Random Thought #5

There is unease surrounding us. Unease in the form of chaos. That distinction is made with reason. When we say that we feel at unease we mean that we can still function properly, yet lack the taste to dress up properly, to eat healthy, to go to work or class. Basically to do anything that adds up to our desire to present ourselves in such a way that we consider satisfactory. It is difficult to explain just giving general ideas of what I mean, so here is an allegory. A storm is going on. It takes place in a hollow room inside our chest. The storm is one of emotions. The emotions switch from one specter to the next, but they twist and twirl; causing uneasiness in the heart, because you never know what the storm will bring next. Even worse, what if it one day loses all it energy and stops spinning all together? Whatever the case, it is difficult to enter from the outside in. We can only experience the effects, but the causes remain a mystery.

This storm also has affected us to write and sit here thinking over and over how we should type these words with the correct and confident formulation that we're slowly losing. 

It is, funny enough, in exactly this inner battle that I have found a reason to finally write something down. Ambiguity is something that always fascinated me to be honest. It forms the bridge from extremes to a golden middle of grey and nuance. This transcends the black and white thinking and reminds me again why we are so brilliant. It shows that we actually are capable of deep thought to a very far away extend. One which gives the sudden realization that there is something beyond good and evil. This awkward piece of writing has a reason. As a means to turn this inner battle into a manifestation that can be turned outwards and thus also be presented to the outer world with the aim to reflect on it. 

Why is it that I am doubting myself so much?

It is difficult to type away, to fill pages and be meaningful. Aren't essays always supposed to be long? Because it seems that complexity, depth and validity have become synonyms in the philosophical atmosphere. Not that I can blame them of course, since I myself have admitted in a few pages earlier that it is more than necessary for me to convey my thoughts to the outer world and still preserve the intention and the depth that the words carry with them. Thus it is necessary to be clear. Clearness can only be understood in terms of either an Aha-Erlebnis (insight) or a pages of paper that exhibit the long syllogisms the writer went through in an internal battle with the self to finally come to that self-evident insight. 

And perhaps it is in exactly that in which I am experiencing the inner struggle. That I want both and neither. By both and neither, I mean that I appreciate either aspects, but neither in overall. 

I despise the shallowness of short philosophies. One-Liner Philosophies as I like to call them. You can often find them on social media with the picture of a punk-philosopher like Nietzsche or Sartre put by some rebel teenager to express his or her individuality. It consists out of one line that joyfully kicks against the system, such as ''God is dead'' or ''The hell is the Other''. 

I must admit, it does annoy me, even though I try to ignore it. 

Tbe One-Liner Philosophies used by many, not only now, but by anyone with a superiority complex, as a means to overshadow their insecurities, can be quite helpful though.

If used properly, it can be used to emphasis a certain thought that is the main point of your stream of consciousness. If that's not the case, it can also be used to summarize in a few words the whole point of your story. This gives the reader clarification and the writer a reference point when he or she has to defend or explain his or her thesis. 

Another form of writing is the overly long complex writing that serves no other purpose than to convey something easy as difficult as possible to create depth where there is little. 

Depth in thought is indeed very difficult to achieve. It is quite frustrating, I know from experience and sometimes even heartbreaking, when you have the feeling that words no longer have the power to carry your emotions and thoughts to the other with all the associations you have when using those words. 

This becomes even more complex when it's written text and all the emotions have to come from cold blocky letters printed against a white background. 

So what you then do to convey your words is to repeat yourself. If that doesn't help, you resort to going way too deep into the topic, to the point where you've completely digressed from the original topic. This too is quite understandable, but a pain to read. Mind numbing even. 

However, it is necessary to be nuanced. It is true that often people resort to this type of writing, because they have to convey long thoughts concerning topics that do need all the pages filled in order for the reader to understand it. That's however not what I'm talking about. Those books who do that don't outdo themselves. Those pages are necessary, because if you took pieces out of it, it would stop making sense or lose it's literary touch that differentiates the writers from other writers. The latter is of course a subjective insight that I can't go into depth to right now, because I want to keep the focus on the battle I'm experiencing. 

