Reviews of Abstract Ideas: Three-Tense Temporal Existence

One beginning philosophical dungeon for those low-level adventurers who have not even aquired their first “+2 to Avoiding Category Mistakes” item is to explore how temporality is conceived in materialist/objective and idealist/subjective worldviews. Materialists will always tend to give some kind of ontological primacy to “past” and “future,” or at least to “past.” They may even introduce you to the problem of the specious present. It’s never really “now” because, if you pay close enough attention, you’re just anticipating something that hasn’t come yet, and once it’s come, it’s already happened. Try it. Lift your hand and let it fall as you say “now!” It’s… now! now!… NOW! See how hard it is? Crazy, crazy materialists might even try to tell you that because all thought is just a subjectified manifestation of chemical activities in your brain, and these reactions necessarily take some amount of time, it’s readily clear through scientific investigation that “present” is an illusion.

On the other hand, subject-oriented folks, case in point here, Husserl, tend to concentrate on “present.” It’s ALWAYS now, and we clearly only experience “past” as some kind of re-presentation (in the present) and “future” is an illusion except as anticipation (in the present).

For my part, I tend to focus my critical efforts toward incorporating conflicting ideas comfortably somewhere along the dipole. I try to be to philosophy what Unitarians are to Christianity. Which is why I love the Three-Tense Temporal Existence. When people are being absurdly objectivist I like to get them to agree that there’s no such thing as the present, and then make an argument for how there has to be such a thing as the present that they can’t refute. When I don’t feel like telling them that they only exist in my mind, I do a corresponding maneuver on really out-there subjectivists. When you make extravagant claims to me about the nature of immediately accessible reality you get pwnt, and it serves you right.

Three-Tense Temporal Existence: 10/10

Reviews of Abstract Ideas: The Set of All Sets That Do Not Include Themselves

A caveat using the backwater and uncritical method known as “common sense.”

Basically, this set is defined by the totality of P(x) for absolutely any and all meaningful and coherent P. So this set includes absolutely everything. Now, are we to assume that a subset of a set in conjuction with that set is equivalent to that set? In other words, “All flowers and all blue flowers is equivalent to all flowers.” If so, then “the set of all sets that do not include themselves” is the same thing as “the set of all sets that do include themselves” (~P(x) for all P). Or just the set of all sets.

So “that do not include themselves” is a meaningless predicate. I mean, “the set of all sets that aren’t sets” is a “paradox” too.

Incidently, for “the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century,” Russell was kind of an idiot. Here are some clips from his blooper reel:

He is against religion. He really spoke that sweepingly, and with about that much precision, on the matter. Why? He gave “religion” the definition that clearly defines “ideology.” So the Soviet Union under Stalin is a religious state, according to Russell. Seriously, that’s exactly what he said. I mean, I’m at a loss as to how to explain his lack-of-argument here. I can in good conscience say, “Eating food is bad for you” if I give “food” the definition that fits “poison.” He didn’t try to argue that religion necessarily leads to ideology, or show ways in which the common use and abuse of religion is practically ideology… he just misdefined the word. Fight dogmatism with dogmatism, I guess.

Russell rejected Kant because he felt that Einstein had refuted the a priori transcendental necessity of “flat” space and time. I don’t know what part of “a priori” Russell doesn’t understand. The “psychological” space and time that Kant wrote about simply are not the same things as real, physical space and time. Again, this is a mistake that is just so dumb that it reflects an extreme superficiality on Russell’s part. Typical tedious scientific materialist nonsense. Here’s how you refute someone of Russell’s persuasion using the Socratic method, in two easy steps: “Is space-time curved?… In reference to what?” The fact that people can even formulate the thoughts (and indeed have a hard time resisting) “before the big-bang” and “beyond the [finite] universe,” regardless of their veracity…. Well, I’m through. Kind of like Hegel, you just have to wonder how his thought came to be so greatly respected.

Oh yeah, at one point in time Russell thought the Ontological Argument was sound. Which is laughable for anyone after 1800. He later denounced that position, but still…. I think we should all call him “Ontie” from now on. How intellectually superficial can one man be?

