Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

"should be simple"

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Many questions require answers over time. (Trinidad) And some like How do you know are direct and should be simple. This is not simple for people like
    Message 1 of 2 , May 1, 2005
      "Many questions require answers over time." (Trinidad)

      "And some like "How do you know" are direct and should be simple. This
      is not simple for people like me." (Knott)

      Part of this answer is in Nietzche: "that which does not kill me makes
      me stronger". This is essentially about how one "knows" and should
      not be taken as altruistic or ascetic. It is akin to Christianity in
      that it counsels marginalized efforts at understanding through trial
      and error. It is not profound or unique, but in fact quite ordinary.
      If I were to drive a nail through my hand (having never done it
      before) I would experience a certain immediate (but after the fact in
      real time) awareness of empirically derived realizations of existence.
      All of these are are able to be analyzed and similarly reproduced.
      After the experience I would be faced with a modified choice. I would
      now know some of the empirical consequences to my absorbtion of
      existence when driving a nail through my hand, and should I choose to
      do so again the previous experience would weigh into my decision. The
      shocked lab-rat learning process; not particularly deep. Human beings
      are possessed of a bit more ingenuity. The angst ridden statement
      "This is not simple for people like me" is answered in "Courage in
      battle is going forward". In a sense, the recollection of the
      recollection of having driven a nail through one's hand creates an
      entirely new space or venue of decision. In this new space the
      philosophical perspective is born. One has conquered the empirical
      experience of driving the nail through one's hand only to find a whole
      new field of battle arises within. This is the field of meaning. For
      Sartre this is: "death is a continuation of my life – without me" For
      the Christian this field is won. For the post-modernist this field is
      lost. For the scientist and for Nietzche this field is an ongoing
      battle. Driving a nail through one's hand can answer neither the
      empirical questions, nor the call to philosophical battle of setting
      one's self on fire. The scientist, like Nietzche, and later Sartre,
      can only propose philosophical dynamics that hold until new
      information, new conflicts, arise. When a Christian claims to follow a
      man risen from the dead, a scientist does not necessarily dispute the
      claim, but rather is seized with investigative interest, and the
      philosophical scientist like Sartre asks: "What good does it do to
      rise from the dead for a human being, beyond being alive again?".
      Existence is relentlessly pitiless. Where is the meaning of a man that
      does not end? The battle weary philosopher goes forward, because he
      knows that the field of battle has an end, and he pursues that end
      precisely to give meaning to the battlefield. The end of the
      battlefield is circumscribed by the philosopher's species-wide
      empirical capacity. Beyond that is another battlefield circumscribed
      by the new and different empirical capacity of a new species. I see in
      modern western man an ordinary configuration of self-indulgent
      Nietzchean and religious angst engaged in the pursuit of happiness
      above all. The psychosomatic dynamic of religion is really no
      different than the street gang. Like Sartre I think: "to lie well, you
      have to be a lie yourself." For Christians this is already
      self-accomplished. Driven by this same pursuit of happiness the
      western academic post-modernist loses track of his ordinary identity
      in a storm of angst and arrogance driven relentlessly by an impatience
      with discomfort over a lack of meaning. Meaning only comes with
      endings. Lasting happiness is only attained through patience, the
      patience to endure all the endings. For Sartre: "I exist, it's sweet,
      so sweet – so slow". One may not philosophically swallow infinity
      whole as a concept. Scientifically it is not even considered theory,
      falling rather into the realm of speculation. On our intrinsic
      philosophical battlefield there is no meaning except endings. Until we
      absorb all the endings that we have the empirical capacity to absorb
      we will remain the same as a species. It is not a curse, only a fact.
      If Sartre goes on with seeming contradiction in: "hell is other
      people" and yet "I was too loved to have doubts of myself" we have hit
      the dynamic of human interaction as it is. Where I begin another ends,
      and where I end another begins. On our ordinary human intrinsic
      philosophical battlefield it is ever the fact. Our endings are our
      meaning. Your phrase "should be simple" is a lie, and it has made you

      Trinidad Cruz
    • Knott
      ... I ask a question and you give me a meaningless and rambling diatribe on nothing at all -- or whatever pleases you. From your assurance that you have great
      Message 2 of 2 , May 1, 2005
        > "And some like "How do you know" are direct and should be simple. This
        > is not simple for people like me." (Knott)

        I ask a question and you give me a meaningless and rambling diatribe on nothing at
        all -- or whatever pleases you. From your assurance that you have great
        understanding, the ablity to know for certain should be simple--that was my point.
        From snippets of the larger bulk of words, you seemed to almost answer by saying, in
        effect, "I know from my senses" (which is a simple answer). Then you say that it is not
        simple by calling me a liar (insult seems necessary to proof for you), but you don't say
        (clearly) why not.

        You perversely answer the simple question with an overblown answer, as if you wish
        to disguise that you don't know, or that you understand that you don't know and
        admit it -- because it isn't really simple. As usual, your abiguity leads me to these
        conclusions. apparently like Bob, you think that circumlocution is far better than
        distilling a point.

        I can be quite clear on this; I don't know. I can't claim to know a damned thing, can't
        prove it, can't believe my senses, can't explain anything. I might be entirely insane (if
        sanity is a reality). Within the context of what i perceive as life, I could bundle some
        things that appear to hold true...yet i can't define that this experience is reality, and
        that those bundled things are 'truth'.

        You are so damned sure...and you say you know what I am thinking. Perhaps you are
        gawd and the reason you don't like christianity is that it takes away from those who
        should be worshipping you instead?

        Endulge these questions:

        1. are you violent ?
        2. can you name one fact that is not faith based?
        3. what is freedom to you?

        Alladin Pandora
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.