Hmm I'm going to have to research some of that before it makes sense. Sounds like you've got a fairly complete intuitive system.
Yeah, I do. It's a fairly solid foundation, with wich I assimilate and explore other topics...
Especially my epistemology and philosophy of mind seem to be thoroughly linked, since a kantian notion about noumena/phenomena ties in nicely with my scepticism, wich is grounded in what Sextus Empiricus advocated; he mentions that true scepticism is a mindstate, not just an epistemological theory. It's about postponing judgement to gain 'quittude' or 'ataraxia'... Next to that, it's also about the impossibility of knowledge about 'ultimate reality' (noumena, in Kantian terms)...
My way of doing philosophy is walking in circles, so to speak. I first start with postponing judgement about anything already investigated, to create an opening for my new 'revision' of whatever I'm studying, then I start to work on a canon, and when I'm finished, I postpone judgement about anything I myself uncovered... That way, my naturally inquisitive mind gets it's thing done, while I still remain truely sceptical about everything... I start with ataraxia, and I also end there. What happens in between might be considered 'semi-dogmatical', as that's how I explore other systems; through hypostasis, not hypothesis. That way, I can explore systems internally, instead of having an external position.
Anyway, it all works like one giant system (except for the political stuff)...
My notion of the mind is:
-we can only experience phenomena, while the noumenal world remains 'hidden', so to speak, just like the a priori mental operations; though our a priori mental operations can be slowly uncovered through phenomenology, the noumenal world remains a mystery... We can't even decide if the noumenal world is a thing (nominal ontology) or things (plural ontology)... So I define the kantian 'thing in itself' as 'thing/things in itself', to show my absolute doubt about it (ontology) all. I do regard us (our bodies and minds) as part of the universe though, since we are immanently placed in the universe; from that pov, it really doesn't matter if we're part of a nominal or plural universe.
- We have unconscious and conscious regions of the mind, where the cognitive framework (worldview) is influenced by our
stance towards unconscious behaviour (human instinctive faculties)... We also have a personal unconscious, in wich our complexes reside... Those being repressed memories, unresolved tensions etc.
- Our
phenomenological field can be sub-devided in 'body', 'mind' and 'senses', because those are the categories consciousness operates in; this distinction is merely intellectual though, because in reality, it all works in tandem. This distinction is useful in analysing various properties, but is by no means phenomenologically valid, and whenever I run into troubles, I abandon it.
Epistemology:
-Truth is the 100% verisimilitude of thought and reality; but because we can never attain nor check it, this is an impossibility. We can never know anything about 'ultimate reality', because 1)we can't know if we'll encounter refuting evidence in the future, 2)we can't thoroughly reason back to a 'first cause' (regressus ad infinitum) and 3)all our investigations are based on various paradigms, wich are subject to change also...
Ethics:
- Being ethical is a choice.
- Freedom and being ethical are internally linked, as it's impossible to force an ethical stance on someone; it needs to be integrated into a worldview, wich is a subjective operation.
-'Big' ethical theories aren't necessary, since I regard ethics to be a priori; if it that wouldn't be true, providing ethical examples would be rather impossible.
- Because ethics is
intuitive, being a 'good' person doesn't need much explanation; just striving to be a good person is more than enough, since the 'right' choice would be made in each situation, provided that one takes the freedom of oneself and of others into account.
- Being a good person is not the same thing as being a saint; 'the good' isn't the same thing as 'being perfect' (yeah, sophism, I know. It does represent nicely what I believe in though, and I'm not trying to write a book, here
)
Regarding politics, well, it's not that handtailored. I just am an anarchist, and that's the end of it. I really don't like politics, as I regard it more as a rhetorical excercise than anything. All politicians are demagogues.
I'm sure I left something out somewhere, but as I said, I'm not trying to write down my magnum opus, here.
How do you reconcile that you don't agree with their position and yet their thinking is valid? I know that each person hold wisdom and that each can and will follow their own path but I cannot quite come to a satisfactory balance between me thinking that method of thinking is wrong and me thinking that the person is wrong.
I'm a sceptic. There's no 'ultimate truth', not even if someones reasoning is valid. I'm also a rhetorician, so am quitte aware that being convinced is something quitte different than stating 'ultimate truths'. A logos argument doesn't turn ones thesis into anything, it's just a logos argument.
