Quote:
Originally Posted by Inuzuka Skysword
The bolded and underlined contradict. One cannot have free choice and at the same time be determined by another's will. I mean, you might believe in compatibilism, but then I would need to know how you define a choice. So if you could specify that then I would have some sort of understanding.
What do you mean by "purify?" I mean, I don't know your scale of what is pure and what is not so it is hard for me to understand exactly what you are trying to say. What I am interpreting is that you believe that this purification is through the realization of this so called "state" in which we are paradoxically in control of our own lives, but also being controlled by others. I mean, it seems as if you embrace contradictions and such. With that kind of thought one could make anything believable. I also don't understand what struggle you are talking of. Defining oneself is what gives us individuality and a sense of unique purpose. I mean, how far you want to take uniqueness is based on your reason. Personally, I believe we have no essence because of the fact that one is determined by his essence. Instead we have the free will to choose freely or be determined by others, which generally speaking is just free will. The reason this is better to believe is because this puts the ultimate responsibility of one's choices on himself. Therefore, his choices are what gives him that sense of uniqueness. From there one can build a pseudo-essence by choice. By pseudo-essence I mean that he creates himself an essence, but ultimately when it comes to his choices this essence does not affect him.
Even if all thought is anthropocentric, why would one just walk away from the fact that some ways of thinking are more objective than others? I mean, I think a lot of this philosophy that struggles to find that deepest of truths is really interesting, but what benefit does it have on life itself. One could get more out of life by living by the themes of the play Our Town than one could find in this stuff. I mean, this is why I don't understand this philosophical problem anymore. I mean, you may ultimately "believe" in this, but do your actions necessarily reflect this philosophy? Do you actually live as if nothing is true? Of course not. Think of Sisyphus. He realized that there was ultimately nothing, but he kept pursuing. In the same way the objectivities may ultimately be worth nothing, but they are the best we have. They are the only way to beat the rock.
Ultimately, my problem is that with all of this post-modernism I feel like philosophy is drifting from its core purpose. No longer does one care about the best way to exist. Now it is about sacrificing one's existence for a truth that they have no need for, a truth that leaves no evidence of existence. Most post-modernists would say that they are anti-elitism, but I find them to be the most elitist philosophers of them all. Simply because they talk about jargon that really does not affect the existence of the individual, the only thing we "truly" know exists, (according to them.)
|
I'm not really sure what you're responding to. Do I live as if nothing is true? I never said that 'nothing is true,' and if I did believe that, how would I act on it? There is no basis for action there. I could do anything and it wouldn't affirm or deny such a belief. If a particular philosophy is interesting, what further 'use' does it need? It fills your life with interesting thoughts to reflect on, that is how it benefits your life. Perhaps further understanding could lead one to nirvana or God, but it just seems like the top of Sisyphus' hill to me. Your criticisms of post-modernism seem pointless. Who/what are you actually criticizing? Most 'post-modernists' don't agree with each other, and barely agree with themselves. I find a lot of it interesting, if somewhat depressing, and it has forced me to reassess my life in terms of: what do I do compulsively because of a protocol someone has devised to make 'things run smoothly,' and what do I do because I get a deep sense of satisfaction, because doing such things is a part of who I am?
As for the 'free will' issue, I don't think it's a contradiction that you choose which emotional states you like to embody and that others will influence what emotional state you are currently in. Something as simple as ignoring someone who is excessively hostile or proud makes it less likely that they will continue to interact with you, and simply by not focusing your attention on them you have made a choice to reject that emotional state. The reason I speak of 'focusing attention' rather than making choices is that most of the time the choices we have and the paths we can follow are laid out in front of us by life, and what a 'choice' really amounts to is an analysis of which path will lead us to our preferred emotional state. So again, the choice is in what you want to be, how you want to feel, which relates back to who you already are, and how you are comfortable feeling. The reason a lot of this seems contradictory is because it relies on feedback loops, a person doesn't redefine themselves with every choice they make, they reaffirm who they already are or make gradual, subtle changes. Most of what we do is rather automatic, so it is more an issue of focusing in on a 'mode' of existence.
Finally, I do not believe certain modes of thinking are more objective than others. Certain modes of thinking simply constrain themselves to the surface of things, to phenomena of language. That's fine, but ultimately rather unfulfilling/boring.