Either way, when you describe a situation you are already making choices about what to include, exclude, highlight, or obscure.
All utterances are, in the end, prescriptions.
Either way, when you describe a situation you are already making choices about what to include, exclude, highlight, or obscure.
All utterances are, in the end, prescriptions.
Reality is being, and not be.
Language is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of our minds and our concepts.
I don’t believe in direct knowledge. All knowledge, internal, external or otherwise is indirect knowledge. Knowledge is a process of a thing. Processes do not “exist” independent of a thing. Processes are reified by the process of language. Something always has to perform the process. The process itself and the process of verbalizing the process are performed by something. The process of gaining and holding knowledge is performed by something.
I have not always been a materialist. I used to think a lot about abstract objects to the point of being obsessed of them, ignoring The material world all together.
In some ways I was like hardcore idealists, thinking the material was a creation of the mind. The mind/spirit was more important than the physical self and world.
This ways of thinking did not get me very far. I was confused and frustrated with my relationship to the world. which perhaps why I chose to change my way of thinking, to abandon privileging the mind and spirit. Because every time I try to function with mind and spirit in priority I ended up failing, or dissatisfied with the outcome.
To cut to the chase, by dealing with this body in this world it took care of the mind and spirit. I was not neglecting them but they were better for this flipping of properties. The world became more manageable. My mind and spirit then also became more manageable as well.
This transformation was not overnight but gradual, and it took many years of trial and error until reaching where I am now. And even then I am still not fully whereI want to be but much closer and also heading in the right direction. Prioritizing the mind, spirit and abstract objects had literally felt like being led in the complete opposite direction far from where I had wanted to be.
Where I want to be is not a physical or material place but I can’t reach there without prioritizing the physical over the ideal. This much I know.
The observer/speaker is usually hidden in any statement we make. Take the following statement:
There are things.
While the speaker is pointing out objects in space, the use of ‘there’ hides the fact that the speaker is ‘here’ observing the objects that are ‘there’. In other words, there are not only the things observed but also the observer/speaker as a thing as well, only it is made invisible by the form of the statement.
Admiringly, it is difficult to avoid, for this is the characteristic of language. So it is imperative that we point this out, be aware of this fact of language that is not a fact of reality.
Every statement, whether this fact is hidden or not, includes the speaker and the listener.
I reject mind-only monism, monadology, and mind-body dualism, and accept only material monism as philosophically feasible.
I am not eliminative of the mind (I believe there is usefulness in talking about something called the mind) but I am explanatory of it through the physical but see a danger in conceiving it as an object like the body (a Rylean categorical mistake).
We must explore the possibility that language and subsequently language-based concepts play a large role in determining or influencing how we think about things and, more importantly, non-things.
Perhaps I am similar to the eliminative materialists. For one, I do not think there is anything more than material. the mind (and other similar “objects”) can be reduced to the physical, or at least an explanation through the physical.
But I do not reject the need to talk of the mind as though it is an object. We have no other way to discuss it. what is necessary is to see the problem then talk about the problem. The problem here seems to be that we reify non-things then proceed to forget that it is still a non-thing. The language perpetuates the mistake by the act of reification.