For the sake of practicality, let's say that when you can leave it out, it's unnecessary to write it down.

So between these two extremes, where should I place myself?

Does my problem even posit itself in this question or should I be asking myself a whole other question all together?

The words that I can associate with my restlessness are the following:

Unease, impatience and depth.

And immediately we can behold the problem. The eternal problem of contradiction that will probably follow me into the grave. Wanting two things that seem to essentially exclude each other. 

Depth and impatience that is, which consequently concludes to uneasiness. 

Painting 1: ''Lust''

''Lust''

Midnight Conversations at the Age of 19-II

Me: I'm off to sleep. 01:31
Me: Good night. 01:31
You: Good night. 01:31
Me: I can't sleep.  01:52
You: Oh.  01:52.
Me: Dammit.  01:52
You: Keep trying.  01:57
Me: I hate my head.  02:02
Me: I just want it to shut up.  02:02
You: Brain activity.  02:04
Me: I'm a tad nervous to be honest. 02:11  
Me: Maybe that's why I can't sleep.  02:11  
You: Yes.  02:12  
You: Why are you nervous ?  02:12  
Me: I don't know.  02:12  
Me: It's just.  02:12
Me: People having expectations scare me.  02:12  
You: Why do you care ?  02:12  
Me: Hmm.  02:12  
Me: Because they're nice people.  02:12
You: Are you expecting anything in return?  02:13
Me: I don't know.  02:13
Me: No.  02:13
Me: Yes.  02:13
You: Ugh. Feelings.  02:14
Me: Yeah, but it's also nice.  02:14
You: It's cute and stupid.  02:14
Me: Exactly. 02:15

Midnight Conversations at the Age of 19-I

Me: What are you doing? 00:46
You: Nothing. 00:46
Me: Nothing at all? 00:46
You: No. 00:46
Me: I wanna paint. 00:47
You: Oh. 00:47
Me: And leave school. 00:47
Me: And be talented as an artist, any type. 00:47
Me: And have a gallery. 00:47
Me: And sell them for thousands. 00:47
You: We all have dreams. 00:47
Me: And spend my nights in a small expensive appartment with a white cat. 00:48
Me: And only read philosophical books. 00:48
Me: And just drink tea. 00:48
Me: And only eat lunch at small cute cafes. 00:48
Me: And buy more sweaters, skirts, heels and lipstick. 00:48
Me: That's what I want. 00:48
You: Go get it then. 00:49
Me: I'll try. 00:49
Me: What do you want from life? 00:49  
You: I want a lot of things. 00:50  
You: I want to learn how to play the cello. 00:50  
You: I want to listen to more music. 00:51
You: I want to read some books. 00:51  
You: I  want to watch some great movies I didn't get to watch yet. 00:51
You: I want to go to the gym. 00:51  
You: I want to learn how to drive. 00:51  
You: I want to meet people. 00:51  
You: I want to have a special somebody. 00:51
You: I want to continue my studies and do good research. 00:52
You: I want to get an apartment for myself. 00:52
You: I want to travel the world. 00:52
You: I want to hike mountains. 00:52
You: I want to go to a polar region and see auroras. 00:53
You: I want to be alive. 00:53
Me: They're reachable. 00:55
You: Easily reachable if things were running smoothly. 00:55
Me: Yes. 1:00
Me: I know. 1:00
You: I'm off to sleep. 1:03
Me: Okay. 1:03
Me: Good night. 1:03
You: Good night. 1:03

The State III: The Process

The State III

The Process:

It is difficult to put phenomenons, that being social behavior,  into words. It is hard to be a confident writer and still produce essays or books that are completely true. I can see this in myself. I have read books and admired them, books that show no coherency to each other whatsoever, but somehow still manage to convince me that there is some truth in what the author is saying. It was in this small confrontation with myself, that I could sense the ambiguity.

How odd it was reading two completely different philosophers, who were opposites and still find yourself nodding in agreement, once you read their arguments and stream of thoughts.

