Posted: Jan 09, 2021 3:23 am
Frozenworld wrote:It seems the discussion here becomes be a next standard mainstream – philosophical process. Which will be in this case inevitably again fruitless and, at that, endless – in mainstream philosophy now a huge number of schools, doctrines, brilliant prophets, etc. exist and even to list them – as that seems as the main content in last comments is, will be necessary to spent rather large place on the RG servers.
When, at that, any “achievement” in the mainstream, including in “Philosophy of Science” has no any influence on other sciences; any indeed researcher by any means doesn’t think at her/his work – is the work “Pragmaticistic”? “monistic”? “Yājñavalkya-Bādarāyaņa-Aristotle’s concept-tic”? “operational constructivism-tic”? “naive realism-tic”? “neokontianstantic”? “positivistic/ neo-positivism-tic”? “critical rationalism-tic”, etc., etc, etc.
Again – such situation is again inevitable consequence from that the mainstream philosophy principally cannot be some science since every its doctrine is based on principally non-provable and no-testable postulates; which use at that principally undefined rationally its basic notions/category, etc.
It is evident that to make something indeed useful for “usual” sciences, philosophy should first of all to define rationally – what are Matter and Consciousness; when in the reality in both main mainstream branches these notions/phenomena are fundamentally transcendent and so non-consignable; all what these branches claim are “everything is Matter” and “everything is Idea/Spirit…”. I.e. Mainstream “studies” “Being” without any rational answers on - What is this “Being”: or this “Being” is a being of what?
Just therefore [because of principal non-cognizability of main phenomena that constitute Universe] in the mainstream the fundamental [in the mainstream, of course] epistemological problems appear, when just the solving of these problems would be indeed very useful for “usual” sciences and would be necessary methodological basis for some “Philosophy of Science”.
But these notions above are Meta-mainstream notions and can be rationally defined/understandable/studied only in the “The Information as Absolute” conception [see http://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf DOI 10.5281/zenodo.34958]
Where, including, it is rigorously proven that “Being” is being of informational patterns/systems of patterns only; the clear demarcation between Matter and Consciousness is defined; it is shown that, since there cannot be something that isn’t some informational pattern/system of patterns, in the reality there are no fundamental [“philosophical”] epistemological problems at all, etc.
And only in framework of this conception philosophy transforms into indeed science, obtaining indeed [absolutely] fundamental, interesting and paradoxical subjects for study – the notion/phenomenon “Information” and the “Information” Set; when because, for example, of extremely bifurcative nature of the information and absolutely infinite number of links in the Set, these notions/phenomena never will be completely formalized / studied by usual sciences and philosophy could play in this case some integrative role.
Yet in late 1700-th there were no different sciences, there was philosophy only, which fro, Antic times consisted of “Physics”, “Logics” and “Ethics”. Now “Physics”, “Logics” transformed into the set of sciences, and the mainstream philosophy practically has no relation to the sciences; all opposite – though often repeated by mainstream philosophers, claims have, in fact, no relations to the reality – see above. The informational conception above relate to the sciences fundamentally but this relation is short and simple – the conception defines for any science that every research is in depth a study of some informational systems, not non-understandable mainstream “Matter” and “Consciousness”, besides – solves the epistemological problem by its eliminating. That’s practically all.
But till now philosophy has indeed different – and indeed scientific - branch, which remained in this science from Antic times – Ethics, which isn’t a subject for studies by other sciences.
And just researches in this branch become be the priority of new philosophy, including taking into account seems rather plausible inference in the informational conception above that human’s consciousness is only a next stage of a development of some non-material structure that has potential to be developed into next stages with going at that in the Set’s regions outside our “usual” Universe; and so Ethics becomes be the science that studies and develops principles of humans’ behavior aimed at to make the consciousness’s transition optimal – clearing at that what are in this case the Good and the Bad, etc. when humans’ behavior that is optimal in the sense above is just “what the right thing is”.
That user also made a post on morality here:
https://iai.tv/video/the-good-the-bad-a ... 610123237#
And keeps citing this physics paper all the time: https://vixra.org/pdf/1402.0173v3.pdf
Let's leave aside the citation of a physics paper for the moment because there's no discussion about it contained in the text above.
The text is just a stream of consciousness. There's no logical organisation to it. There's no overriding topic. No controlling idea. There's no genuinely coherent point to be found within it.
There are plenty of assertions which are just outright false though; did you want people here to go through and quote those individual sentences and show them wrong? I don't really see why that's necessary given the general lack of coherence in the overall body of text.
Let me approach this a bit differently. Have a read through this essay and see what you think:
“Consciousness is fundamentally elitist,” says Marx. But material feminism states that class, ironically, has intrinsic meaning. The paradigm, and some would say the fatal flaw, of Derridaist reading depicted in Gaiman’s Stardust is also evident in Death: The Time of Your Life.
“Society is part of the stasis of reality,” says Debord; however, according to von Ludwig[2] , it is not so much society that is part of the stasis of reality, but rather the dialectic, and hence the genre, of society. Thus, the premise of capitalist discourse suggests that truth is used to exploit minorities. If material feminism holds, we have to choose between Derridaist reading and the predialectic paradigm of discourse.
However, Derrida promotes the use of cultural neocapitalist theory to attack the status quo. Sontag uses the term ‘Derridaist reading’ to denote the rubicon, and some would say the failure, of cultural sexual identity.
Thus, the characteristic theme of Geoffrey’s[3] essay on capitalist discourse is not, in fact, theory, but subtheory. Marx uses the term ‘material feminism’ to denote the role of the reader as poet.
But Derridaist reading implies that society has significance. Prinn[4] states that we have to choose between material feminism and the neoconceptualist paradigm of narrative.
In a sense, the premise of Derridaist reading implies that academe is capable of deconstruction, but only if Lacan’s critique of patriarchial narrative is valid. Debord uses the term ‘Derridaist reading’ to denote a predialectic totality.
Perhaps you find that convincing? Perhaps you disagree with parts of it. Perhaps you find it a little difficult to grasp. Perhaps you find it strangely self-absorbed.
I can't predict how you find it, but I can tell you that it wasn't actually written by a human being with a coherent idea for an essay - it was written by an algorithm that was programed with sentence structures and fed particular catchy phrases and vocabulary then, though machine learning, eventually was able to produce post-modernist essays at the click of a button.
What you're reading there is actually outright nonsense but written in semantically correct format, which some people simply assume makes it credible all by itself.
You can try it out by typing in 'post-modernist essay generator'. I took the above from here: https://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
It explicitly tells you that:
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version, anyway. There are others out there).
Perhaps this may arm you with a little more skepticism, a little more expectation of written word actually conveying coherent arguments and employing legible meaning, and then perhaps you could go back to trying to read the quote you're offering and seeing whether it contains any actual information, let alone testable postulates which might convince someone here of something about idealism.