philosophical and non philosophical topics
Yesterday was very strange.
Last Friday I finished up my metaphysics and promptly went on a short vacation to see some friends. I got home Tuesday night.
Then came yesterday. It was the first whole day in which I had to really spend time worrying about what to do now that I have written everything I ever wanted to.
The proper term for what happened was I flipped out.
Well, I guess this is it, the conclusion of this strange little saga which has been my foray into metaphysics. I get to go teach elementary school in rural Austria now. 2 whole pages in which you get to learn how to go from insanity to wisdom.
I have a final total version that contains the prologue and metaphysical ontology (slightly edited) here/ pdf. It’s just over 4 pages in length. I suspect I’ll edit some more and eventually I’ll have to do more with the middle section, but since it was the beginning and the end that really mattered to my current interests, I’m in no rush.
It is very odd completing everything you ever set out to complete (yes, it is a very good question why anyone should set out to write a new metaphysics and have no other plans). But I am happy I accomplished what I wanted. Truth is I never really thought I would.
(Sometimes not everyone understands.)
Everyone has experienced misunderstanding: either you have been misunderstood, misunderstood someone else, or, more likely, both.
When some do not understand and others do, then there is something different between the two groups: one group recognizes something about the world or themselves that the other does not. It is this mutual recognition that allows for metaphysical agreement, and lack thereof for metaphysical disagreement.
To change metaphysical understanding means to recognize, discover or invent something that was not previously recognized, which likewise identifies a deficiency in the prior understanding. However, this means going outside of your prior metaphysics and thence the failure of ontological relativity.
With the denial of accepted metaphysics, some (if not all) things that everyone previously believed to exist will now be denied. The people who believe the prior metaphysics are excluded, at least initially, from understanding the new metaphysics and hence ontological relativity fails. The person who is denying the prior metaphysics may be considered insane by those that are excluded (which could be everyone).
Moreover, when ontological relativity is foregone, the denial of insanity is put into question. Making a unique claim is, at first, indistinguishable from nonsense because there is nothing comparable anyone else has ever said. If no one has ever made a similar claim then there is no way to tell whether you have become damaged, i.e. lost your mind, and if this claim is metaphysical, it can lead to changes in all other aspects of thinking. Therefore changing your metaphysics is done at the risk of going insane.
No one pulls something from the metaphysical vacuum without risking being pulled in themself.
Metaphysical research done with love discovers a new worldview in relation to responsiblity to others. Therefore, since others are included, it is possible to change your metaphysical position without the completele loss of ontological relativity.
If you love with respect to other people, then you need not fear new worldviews. Any change that you make will inherently have something in common with others, even if they do not yet recognize what you have recognized. Moreover, any inferior worldview will be apparent because it will be comparatively limited in ways to identify with others.
Without love having a fractured worldview with shattered responsibilities is possible. You can start to be worried when you are unsure of what your commitments to yourself are: if you are not commited to valuing your sanity, then you have lost your ability to deny insanity.
Metaphysical research done with force discovers a new logic in relation to the language of others. Therefore, since others are included, it is possible to change your metaphysical position without the completele loss of ontological relativity.
If you use force with respect to other people, then you need not fear new logic. Any change that you make will inherently have something in common with others, even if they do not yet recognize what you have recognized. Moreover, any inferior logic will be apparent because it will be comparatively limited in ways to change others.
Without force having a fractured logic with shattered language is possible. You can start to be worried when you are unsure of what your own words describe: if you cannot describe insanity, then you have lost your ability to deny it.
Metaphysical research done with creativity discovers a new science in relation to other peoples’ view of nature. Therefore, since others are included, it is possible to change your metaphysical position without the completele loss of ontological relativity.
If you create with respect to other people, then you need not fear new science. Any change that you make will inherently have something in common with others, even if they do not yet recognize what you have recognized. Moreover, any inferior science will be apparent because it will be comparatively limited in ways to explore the world.
Without creativity having a fractured science with a shattered view of nature is possible. You can start to be worried when you are unsure of your own existence: if you cannot be sure of the existence of your sanity, then you cannot deny that you are insane.
If you have love, force and creativity then you are assured rationality even in unfamiliar territory. This means you have wisdom: the ability or skill to maintain and adapt your knowledge to future situations is called wisdom. Hence the greater love, force and creativity that you wield, the greater will be your wisdom.
Moreover, the basic metaphysics derived from the denial of insanity can now be built upon with confidence. Discipline is the foundation knowledge and wisdom is how we are able to extend it. If every distinction is made in such a way, then there will be no need to fear any argument.
Our ethical responsibility is to do our best to enrich the lives of others and to give others the opportunity to enrich us.
Everyone understands what it is to have an enriched life: everyone has had a friend, learned something of worth, or made the world a better place at some point (even by accident). Moreover, once you understand how your life has been enriched, then you understand how you could act in a similar manner for someone who is now in the position that you were in.
——————————–
Since I doubt anyone will read the few sentences above and simply agree that I have a good theory, I suppose some benefits of this theory should be mentioned*:
A few important distinctions: Mutual enrichment is not simply nourishment or pleasure. We are not enriched by merely eating; having a good meal with family can be enriching, but it is not the consumption of food alone that does this. Nor is mutual enrichment simply pleasure. Getting stoned may be fun, but everyone recognizes that, fun as it may be, it is not considered enriching.
If anyone can think of any problems please do tell. Until something better comes along or someone skewers it, this is my working ethical theory.
——————
* Much thanks to Dr. Richard Brown for inspiring me to write anything. You can have my steak when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
| Welcome. I'm interested by metaphysics, relativity, philosophy of science & language and women philosophically inclined or not. But there will probably be a bit of everything here.
More About Me Contact 
Suscribe RSS/Email |
Design by Beccary and Weblogs.us
·
XHTML
·
CSS
© :
Live free stats by StatCounter