With every book I read, I did not feel at all that I was being presented wisdom, rather I felt that I was being confronted with my own ignorance. With every book, conversation or lecture I became more aware of how shallow my thinking process in actuality is. The world is much bigger; the people inside it have much more going on inside their head than they show.

It struck me with every conversation and it still shows how incompetent I am when it comes to discussions, because there is always a part of me that can see the reasoning behind one's thoughts.

No matter what I say, due to the complexity of the world and its people, we are de facto wrong when it comes to choosing the way we want to life; it is difficult to evaluate which values are superior to others. Ideals in itself are brilliant and we will happily nod in agreement when one exclaims: ‘’Liberté, egalité et fraternité.’’ Yet, the methods to get there often make us blind to remember what even the ideals were we so proudly stood for.

What is the reason for the failure we go through as human species? Is it perhaps that what we see as noble, actually is a handicap of some kind?

Life is failure, without ever having had the opportunity to even see the finish line, we will never be victorious. It is always an inner struggle between wanting two things that contradict themselves, but on their own are flawless.

Individualism, socialism, chauvinism, humanism, nihilism, freedom of speech, mutual respect, values, freedom, morality, rebellion, diversity, unity, nobility, patience.

It is a harsh way to see life. One could say that, but I would object. However, there is still some small candle light at the end of the tunnel.

Even when I was confronted with my own ignorance, I had discovered that in some way there are certain truths that we all share, that instinctively feels right and just.

The idea that one becomes aware from the push and pull movements of life, is only possible when one takes a break from life itself and tries to transcendent whatever world he is living in. Seeing everything not from a biased view, but seeing the world as followed:

The realization that we are part of a big flux that connects one another, in which our existence bases itself upon the choices of the generation beyond us and that our choices form the base for the generation after us. With other words, there is a bigger picture than just that which fulfills our individual needs, but ambiguously we still need to take those individual needs into consideration.

That is such a hard task in itself and is sometimes too demanding.

Not too demanding at all if you ask me. The reason for this, is that coming to this realization takes the most essential part of human nature in question. The ability to think, to be an individual between the herd, yet be one with the herd based on your individualism.

It is true that social behavior and political movements base themselves on the idea that certain ideals are more true, because they fulfill the goal they want to achieve, but that does not mean that the ideas of the rival don’t have the same source.

They still do, there is always some truth in the other, even if it not presented in the desired way. The only way to see that we are all going after the same idea in life, is eliminating the passive thoughtless behavior that many have, that has its root in the inability or refusal to think, therefore denying one’s own individualism.

And why do they do so? The reason being that it is easier to let someone else carry you to the goal and blame it on him if the possibility is open to failure, instead of owning up to one’s own mistakes.

There is no blame in mistakes, but only in being too coward to make them and owning up to your responsibility. 

Epistemologie Paper: Objectie tegen de Cartesiaanse Demon

Epistemologie Paper 

Stelling:  ''Het is niet noodzakelijk om een onderscheid te maken tussen de noumenale en de fenomenale wereld.'' 

·         Objectie:  

Het onderscheid tussen de fenomenale en noumenale wereld is met een goede reden gemaakt. In de antieke traditie was het verschil noodzakelijk om de kennisvoorwaardes te formuleren voor ons kenvermogen. De reikwijdte van ons kennen werd gelimiteerd tot de zogeheten ''fenomenale'' wereld. Dit was de wereld zoals die zich aan ons presenteerde, wanneer men gebruik maakte van diens zintuigen. De noumenale wereld is datgene wat in de Platoonse traditie als de ware werkelijkheid gepostuleerd werd. Dit was de werkelijkheid die onafhankelijk van de zintuigen bestond. De vraag die nu noodzakelijk gevraagd moet worden is deze: 

''Hoe kan men zeker zijn dat dit onderscheid ook redelijkerwijs gemaakt mag worden?'' 

