Conversation

For example, what is truth? You need some sort of practical pre-rational understanding of truth in order to talk about lying for example, or when evaluating beliefs; you know what it is, just not reflectively.
1
3
But as soon as you reflect on it, your not allowed to ask how that works or something? It's impossible to get any answers? How are you not frustrated with this huge cloud of fuzzy don't-know can't-speak can't-articulate?
1
1
4
There are impossibilities in ontology, like that there is no view from nowhere, but those should (??) inform where to go next? How the philosophical method must be? Like, in this example, you get ontological contextualism.
1
3
And this all happens in ethics. This exact same thing. But this is more directly relevant to what's going on. So much of politics is debate over ethics but we simultaneously say that ethics is impossible or necessarily completely irrational?
3
5
Idk I feel like the schizo seeing the aliens that no one else sees, it everyone sees but doesn't see it for what it is, and that alien is this huge cloud fog of confusion around ontology and ethics
1
3
I feel like I do this on a three month cycle. Some philosophy convo happens, get all motivated to do a buuc of ontology poasting, I get little or frustrating engagement, get all pissy, whine about it like so ⬆️⬆️, stop ontology posting until I forget why I stopped 🙃
1
5
And then the meta/postrats are like, "hey, look at this RATIONALIST who needs everything to be RATIONAL I hope he learns how to deal with nebulosity" while they go off and continue to make bad philosophy takes while claiming philosophy is impossible
4
1
14
Replying to
I'm not sure I want to publically call people out, and I know I've bothered you in the past with rationalist style combative arguing 😬 Reach out to me and we can see about navigating this
4