You assumed you were safe, that was the rude awake
I grew up interested in philosophy. Focusing on morality and logic, sometimes I wondered what metaphysics was. Never even thinking about epistemology. When I matured, I gained an appreciation for aesthetics. And that’s usually the breakdown of philosophy: ethics, logic, metaphysics, aesthetics and epistemology.
A couple years ago it clicked. While I thought that during our time, epistemology was taken over by the hard and soft sciences (biology, neuroscience, psychology), I suddenly had an urge to turn non-dogma towards knowledge. Anti-social agnosticism. Seeing as how the world is ending and I don’t need you people for anything, I can go all in on non-dogmatic, anti-social agnosticism, pro-ignorance (or rather, pro-awareness of objective ignorance). During social settings and polite society, objective ignorance needs to be approached with respect, grace and dignity (ie, bullshit, subjective ignorance). But if social settings and polite society don’t exist, or is made up of a dying, impotent people, then we can just do philosophy without pretension.
What is philosophy without pretention? I only know I know nothing.
Since the 1800s, philosophy has dealt with a phenomena called “transcendental.” That means that from one moment to the next, there is correlation that connects moments by separation.
For example, 2 + 2 = 4. Consider that “2”, “+”, “2”, “=” are transcendental forces that result in a 4. Also consider that as a phenomena, “2 + 2 =” exists with a lot less dimensions that our own psychology.
Our psychology is like the “4” that is the result of transcendental forces. By forces we don’t mean random raw power but established relationships, or correlations.
It’s begging the question if you separate the products of correlation and entertain the product as “free.” This is like the caveman that saw fire as a product free from burning sensations. The caveman was begging the question when it tried to use fire as a tool. The caveman took a leap of faith relative to its own understanding that, whereas before fire caused an unpredictable burning sensation sometimes, with proper correlation, the fire would result in being a tool.
The caveman changed the metaphysical value of fire using abstract logic and re-arranging established beliefs. Philosophy is a bit removed from the caveman in that instead of fire, philosophy focuses on mental awareness as the product of a phenomena that is made up of abstract logic and modulating, changing beliefs. The metaphysical value is self-evident but not necessarily self-accepted. For example, fire as a tool is self-evident but it probably went a long time before some caveman had the bright idea to use fire a tool.
Thus philosophers look at the world and think, “what am I perceiving as a burning sensation that I can equally perceive as a tool?”
That is, what potential correlation am I not correlating? Are self-referential questions correlated with a biological specimen that perpetually understands the self-referential cycle as an escape towards its own uncorrelated freedom?
Epistemology, then, is raw correlation. Now, how do you know what correlation is? First you read this sentence and get an impression that all these words are correlated with a general gist. I’m coming at it with a specific gist but you don’t know me and I know how to hide a gist. So you understand as a general gist. A general correlation.
If this was some traumatic recreation, your psychology wouldn’t be a general gist but would be correlated with cyclical burning trauma sensation. Which would “feel realer” but isn’t necessarily realer. It’s just perceived hard-coded correlation. If you can break free from this hard-code with therapy, you can correlate transcendental products with more autonomy, self-movement. Rather than being taken for a ride through traumatic hard-coded correlation. The same hard-coded correlation that forced previous caveman to see fire as burning sensation rather than a tool.
Try to meditate and “force” correlation. Try to force yourself to understand quantum mechanics. You can force yourself to be correlated with quantum mechanic terminology but you have to do it by becoming fluent; which is a type of force based on education/understanding.
When you’re given a thought experiment to work on moral rules, you’re building a correlated understanding based on agreed transcendental social values.
Why is there correlation? What is correlation?
Going back to the transcendental movement, correlation is understood self-evidence that can potentially change. As self-evidence, correlation is hard and physical. As potentially not, correlation is a leap of faith and a natural force/push towards dogmatic (previous established) understanding.
What is and what is not are equally important in these value judgments.