Het onderscheid werd in de antieke traditie door Plato gemaakt. Het feit dat men in het particuliere het vermogen had om het abstractere en daarbij het volmaaktere te kennen, gaf genoeg steun om aan te nemen dat het bestaan van het abstracte ook bestaansrecht had die men kon kennen, omdat hij reeds gekend was. In de anamnesis (herinnering) kreeg het subject een Aha-Erlebnis, omdat er overeenstemming kwam tussen dat wat op particuliere wijze werd waargenomen en een bepaalde eidos (Idee of Vorm) dat in het subject besloten zat. Het was dus epistemisch noodzakelijk om te spreken van twee werkelijkheden om een weg te kunnen vormen naar het ware kennen.  

Het dubium over de zintuigen is dus geplaats. De ware werkelijkheid is tot op een bepaalde hoogte via de zintuigen kenbaar, maar voor echte kennis behoort men in contemplatie te gaan naar de begrippen die het fenomenale kenbaar maken. De vraag is wederom, hoe kan je opgesloten in je eigen ik, met enkel de zintuigen tot je beschikking, überhaupt tot zekere kennis komen over de noumenale wereld? Plato zou antwoorden dat men behoort na te denken met datgene dat even los staat van de materie als de transcendente begrippen, namelijk de rede.  

Echter, er zit een probleem in Plato’s Ideeënleer, die van te veel axioma's uitgaat, die men niet kan rechtvaardigen. Bijvoorbeeld, hoe neemt het particuliere deel aan het abstracte? Als de Ideeën intern in ons kennen besloten liggen, dan is er niet meer sprake van externe inwerking en is daarbij de voorwaarde voor een externe, abstracte werkelijkheid geëlimineerd. Aristoteles heeft de problemen verder uitgewerkt en opgelost door het kenvermogen te beperken tot datgene wat Plato ''de vergankelijke werkelijkheid'' zou noemen.  

De zoektocht naar een objectie schrijdt voort richting René Descartes. Aristoteles heeft veel problemen van de metafysica en epistemologie opgelost door het kenvermogen te verschuiven naar de materiële wereld en het daartoe te beperken. Echter, deze verandering van metafysisch wereldbeeld komt met een prijs. De axioma, die per definitie de grootste twijfel teweeg brengt, is juist die aanname, die überhaupt Aristoteles' kenwereld mogelijk maakt: de verheerlijking van de zintuigen.  

Descartes gaat als rationalist tegen dit empirisme in. Hij contempleert en komt tot een radicale conclusie, die de epistemologie deed veranderen. Volgens hem was het initieel onmogelijk zeker te zijn over wat dan ook. De meditaties brachten twijfel en vragen teweeg. Kan het zo zijn dat we dromen? Of wellicht bedrogen worden door een demon, die ons de werkelijkheid als rechtvaardig, maar onwaar doet toeschijnen? De enige toegang tot de werkelijkheid, die we hebben zijn de zintuigen. Er is immers niks wat ons in staat stelt om zeker te zijn dat ook die zintuigen niet ons bedriegen. Het is daarom meer dan noodzakelijk dat er een onderscheid wordt gemaakt tussen de noumenale en fenomenale wereld om te kunnen twijfelen. Doen we dat niet, dan laten we de optie open dat we wellicht wel tot kennis kunnen komen die te rechtvaardigen is, maar die buiten ons kenvermogen, volledig mis is. 

·          Antwoord:

De filosoof die ik moet aanhalen bij de synthese tussen het enerzijds rationele probleem van ons kenvermogen, gepostuleerd door Descartes en anderzijds de empiristische, zoals Aristoteles, is Immanuel Kant. De versmelting manifesteert zich in het idee dat twee zaken noodzakelijk zijn om van kennis te kunnen spreken, namelijk het verstand en de waarneming. Beide zijn even noodzakelijk om kennis überhaupt mogelijk te kunnen maken. In het verstand zit structuren, die voorwaardea vormen om de a posteriori kennis mogelijk te maken. Ruimte en tijd zijn bijvoorbeeld nodig voor iets om kenbaar te zijn aan het verstand. Kant refereert naar dergelijke voorwaardes voor kennis als de categorieën. De categorieën kenmerken zich verder hierin dat ze eigenschappen zijn van het verstand en niet van de noumenale wereld. De categorieën vormen de reikwijdte van ons kenvermogen; ze maken het mogelijk, dat we premièrement in staat zijn van kennis te spreken. Echter, juiste deze zelfde categorieën vormen op ambigue wijze tegelijkertijd de grens van ons kenvermogen. Alles wat buiten de categorieën valt kan niet gekend worden door het verstand. Op deze wijze is het verstand begrensd en beperkt tot de fenomenale aanblikken van de werkelijkheid. 

