Skip navigation

Tag Archives: IN WHICH

A very common reaction to relativist claims is to discredit them as fancy musings without any real use or value. It is like saying that “Well, maybe so and so are not valid universally, but, who cares?” — implying that any abstractions are bound to be only valid into the distant realm of theory. This same bias paints “theory” as something distant and without substance. It says anyone involved with lots of ideas is bound to be a day-dreamer.

Contrary to popular belief, abstractions and theories are actually more practical than life without them, and “theoreticians” are the kind of people that are usually more focused on the matters at hand. Read More »

Advertisements

The Thinking™ should definitely be concerned with the external world, but “Truth” is not enough. To believe that the relation with the external can be evaluated by a dichotomy (TRUE/FALSE) is a simplification that has already been tried and found lacking.

[If you’ve already read this one in your newsreader, i am sorry, i had my Palm blog-poster misconfig’d…]

Read More »

The Universe is infinite. We can divide it between Me† and the World†. The World† is everything that is not subject to my will. (Yes, i know those assertions deserve lots of analysis but i will leave this for another day).

So, in order to live in the World†, we must deal with it, that is, balance our purposes and the Circumstances‡ that the world offer us. To achieve this, there are basically no rules. Everything is valid. But the absence of rules, instead of being a good thing, is a big problem, for it means that there are no absolute regularities‡ in our experience‡ that we can exploit.

Notice, though, that i say no regularities‡ in our experience‡ — and not in the world. This is because the Universe† is infinite, but the World† might not be. We† do not know at first (a priori) if the world has exploitable regularities‡ or not, nor which are those.

There are no rules, but not every action (or every form of acting) is equally powerful. Therefore, we can (or must) find ways to potentize our† relationship with the world†. This means creating structure for our actions. This structure is akin to a basic philosophy, a set of ideas, but because of language-dependence issues with ideas, it would be more precise to speak of attitudes or basal-beliefs, at such a primal level. Those basic attitudes can have profound effects in our life, as they will affect everything else. I will call it Belief-Structure‡.

It is very doubtful to speak of an action without such basic philosophy for, in the absence of a reflected-upon set of ideas, prejudices and biases would play the same part. Instead, we prefer to assume that there is an structure and to explore whatever it is that plays this part, for the order of those first tenets can be very meaningful at times.

So, i will write some words which i believe to be somehow connected to my basic belief-structure‡. Read More »

All philosophy has to begin from the standpoint of an aware being. That is, there is no philosophy without one “I” who thinks and wonders.

I think. I wonder.

That is not to say that every philosophy is subjective. The ideas stretch into the world. The philosophy mixes itself into the things. But it does so only through experience. It does so only in people’s lives.

Self-reliance in philosophy is not a truth, though. It must be an assumption. We work with it, but there is nothing in the world that forces us to do so. It is not a consequence of nature, or Bog, or anything. It is a tool.

But forsaking this one tool is not a good idea. It allows us to deal with our ideas, instead of being dealt by them. It allows us to use ideas as tools. Which is to say — it is a bootstraping idea. Read More »