u/JerseyFlight

Dear Christians, I will indeed back your rationality. That is, when you demand philosophy meet its burden of proof, I support you in this valid endeavor.

Where I draw the line is when you start theologizing in place of Reason. Just stick to demanding that philosophy meet its burden of proof (because it can’t meet this burden). A Reasoner can meet his burden of proof at the most fundament level without collapsing into an infinite regress, but this is not something a philosopher can do.

Philosophers are in the business of making sweeping assertions that they cannot back up.

I have enjoyed speaking with many apologetical Christians who demanded justification for claims made, I support them in this and proceed to collapse philosophy with them.

The problem is that theologians f;ck up their own polemics by leaping to theology too soon. Tarry with Reason until the relativist position has been exposed and collapses on the basis of its own premises. Make the philosopher eat his words. Then you can inject your religious culture as an option. (I said this last sentence very carefully).

Delusion is everywhere, man is a delusion producing machine.

Interesting enough, Marxism might be the only critique that consciously slices through it, precisely because it strives to reject idealism.

At present the world is full of people seeking refuge in Stoicism, in the egoism of Nietzsche and Stirner, and many other positive, secular theologies. What these ideologies do for people is simply make them feel psychologically better about their objectively dismal circumstances. (This is the same as religion). Marxism sees this and calls it out. It says, “I understand you feel empowered through words, but what is the material status of your social and existential power?” And rationally, that’s quite significant, even if one doesn’t agree with the revolutionary approach of Marxism.

Everyone is running around trying to find their "purpose." They want to know why they were born, what they're meant to do, and what their legacy will be. But the universe doesn't have a plan for you. There is no cosmic destiny waiting for you to fulfill.

We are just conscious beings on a floating rock, trying to make sense of a meaningless existence. The sooner you accept that there is no purpose, the freer you become. You stop chasing a script that was never written and start living your life on your own terms. There is no grand design. There is only the absurdity of existence, and the peace of accepting it.

One rightly tires of academics and philosophers. Their vanity is too attached to sophist games.

To even define “logic” or “truth” it must be the case that (t=t) and (L=L), which means that A=A must be true.

Another way to say this, in order for your (a) to be (a) it must be the case that (A=A).

It is precisely the logical fact that things are themselves (which cannot be false) and which “must be true” if we are to have any meaning at all. And the fact that we are already discoursing with meaning, proves the “logical truth” of identity (A=A).

To even utter a sentence, define a term, or raise an objection, the symbols and concepts used must retain their own identity. If (a) could simultaneously be (non-a) in the middle of a sentence, language would dissolve into meaninglessness.

Anyone arguing against the law of identity has to use words that mean what they mean, thereby relying on the very stability they are trying to dismantle.

Perhaps few things are as extraordinary as character, because “character is what we are in the dark.”

The cultivation of virtue through authenticity, is simply awesome. It is basically a spiritual life, but it doesn’t require any Spirit. It is essentially the cultivation of moral ideals.

The question is, can I cease from lying to myself and bullsh;tting myself? Can I cultivate character and intelligence in the dark, for myself, because this is the kind of person I want to be?

These private acts have tremendous social value. They give us passage into quality because they shape us into quality. We become socially attractive (and objectively valuable!) because we have a private character, which means we can be trusted, because we don’t want to violate these standards within ourselves. That is, we are actually moral, not religious! And we become relevant to the existence of civilization.

But in order to cultivate this quality, I must learn to be honest with myself. I must stop bullsh;tting myself. I must begin to care about consistency. It doesn’t matter if the world doesn’t see my fault, all that matters is that I see it and want to change it. This is how a person that has integrity functions.

The pathology enters when abstraction functions to prevent contact with reality or to evade reality.

It’s quite easy to flow into abstraction, and it can also be pleasurable. Both theology and philosophy do it.

“I am angry with my father” is an uncomfortable statement. “Intergenerational structures of recognition and resentment” gives a person somewhere to hide.

“I don't know how to live” is frightening. “What is the meaning of existence?” is intellectually exhilarating.

“I am terrified that nobody loves me” is vulnerable. “What is the ontological status of interpersonal recognition?” is safe.

A person can say something true at a level of abstraction while using that truth to avoid another truth at the concrete level.

And because philosophy rewards abstraction, bloviated vocabulary and intellectual complexity, the defense gets positively reinforced by the activity itself.

The philosophizer feels that he is penetrating deeper into reality when he may actually be becoming more insulated from it.

A revealing question is: What happens when the abstraction is brought back down to the concrete?

If the person immediately generates another layer of abstraction, that is diagnostically interesting. One goes from reality to the pursuit of relief. This tells us something. What is the psychological function of one’s abstracting?

In how many thinkers is abstraction (philosophical jargon) simply an unconscious emotional regulation or evasion mechanism?