Enfin, het is cruciaal om in te zien dat kennis enkel bestaat in overeenstemming, niet als een ontologische waarheidsbegrip.

Of zoals hijzelf mooi formuleert in Kritik der reinen Vernunft:

Begriffe ohne Anschauung sind leer, Anschauung ohne Begriffe ist blind

We hebben dus aangenomen van Kant dat kennis beperkt is tot de overeenstemming van de werkelijkheid met het verstand en dat op deze wijze alles wat buiten het verstand valt, wat hij het Ding an Sich noemt, noodzakelijkerwijs niet gekend kan worden.

Is het nu mogelijk om een objectie te geven aan het dubium van Descartes? Zeker.

Kant heeft zekerheid weten te geven aan de zintuigen, terwijl hij tegelijkertijd de twijfel van Descartes meebrengt op elegante wijze.

Zeker, we kunnen nooit het Ding an Sich kennen, de optie is open dat we bedrogen worden. Het kan dat buiten het kenvermogen van het verstand en de werkelijkheid, de noumenale wereld een leugen is.

Echter, wat Kant wel duidelijk maakt is dat we voor zover het kenvermogen ons toelaat, we een bepaalde mate van kennis kunnen vergaren, namelijk die binnen de categorieën van het verstand vallen.

Hierdoor borrelt bij mij dan de vraag op, waarom eigenlijk het onderscheid tussen twee werkelijkheden maken? Anders dan Plato, is de scheiding van de werkelijkheden niet eentje die metafysisch bestaansrecht hebben. Kant en Descartes postuleren de mogelijkheid van een noumenale wereld enkel als concept om de reikwijdte van het kennen te kunnen begrijpen, niet als transcendente volmaakte werkelijkheid.

En wanneer dus Kant de hypothese heeft gesteld van de fenomenale wereld en de noumenale wereld en hij heeft daarbij het kennen beperkt tot de fenomenale wereld, enkel ervan uitgaand dat de noumenale bestaat uit allerlei Dingen an Sich, dan is de noumenale wereld enkel ondersteund door de redenering die uitgaat van de noodzaak van een dergelijke wereld, omdat er anders niks is wat ons fenomenaal kan toeschijnen. Als dat de reden is dat het onderscheid gemaakt moet worden tussen een conceptuele noumenale wereld en een tastbare en bovenal epistemisch kenbare ‘fenomenale’ wereld, dan lijkt het me meer dan rationeel om het kennen te beperken juist tot die fenomenale wereld, omdat de notie van een noumenale wereld enkel tot onnodige redundantie leidt. Niet omdat het alleen praktisch is, maar omdat het categoriale kenvermogen dat van ons dwingt. 

