Left, there is a need to return to first principles. There is a need to clarify anarchist theory. There is a need to go back to basics. What is anarchism all about? What is the essence of this idea? What can all anarchists agree on? What basis of unity do anarchists all have?
The first problem that we will encounter is that postmodernists are basically opposed to the idea that such a thing as ¨an essence¨ of an idea can exist. There can only be an infinite number of perspectives about what an idea means, each of which is equally valid. Post-modernists come very close to denying the existence of objective reality itself. Now, if we were to accept this, it naturally follows that there is no such thing as truth. How convenient for the liars, lawyers, and politicians of the world!
Now, clearly, if we can´t even agree that reality is real, we don´t have much of a basis of unity. So it has become necessary to state the obvious - the truth is not a matter of opinion.
Now, truthfully, we all know from personal experience that there is such a thing as truth. If you have ever been falsely accused of something, you know what the truth is. If you have had ever had a compelling reason to know the truth of a particular matter, because you suspected that you were being deceived, it is very likely that the truth was something very real to you, something that you felt in your gut as much as in your mind.
What there is something important at stake, the nature of Truth is not a question for philosophers in their Ivory Towers. It is a question of vital, practical importance for human beings in just about any sphere of activity.
III
And now, we arrive at a question which, I hope, will take this idea out of the realm of pure abstraction into something more useful.
The question is this: Is Fire Hot? Does the essence of fire include the quality of heat?
I give this example for a simple reason: because it would be so easy to prove that anyone arguing against this is wrong. One could simply offer them a flaming torch and challenge them to put their hand into the flame.
At that point, they must either concede that fire is hot or burn themselves.
And this, I think, is one thing that all people, even the most intellectually dishonest, should be able to agree upon. Fire is hot. Pain is real. Objective reality exists. Not everything is a matter of opinion.
I appreciate the intent to clarify true essence whether abstract or material. I think it's one of those fundamental paradoxes: we know it exists, and it's impossible to describe exactly, but we must try anyway. And in the process, the right brain can help us be satisfied with the effort, or even wonderfully surprised!
So for every example, there will be some dissent: even with fire, there will be firewalkers who go beyond the essence of hot to some place deeper.
This is basically a form of absolute idealism which is based on Hegel who based it on Gnosticism and Hermetiscism. Originally in Hermeticism it was a way to defend the Creator God and praise him. In Gnosticism that then devolved into him becoming incompetent and being blasphemed as the "evil demiurge". Hegel then turned it absolute with the entire material, physical world being seen as an illusion and being demonized and having to be negated and destroyed in order to transcend it and reach the metaphysical which he sees as the only "real" reality. And Marx then inverted it, turning it from absolute idealism into absolute materialism.
Now one might think that that makes him opposed to Hegel and Marx himself claimed to be in opposition to Hegel. But we are forgetting that for Hegel the means of negating and transcending lie in his dialectical process which for Hegel is a process of creating contradiction and intentionally creating opposing sides, then bringing them into conflict and making them struggle with each other, thereby ultimately negating both extremes and transcending them. So Marx's seeming inversion of Hegel isn't so much actual opposition to Hegel as it is simply putting Hegel's teaching about his dialectical process into practice.
Now, all this might sound a bit complicated, but what I am really trying to say is that communism is a cult - literally.
Such a minefield (and mind field!) of opportunity for cooptation and manipulation through language, especially trigger keywords that can derail or rechannel whole herds of those captured by the "spells." A tricky business espec. as quantum theory apparently reinforces the postmodernist/subjectivist view.
To me (subjective alert, LOL) the key insight here is exposing how such philosophical sleights-of-word are basically a way to rationalize and justify one's own worldview and interest in controlling the narrative to one's own political advantage.
This whole question of the relationship between words and meaning inevitably leads one towards several questions - Is there an independent reality existing apart from that of my mind? (My answer is to this question is a resounding yes, and I believe that I am in the company of all great philosophers here). 2. What is the influence of language upon shaping our perception of that reality? (Still thinking about this one, but the relationship of consciousness and language clearly presents a chicken-and-egg problem.), and 3. What is Consciousness? (Here we have arrived at the Great Mystery)... So although it may seem an absurd use of time to argue in defence of something that we all know exists (objective reality), it has led me to contemplation of what I think are the ultimate questions... So I consider this exercise a good use of time, as esoteric and abstruse as it might seem... we really should be able to answer the question "How do we know what we think we know?" if we really want people to listen to us... Personally, I think that there are satisfactory answers to the great questions, even if there are limits to the knowledge we are able to attain as mortals.
