Ok. Let’s see if I can be clear about what I’m saying. Then maybe our conversation will be a little more productive at this point.

1. The names we gave to objects are arbitrary. There is no necessary connection between the word “tree“ and that object in front of me that I attach that name to.

2. That fence in front of me has no necessary association with the name “fence“. Even if the fence somehow feels like it is more concrete, more like it has some “actual existence”, never will I find it’s “actual“ name.

3. similarly, a unicorn. Or God. Or spirit. Or “feelings”. None of these things have a necessary correlation with what they are supposed to be referring to.

4. likewise “Sense”. Whatever we might mean by sense, there is no necessarily relationship between the word that I’m using and the thing that it’s supposed to be referring to.

5. Whatever we categorize or place within the name of sense, we have to take a count for that this sense is being discerned through thinking or knowing, or some sort of situation that has to do with something else besides the fact that I just smashed my finger with a hammer. And this is so because again, there is no necessary correlation between the terms that I used to describe my finger getting smashed and blood going all over the place, and the actual event of the pain and broken bones.

Yes, I may be able to go over to that tree and discover that indeed there is something that I am calling or naming a tree that coordinates with the site of it, the touch of it, etc.

Further, I am so so so so fucking tired of this goddamn word press block editor I want to completely give up this conversation entirely and never use word press again.


Similarly. Someone could say that France exist on the other side of the globe. And indeed I could go over there and find a bunch of people saying this is France, and I could verify that indeed France is there.

Someone could say that there is this thing called philosophy. Similarly I could find a bunch of people to get together and they could identify some things that I have encountered as philosophy.

Similarly, someone could say that God is with us, and I could encounter that thing which is God.

I feel that you are failing to give me sufficient criteria to understand how you are able to discern between what objects exist actually, and ones that just exist in fantasy or whatever or that don’t exist.

It seems to me that you are assuming something that is common or foundational, and I am giving you evidence that it is not, and you are completely rejecting the evidence that I’m giving you. Not just rejecting it has some sort of intellectual exercise, but indeed are rejecting it from some sort of innate capacity. It literally is as though you are unable to see the evidence that I’m giving you, that I’m handing you right in front of you.

We might reread Lyotard Differend. And see that he is describing this exact situation that is occurring between us. And indeed we could re-read Derrida and see that he is describing this exact situation.

It is as though there is something that is informing your ability to think about things. Something that is informing your ability to know, that you completely disregard, because this thing that is informing you you innately axiomatically and reflexively comprehend it as “the universe”. So much so that even as I’m giving you evidence that contradicts many of the things that you pose, you simply cannot see it because it arises “outside” of that universe that you think is ubiquitous.

This is how it is appearing to me. This is how our conversation is coming across to me. 

2 thoughts on “Clarity.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s