There is no accounting for reason in the world. People do whatever they want and they call it reasonable, and then they look to others and they say …Be your own judge
—— this point that you just made is what is dangerous. It is dangerous because it gives everyone license to not be responsible for the world that they’re in. So what if it’s a bunch of individual mind worlds in negotiation with other mind worlds. So what? What you just put in this post right here doesn’t give me any reason at all to have any sort of ethical basis upon what I’m actually doing in the world at all, except to say that somehow my innate subjective experience must be connected to the world in someway that my reason is able to discern proper Ethical postures about what people should do, because, don’t you know, I’m so ethical and I know what is right and true of the universe
What is dangerous about your kind of philosophy is it doesn’t give anyone any substantial basis to be in the world. The substance is just their own ideas. As a science is telling us somehow that my ideas are justified in the fact that I have ideas but then somehow I’m supposed to refer to someone else and be able to judge whether any of those ideas are good and bad. It gives me no reason to grant authority to anything else than what’s going on in my mind. None at all, except that there’s an assumption that they’re supposed to be some sort of ethical negotiation going on between these great minds of subjectivity.
What’s dangerous about it is that most people don’t give a fuck about your theory. And yet such theoreticians are the ones that are establishing the institutions by which people run their lives despite what they might think is so intelligent about the way they’re thinking.
I’m not saying that I am without judgment. I’m saying that my philosophy is not making judgments. That the judgments are ultimately coming from you, not me. My judgments go on in reality, and they don’t have anything to do with philosophy, about what I’m saying about what I’m observing. The judgments are utterly informed by your own view, buy your own admission. The judgments are not originating from me in my philosophy. just as if I was to discover the atom. My discovery of how fusion or fission works, does not contribute to the making of the atom bomb. The making of the atom bomb and the deploying of it with something that other people did based on their judgments about what is ethical of the world.
You keep arguing back at me is if I am saying like I’m not this and I am this. Anything that I say that I’m not is coming up in a specific context. And then everything that I say that I am is also coming up in a specific context. There is no context which relates those two contacts except another context that we might bring up.
I’m done discussing. It is pointless. The way the philosophy that you’re putting forth is authoritarian, self-centered, and blind. That’s my judgment. There’s nothing that you could ever say to convince me that that is not true. The way that I’m talking about things conveys no judgment. The philosophy I’m putting forth has no center of self in it at all, and yet it totally does.
You have an oppressors mind bent upon colonialization of the world that you think you’re so concerned with, but of which you keep yourself utterly apart from for the sake of asserting your authority.
This is why I am a counselor. Because the discipline of philosophy is filled with self righteous authoritarian figures thinking they are being so kind and open minded.
The world can do what it wants; I merely describe the truth of its objectivity. My agenda Is concerned with real individuals. Not imaginary phenomena; And you don’t see your conventional philosophy as inherently myopic and promoting of problem.
Until next time. Stalemate.