Set of All Sets That Do Not Include Themselves: 2/10

Reviews of Abstract Ideas: Je Ne Sais Quoi

Ummmmmm. Uumph. Aaaahhhhhhhh…. (Gurgle.) Well, it’s kind of cool, I guess. Cool isn’t quite the word I’m looking for. Neat. It’s pretty neat… sort of. I think. Or really feel. It feels good, but I don’t know what to think. My heart says “8″ but my brain says “2.”

5/10

Daniel J. Gudorf’s Reviews of Abstract Ideas: The Esoteric

“Esoteric” derives from the Latin eso terra, meaning literally “in it’s own world.” I make this statement not because it is particularly true, but because it shows the great power of the esoteric: once you know a fraction of a subject of which nobody else knows an iota, you can totally lie your way through anything. You probably recognized terra as meaning “world,” maybe you even knew that eso is the Latin prefix meaning “within,” and you decided to take me at my word. Well, sweetheart, that was kind of dumb of you, now wasn’t it?

When you begin to develop esoteric knowledge, it makes people assume you are really smart. This isn’t quite the case. You are just filling up the Miscellaneous Bullcrap area of your brain (accounts for about 87% of human knowledge) with slightly more interesting facts than other people. You know the proper name of that Chinese rice-based liquor instead of being able to name all the characters from the hit television show “Friends.” You can pronounce “Goethe,” “Proust,” “Wittgenstein,” “Nietzsche” and “Euler” correctly instead of knowing who’s dating whom in the popular television show “Friends.” You know Franz Ferdinand’s title and what nation he was that title of rather than trying to care about a show about shallow, empty-headed yuppies that’s been off the air for years now but for some reason people still talk about from time to time. All the characters from “Friends” had the personality of poo-on-a-stick and that show was about as funny as getting your eyelids stapled to your eyeballs.

The Esoteric: 7/10
“Friends”: 1/10

Daniel J. Gudorf’s Reviews of Abstract Ideas: Kierkegaardian Dread

What is this new section? What is? Is is merely the negation of non-being? Yeah, is is merely the negation of non-being, but is’s so much more. Perhaps we should begin by exploring what this new feature is not (the negation of the negation of it’s (is’s) non-being). It is not an evaluation of the value of certain ideas, it is an evaluation of the ideas themselves. It is ontic in nature, not ontological. This feature is concerned with the is-ness of thing(s) that is (are (the plural of is)), not if they are or it is.

Well, anyway, Kierkegaard’s concept of “dread” involves knowing subjectively that something is true and moral, but in this special case, it falls outside of the realm of normal morality and has no conventional objective basis. Kierkegaard is hardly ever understood well because he’s been adopted mostly into ways of thinking that deny objective truth, and superficially he seems subjective in the way that we normally use the word, but this isn’t the case at all. Dread usually involves a seemingly absurd private revelation from God that includes an imperative that, should the subject follow through with it, he or she will appear to everyone to be evil or insane. The two classic examples are Abraham’s order to sacrifice his son and Mary’s order to conceive by the Holy Spirit while remaining a virgin. To elaborate the second example, let me remind you that though Mary knew how she was to conceive, her friends, family and fiance didn’t, and “Oh, it was the Holy Spirit that got me pregnant” isn’t exactly a convincing explanation, though in her peculiar case, it’s the true one. But for Abraham or Mary to deny their mandates would mean to act contrary to the will of God, to sin.

Dread is totally cool. It’s like God all up in your face, messing with you, and he’s not even trying to hide it. What are you going to do? Be all like, “Oh no! Stop it God! I’m not hardcore enough!”? God knows what’s up. Just play along. Just humor him. Be all like, yeah, I see your dread, and raise you an act of total faith and he’ll be all like “Whoa” and then something totally awesome will happen to you I bet because that’s how it always works out. Just don’t think. Don’t think, act. It’s always a lot of fun to act before you think, and in the face of dread is the only time where it’s really a good idea. It’s like getting to be insane, only you’re sane enough to appreciate the situation. Therefore, Kierkegaardian dread is totally awesome.

Rating: 9/10