The State II

Subiectum:
The greatest paradox known to man is the expectations life has of us. This in itself too is a paradox. Since life essentially has no meaning. What do I mean by that and what does it have to with political and social behaviour? Those are questions for later, they’re more specific and too detailed. Right now I just wanted to highlight the area needed for me to bring another issue forward. The Idea I want to discuss is an Idea that is related to all of us, therefore it has existence in that which is most common to all of us: life. I use the word Idea in the Platonic sense to convey to you that what I want to discuss is nothing made out of matter, although it does require matter to gain existence. The Idea I want to convey in that sense is something that solely exists inside our heads, but by which we are confronted on a daily bases, hence giving it not a materialistic existence, but an abstract.  The Idea I want to introduce is one that consists out of contradictions and paradoxes. It is something that has to be examined carefully and presented delicately.  The worst thing about it, is that even the area in which it exists, namely life itself, is a huge paradox. Therefore it is utterly necessary to be patient with the following Idea. It is difficult to explain, because explaining it equals to wanting to explain the idea of a contradiction. I do however think it is profoundly necessary for us to finally accept this phenomenon and see it for what it is and its influence on our daily lives, but most importantly, in our contemplative actions.  What I want to discuss is not really a subject honestly, since the use of that terminology indicates something concrete, something that has been limited to some particular essence. The concept I want to bring forward is more complex, it is a paradox, but it exists. In one way pushing us forward, in another keeping us away from progress: the ambiguity of life.  

Life: 
The greatest paradox known to man is life. What I mean by that I will explain in a bit, but first let us look at the opposite of paradoxes, logical consequences. What I find interesting in logics is that we have the principle of tertium non datur.  A Latin term that has a very simple meaning: a proposition is either true or false. This simply means that in one and the same sentence, one can’t say anything that contridicts itself and therefore eliminates the credibility of his belief in a certain proposition. So literally translated from Latin it means, the third is not given. Quite a helpful principle I might add. Evidently, it is either true or false that water is wet. Likewise it is either true or false whether the rose is red or not. And so on and so on. Denying such examples would be absurd too.  Could you imagine a world in which such statements would be redeemed as both true and false? In such a hypothetical sceneries the basics of logics would have fallen apart in so far that no human being could ever have access to any form of knowledge. Therefore it is safe for me to conclude that it is reasonable to think certain ideas about the world are either true or false and there is nothing in between that can validate it.
What fascinates me however is that there are certain things in life that however can not be redeemed as true or false. These are concepts that one simply takes as given. The standpoint towards them is not based on any logical research or discovery of principles. These are simply standpoints people take when they do politics. What I have discovered in the social behaviour of people, is that they have integrated this logicphilia towards those concepts in such a way that it does not apply to them, but are still reinforced. Concepts that require nuances and not the harsh discrimination given by the principles of logic, are filtered by the black and white spectrum of right and wrong.
The statement I’ve given in both introductions, is one that will be leading throughout all my contemplations. Is it possible and even justified for man to use discrimination in a life of paradoxes and ambiguity? These thoughts have not risen over night, I must say honestly. These are specks of thoughts that have been compiled into one big ball of thoughts that I decided to present. What is the reason that we keep falling back into repeat, when there should be so called progress? I’ve been trying to answer this question by looking at a specific reason. A sort of subject that I can pinpoint as the prima causa omnis. Everytime I had thought I had found an answer, whether it be in socialism, nihilism, virtue ethics or aristocracy.  Whether it be in tolerance towards others or indifference, hate or frustration, it would always lead to the same two conclusions that I had not anticipated, but badly needed. 
Firstly, life exists in paradoxes and out of ambiguity. Kierkegaard phrased it best: 

“It is quite true what philosophy says; that life must be understood backwards. But then one forgets the other principle: that it must be lived forwards.”

Due to the ambiguity of life, there are lots of things we can be uncertain of. There are lots of choices of which we can not completely know the consequences of. Ambiguity presents itself in many forms, that we experience in our daily lives. The one mentioned above by Kierkegaard is solely the first ambiguity presented to us. Besides that we have the phenomenon of conformity versus individuality, wanting to define yourself personally, but also not being stared at for being too different, the thin line between well intended critique and unjustified offense, versus unjustified critique and justified offense. We forming ideals or ideals forming us. We choosing our future or being shaped into the future. Free will or free choice. 

The ambiguity of life pierces through all these subjects, because of only one simply reason: every single one of those subjects carries an essence of truth, even if it is most minimal. And by truth, I do not mean in the same sense as when we call a proposition true or false, but in the sense that it all carries the same goal that needs to be idealised. Namely, the end of the ambiguity. This being my second conclusion. How I came these conclusions, will be discussed in the next part.