blog
I love Kant, the later Wittgenstein, Derrida, post structualism, postmodernism and the philosophy of language.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (St John, Ch. 1, v. 1)
Perhaps this is the genius of the writer of these words. God is language. End of story.
But if we take Saussure to his word then words are just a system of difference. We can conclude that God is what everything else it is not. The word God must be empty, must be a container holding meaning only inasmuch as it is a concept, never to fully have presence, eternally is God marked with absence.
It is rather strange (or rather not) that philosophy spends so little time question itself. We need a “Thomas S Kuhn of Philosophy”, someone to put a spotlight on the problems and habits of philosophy.
There is something comforting about Buddhism as a religion without gods to worship. And Buddhism is better than philosophy because it has application rather than being a theoretical thing. Philosophy does not have much of a system to deal with how to live.
So when I sit down and meditate or think about Buddha I look at it as embodying the ideals of the teaching (call it philosophy if you will). You can say then Buddha is the only philosopher who gave us a course in living.
As a person who looks at language for a living and have come to believe all of what we know and believe comes from a combination of experience, thought and language.
Not matter where we look cultures have religion. We, as human being, like to make religion, as much as we like to make language or literature. We are different to other animals in our ability to do so in such a way.
So I cannot be “against” religion, or language or literature. It is inherent in us to make religion, language, literature and the such.
What I do have believe, though, is that we also have the same capacity to “see through” the need for religion, language, literature, etc. For whatever reason we have religion, language, literature, etc, we have to learn to deal with it as reasoned but critical beings in a physical universe.
To know is to have a knower and things to know. Therefore, it entails space, objects, time and consciousness. Existence of things does not infer that there is a god or creator, only the state of affairs is such. For sense-tools to come into existence must mean the knower’s object-self is a priori, and has an “understanding”, that is, assumes the existence of space/object-time.
there, but not
seemingly with substance
like air
invisible until smoke
and glass
transparent until rain
or god
real until conceptualised
Should there be a subject?
Is there a difference between observing an external object and the internal one called the subject?
Is it here that Western philosophy fails?
Another person’s object can be a subject, and vice versa. By label of subject have we not created a subject-centric of the world when really there is no central view?
I can sympathise with OOO for this reason. But at the same time with sense as the only access to the world, we have no choice but to have a central view.
There is no (inside) joke.
It is not
I think therefore I am,
but rather,
I think I am, therefore I am.
The difference is one of illusion.
Loss of the ability to maintain awareness of self and environment combined with markedly reduced responsiveness to environmental stimuli. (From Adams et al., Principles of Neurology, 6th ed, pp344-5).
Source: https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/#/record/ui?ui=D014474
The question, then, is whether activity (perception) occurs in the mind (brain) during unconsciousness. Can or does perception continue? Do we interact with the mind-objects, the concepts we have acknowledged (gained knowledge of) even after the sensation of space-objects is shut off?
signature103 