We (I) are (am) the.....
Recognition of the fact that words are themselves a posteriori. Therefore, all of philosophy (and therefore all inquiry), all somatic, verbal thought is a posteriori.
**A posteriori to what?**
There is an absurdity in the pursuit of "knowledge" or "wisdom", in-so-far as the very thing we need to "describe" experience (language) is a posteriori to It (experience).
Belief is the underpinning of the human mind...now, at least. Perhaps not always.
Alas, did the 'Awe and Wonder' of Being, which leads to the 'first' thought about one's own Being, need to have the possibility of being Verbalized before it could be conceptually understood?
I Believe all of human inquiry is now imbued with the metaphysical underpinning that it is only possible through "saying" that 'enlightenment' can be achieved.
This idea is traceable back to the roots of Western thought: The Word of God, The Logos, The Rational(which is an artifice of language) Word.
Communication of the physically known world. Nothing more, nothing less. Try not to deceive yourself, as I will try not to deceive myself. I see Its defeated-ness already...but it is not possible to communicate something we do not understand.
Language was more than likely not brought into existence with the 'intent' of answering philosophical questions (which could only be formulated as such with the rise of language) about the "nature" of our Being: Dasein.
Yet at this same moment, you must "understand", in your own way, some of what is being proclaimed here. So we have appropriated language to "communicate" what we hope will be philosophical insights.
Verbalizing the physical possibilities of our minds.
To really stop and think about building language ex nihilo, it seems an impossible task...at least on one's own. To think about a time when Dasein existed but did not talk is one of the wildest possibilities one can imagine about 'our' history.
And you must wonder if the real use of language is not solely for survival: sharing information on food and shelter, being able to 'talk sense' into someone so they do not do something 'stupid', or to talk yourself out of Death. This is perhaps the most interesting to me.
Why do I feel a particular closeness to some philosophers and not others?
What do we share? Is it Truth? If it is, is it only True because of or for Us? Conversely, is it not True for others who do not find themselves close in mind to "my" thoughts? What matter of importance does Truth or Falsity really hold?
It is not about "Truth" or "Falsity", it is about *Belief*. Belief lies beyond Truth and Falsity. You can Believe both True and False things, meaning: they do not hold sway over your a priori need to Believe something.
Your mind, in its most basic sense, does not care what is "True" of "False". It only Believes, in some sense, what it thinks it Understands.
Even my thoughts (imagination) are limited to thinking strictly about physical things.
What does 'physical' mean?
I Believe that 'physical' often means 'Being' when we use it in our language games. If something Is, it is physical, at least as far as we know. I can believe in 'non-physical' reality, but in this 'physical' reality, I cannot even begin to understand what 'non-physical' means. How can some-thing 'be' 'non-physical'?
This is not to say that just because I cannot imagine it does not necessarily mean it is not possible. The fact remains, however, that until enough people share an experience of something that was previously unimaginable, it may not be proposed as a matter of "Truth" or "Falsity".
It is strictly Incomparable. It, as an object of inquiry, is not yet attainable for Communication. It is not yet attainable for Communication because It is Not.
Something like 'non-physicality', whether is has "factual" existence of not, is not of consequence to us until we can experience It.
Until we experience It, whether it "factually" exists or not, It does not exist for Us.
No comments:
Post a Comment