An abstraction is rationally useful when it brings reality into clearer view. It becomes defensive when it allows the thinker to avoid reality while believing that he is bringing it into clearer view.

As it turns out, this is an ignorant statement. Because A=A must be true in order to even make this statement meaningfully. And that’s a fact!

The words used must maintain their stable definitions.

The structure of the grammar presupposes the law of non-contradiction. Grammar requires a subject (what is) and a predicate (what is said about it). A sentence that asserts, "There are no universal properties of logical truth," demands that the concept of "logical truth" remain a distinct determination, it must be itself and not something else for the predicate to stick.

Language cannot function without the Law of Identity. To use grammar to argue against the law of identity would be like trying to use architecture to prove that buildings cannot stand.

The author who is doubting the generic properties of logical truth absolutely expects the reader to grasp that his claim is this claim and not its opposite.

Philosophy ties itself in knots trying to deconstruct philosophical concepts because it treats logic as a formal convention rather than the absolute fact of reality that it actually is.

The reason Logical Truth isn’t accepted inside contemporary philosophy departments is because sophistical posturing is the sport of philosophy. To make a name for oneself in philosophy, one doesn’t get rewarded for saying, "Aristotle was right, A=A, let's move on." People like their philosophy to be obscure, they want it to feel like mysticism, to give them feelings that immersing oneself in its vocabulary is equivalent to immersing oneself in the deepest truths of existence. It is every bit a theological form in its psychological function.

The teachers of contradiction reject contradiction. The moment modern philosophers and academics step outside the posture of their classrooms, they look both ways before crossing the street because a car cannot simultaneously be coming and not coming. They expect their bank accounts to reflect a non-contradictory sum of money. Reality forces compliance with A=A every second of the day, regardless of what philosophers and academics try to argue.

The very act of attempting to contradict what is stated here is an affirmation of what is being said.

All those who claim to know truth (or who offer a truth) must answer these question.

Philosophers end up all over the place when they try to answer these questions. But Reasoners begin and end in the same place every time, because “truth” isn’t something we invented, it’s something we discovered.

“What makes your truth claims true,” is precisely the kind of question that Reasoners not only want to pursue, but have already pursued, and answered.

In order for your (a) to be (a), it must be the case that A=A. This logical fact seems to evade philosophers every time. And yet they demand that their every (a) be taken as (a).

——-

“The problem of truth is in a way easy to state: what truths are, and what (if anything) makes them true.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Truth.”

The question first applies to ourselves, and only then to others.

Intellectual virtue is absolutely necessary for the existence of Reason holding forth its rightful preeminence in human consciousness.

We cannot discourse with humans that lack intellectual virtue, because their intellectual vice will sabotage Reason.

Intellectual virtue means above all, that we care about the standards of Reason and take them to be absolutely authoritative against the desires of our own subjectivity.

A society without intellectual virtue is a society in decline.

In order to arrive at this position, it is first necessary to grasp reality outside of myth. But do we not learn that reality is the kind of thing we don’t want to live in? Myth is then not only our creative reaction, but our relief.

Here is a man who claims to be the king of negation, the absolute master of the concept, the world’s greatest practitioner, but he will not apply negation to his own form!

The nihilist are complaining when they should be destroying.

The deconstructionists haven’t taken enough.

Before light can shine again men must learn what it means to suffer in the darkness, because only then will they have the contrast to appreciate the light.

Man’s stupidity has regressed him to this necessity.

Philosopher: How many theories do I know by heart? More than you can even count! What is the depth of my abstraction and jargon? I am an ocean unto myself and others!

Reasoner: And yet, you know nothing of the pathology that drives your vanity. If you were truly wise you would know that you serve a silent master, you would know that psychology is your king. All your vast learning and you know nothing of your limits or your lies.

A philosopher deploys defenses against Reason because he’s afraid of being wounded by Reason. It’s that simple.

What does it mean, ‘he’s afraid of being wounded by Reason?’

It means his philosophical beliefs meet an emotional need he has, and if Reason refutes his beliefs, he will have to suffer the bad feelings of not having his needs met. He thus deploys defenses to subconsciously attack and evade Reason.

But this automated disposition is not rational. Philosophy should be above and beyond it, it should be more psychologically objective, precisely through the application of Reason, but lo and behold, Reason is the very thing it tries to avoid.

The defense mechanisms of philosophy are not something that has really been studied, but it’s important (if one cares about getting to the truth) because these defense mechanisms will sabotage the process. They will leave the philosopher and philosophy reader in a state of delusion, while making him believe that he is the defender and protector of truth.

Exposing and refuting this defensiveness is easy, one merely has to note whether or not the philosopher is evading rational objections. However, getting the philosopher’s psychology to this point, is hard.