A Philosophy Against I: Mistaken Identity and True Selves

Alt title: Towards Spaces That Are Not There: On Existing Within Extrapolation

…there follows one corollary which itself deserves to be inscribed upon every wall of the city of philosophy: Do not block the way of inquiry.

• CS Peirce

With philosophy you got the epistemology, metaphysics, logic, aesthetics, ethics. In that order but not necessarily in that relationship.

In terms of relationship, we understand them as metaphysics, epistemology, logic, ethics, aesthetics (there’s a little trickery to get us to flip ethics and aesthetics around but it’s a hard sell).

The order of philosophy (the list in the first paragraph) is based on a biological process.

It’s a similar process to math. There’s something physical corresponding to us “acting out” on a piece of paper that the symbol “2 + 2 =” results in “4.”

From here, the elements can change and the functions can change. Instead of math, we can use physics, chemistry, or ask questions like “who is your friend” and “how many ways can you define your friend? can you list them?”.

When receiving an answer from any of our questions, we expect the answer to fit a certain relationship (the list in the second paragraph). There are elements and there are functions.

In physics, the functions are based on a hierarchy of relevance. Without the scientific method as one of the most important and consistently relevant functions of physics, the rest of the functions would be completely irrelevant. After that there’s a list of mathematical functions that also cannot be discarded. Then there’s more general theories and the theories are also functions but they are subject to change based on other functions. For example, if the scientific method goes through a step that shows the theory to be inconsistent, then the theory is discarded.

Going back to philosophy, one of the functions at the base is a love for wisdom. If one does not act out of a love for wisdom, then one risks the task of philosophy. Task being similar to function. A function has its existence defined by the functions it carries.

There are no calculations when creating out of this type of love because it’s a love we can experience but not a love we can explain. There are various types of love; some explainable, some not, some great, some not so great. There’s intrigue from loves that are not understood and exultation that comes from our biology we can’t explain, but only feel. A la Kierkegaard.

This isn’t a special type of love, spiritual or eternal. At the moment it’s just a love that is used to create. It’s an inspiration to be. To grow. To evolve. It could be costly. Love that is calculable can be planned for, an economy can be created and understood. Explained. A la Machiavelli.

If it doesn’t keep going, an incalculable love is a function with no end until the function is no more.

Thus we understand philosophy to be a function made up of elements (the list in the first paragraph) and relationships (the second paragraph). The way the elements relate determine the resolution of the relationship, which results in the elements being defined by their relationship.

That is, the list in the first paragraph, we first grasp an understanding (epistemology). Almost all animals do this and this type of understanding is synonymous with how any material object “knows” how to react in any giving moment.

The second is metaphysics. The meaning of the understanding is established by metaphysical function that seems magical but results in our self-awareness. Self-awareness is reached by understanding.

The relationship between knowing and being self aware that we know (a la Cartes) is based on logic. We can’t comprehend knowing that we know we know we know. There has to be other logical connections for the relationship of understanding and self-awareness to exist. Or at least it has to exist to exercise greater autonomy between the relationship.

The significance of logic is ultimately based on aesthetics as far as self-awareness is concerned. Our motivation is based on an appreciation or a wanting of something. This thing that doesn’t exist but we’re convinced of is an extrapolation from logic towards a greater abstract. Where calculations become less relevant but there’s a metaphysical hunger that makes us want to act (and thus be) a certain way. The steps are guided through logic but it’s an insane task with no logical end. Just a metaphysical hunger that wants a certain understanding.

Thus ethics. Where aesthetics are understood, our actions are guided by ethics. Which are understandings that consider the self awareness to the degree that the relationship exists in a metaphysical realm that can be navigated through logic to satisfy some the appetite of our metaphysical hunger.

Having finished the first list, the second list goes as follows. It’s how we understand the process we can’t really understand but ultimately it’s the process that goes on underneath the process we can understand.

The second list starts with metaphysics. We are first and foremost metaphysical creatures. Polite society and even acquaintance society exist because there’s a metaphysical silence/hunger that carries through groups of people. Religion the same way. Any social group, there’s always silence/ignorance.

Nowadays we’re in a “woke” period where a significant part of society wants to bring more sensitivity to this metaphysical hunger through dialogue/critical theory. The functions are such that the rich would rather stay asleep in ignorance. Other groups such as physics, in my time physics was quiet on social issues and just worried itself with its own calculations. But now science as a whole wants to bring more social awareness to fairness and justice in how society as a whole satisfies its metaphysical hunger.

Ultimately, how we satisfy this mysterious love is through the understanding we choose to instill in reality (all inclusive everything that exists and doesn’t exist). We can choose to be silent, we can choose to speak, we can choose to move away. However we choose, again, contributes to what understanding is in all of reality. We contribute to the existence/creation of reality through understanding while the autonomy of understanding moves within the darkness of the metaphysical.

How we manage our understanding is based on a logic that is stabilized but our understanding of the metaphysical.

This logic results in our ethics. The right way to act is such that our understanding maintains a stable relationship with the metaphysical. This results in dogma. Actions have to be formulaic and consistent to reach or stride towards the “ULTIMATELY CORRECT AND RIGHTEOUS” act that maintains our stability.

All that would be nothing if there wasn’t an aesthetic. The thing the metaphysical wants but can never have. A sublime beauty that is never understood. Just a blinding Sun radiating right behind our peripheral existence. By itself, it’s illogical. We can stray from logic and experience the sublime but it’ll blind us. There’s just enough of it to light our way.