I agree with the premise that there is reality independent of our minds and language. The problem lies in the same area as political shape-shifting: how do we describe that reality in a consensus fashion? Where you and I may agree, Dr. Soandso apparently may not. So whose reality check will prevail?
To answer your question, I think that we must return to first principles (as Paul argues in Towards An Anarchist Metaphysics), and re-establish a basis of unity based upon what we can all agree on... And in doing so, I think that we should not assume that everyone is acting in good faith... Some people are not trying to orient themselves towards the truth, and at this stage engaging with them does not seem beneficial to me. A clever lawyer can argue that a table is an onion or that a corporation is a person or that snow is black, but by doing so they will have added absolutely nothing of value to the discourse. For me, part of this whole process involves learning to listen to the intuition, which is the domain of the right hemisphere of the brain. Personally, I dont think that my left eye is more important than my right eye, and I think that the belief that left-brain rationalization is superior to right-brain associative processing is akin to such a belief.
Good question! Its one Ive been working on... I'll post a couple of thoughts here which I will flesh out in future posts.
I
In his important essay Necessary Subjectivity, Paul Cudenec presents two statements about objective truth. They are:
1. It is impossible for us to be completely objective about the truth.
2. There is such a thing as completely objective truth.
II
If anarchism is to survive the ideological collapse of the Left, there is a need to return to first principles. There is a need to clarify anarchist theory. There is a need to go back to basics. What is anarchism all about? What is the essence of this idea? What can all anarchists agree on? What basis of unity do anarchists all have?
The first problem that we will encounter is that postmodernists are basically opposed to the idea that such a thing as ¨an essence¨ of an idea can exist. There can only be an infinite number of perspectives about what an idea means, each of which is equally valid. Post-modernists come very close to denying the existence of objective reality itself. Now, if we were to accept this, it naturally follows that there is no such thing as truth. How convenient for the liars, lawyers, and politicians of the world!
Now, clearly, if we can´t even agree that reality is real, we don´t have much of a basis of unity. So it has become necessary to state the obvious - the truth is not a matter of opinion.
Now, truthfully, we all know from personal experience that there is such a thing as truth. If you have ever been falsely accused of something, you know what the truth is. If you have had ever had a compelling reason to know the truth of a particular matter, because you suspected that you were being deceived, it is very likely that the truth was something very real to you, something that you felt in your gut as much as in your mind.
What there is something important at stake, the nature of Truth is not a question for philosophers in their Ivory Towers. It is a question of vital, practical importance for human beings in just about any sphere of activity.
III
And now, we arrive at a question which, I hope, will take this idea out of the realm of pure abstraction into something more useful.
The question is this: Is Fire Hot? Does the essence of fire include the quality of heat?
I give this example for a simple reason: because it would be so easy to prove that anyone arguing against this is wrong. One could simply offer them a flaming torch and challenge them to put their hand into the flame.
At that point, they must either concede that fire is hot or burn themselves.
And this, I think, is one thing that all people, even the most intellectually dishonest, should be able to agree upon. Fire is hot. Pain is real. Objective reality exists. Not everything is a matter of opinion.
There is indeed such as thing as truth.
And we all already knew that.
I appreciate the intent to clarify true essence whether abstract or material. I think it's one of those fundamental paradoxes: we know it exists, and it's impossible to describe exactly, but we must try anyway. And in the process, the right brain can help us be satisfied with the effort, or even wonderfully surprised!
So for every example, there will be some dissent: even with fire, there will be firewalkers who go beyond the essence of hot to some place deeper.
Extraordinary, true and deep as always.
Thank you! I feel like this material might be overly arcane for many, so Im happy that some of our readers are enjoying it!
This is basically a form of absolute idealism which is based on Hegel who based it on Gnosticism and Hermetiscism. Originally in Hermeticism it was a way to defend the Creator God and praise him. In Gnosticism that then devolved into him becoming incompetent and being blasphemed as the "evil demiurge". Hegel then turned it absolute with the entire material, physical world being seen as an illusion and being demonized and having to be negated and destroyed in order to transcend it and reach the metaphysical which he sees as the only "real" reality. And Marx then inverted it, turning it from absolute idealism into absolute materialism.
Now one might think that that makes him opposed to Hegel and Marx himself claimed to be in opposition to Hegel. But we are forgetting that for Hegel the means of negating and transcending lie in his dialectical process which for Hegel is a process of creating contradiction and intentionally creating opposing sides, then bringing them into conflict and making them struggle with each other, thereby ultimately negating both extremes and transcending them. So Marx's seeming inversion of Hegel isn't so much actual opposition to Hegel as it is simply putting Hegel's teaching about his dialectical process into practice.
Now, all this might sound a bit complicated, but what I am really trying to say is that communism is a cult - literally.