[notathoughtgiven]

Articles here are phrases like ‘of the’ ‘in that’ ‘on the’ – maybe we have the wrong term here, but that’s what we mean in this thread. Feel free to alter the structure before a game.

So more like a prepositional phrase. Doesn’t matter to me what it is called as long I know the meaning being communicated to me 🙂
Keep the same structure so

1. Command

[spoiler]Run[/spoiler]

[notathoughtgiven]

2x articles, I hope I am doing this right, because you cannot have two articles together. Maybe I misunderstanding what that means.

[spoiler]near the[/spoiler]

FYI: Spoilers are spoiled in the email notification for a thread. 🙁

[notathoughtgiven]

Essences have to be, if they do indeed exist, after the fact BUT they are still a priori to each human in society as culture can pre-dominate the nature which preceeded it.

So if we can reject the nature that created the essences then we might be able to perceive something else other than essences. It would be hard but it would be possible.

But what exactly is Real that constitutes Reality,
that is the crux.

Maybe that is our arrogance showing to think there is such a thing as reality. When reality is just how we explain the universe from what we gather from our experiences and senses.

How many times have senseless arguments have risen because we think we know reality. That two people can sense and experience the same thing and come up with two different explanations for it. Who is right and who is wrong? Both are right, because both are providing an explanation that works for them. Works for them because of how their mind fits everything together to come up with that explanation. Since we are unique as individuals it would be natural that two people would come up with two different explanations. Sometimes there is general overlap because of shared experiences but more often than not their will be differences.

So for each of us their is a reality that our minds conceive. But we need to realize that reality is just an perception fo our mind. That it is not real and will vary from person to person in small and big ways.

[notathoughtgiven]

It can imply a creator, or it can be self-created, either way, the problem carries with it an undeniable quality of a thing. It’s religious because it pressuposes layer after layer of foundations, its religious because it can be another word for soul.

It can be religious because if it is implied there is a creator it begs another question. Why did my creator create me? What is my purpose?

That could be an interesting thread on its own. This whole notion of having a soul and why it came about.

It’s interesting because the way we explain things can lead to the creation of essences, when in fact, language can refer to itself.

Circular logic in other words. The way we explain some things leads to the idea of an essence. Then the essence is used to explain the things that explained it.

This can lead us into infinite regress where we constantly have to justify one cause with another cause into infinity.

Maybe not infinity but to our limit of our ability to explain it. From there its either magical or a sign of a creator or higher power. People’s way of saying “I give up” without saying that.

Yeah, so on rejecting essentialism I don’t know how you feel about ontology.
It’s important to know how our notion of essences influences our thinking and how they differ in certain philosophies and the implications for those differences.

How we might be biased by our notion of essences. That in order to think of different ways of thinking we have to examine how one line of thinking is deeply rooted. Otherwise we might end up in the same spot again with essences because that is all we can conceive.

[notathoughtgiven]

I am looking forward to reading this and discussing it. For the simple reason is that I feel it is something I have noticed over time. That the preoccupation with exploring one’s self is good to a point, it does become a problem. That we have in a way swing to the other extreme and only seem concerned about ourselves because of that preoccupation.

Thank you for posting it. I will read it and join in on the discussion 🙂

[notathoughtgiven]

To make sure I am understanding it right. Essentialism is the idea that everything has some kind of form that is unalterable. That it can be seen as religious because something created that form.

[notathoughtgiven]

where as Foucault would say ‘who knows what’s real anyway?’.

Well that is a good point. We can talk about false consciousness but if we don’t what is real then how can we make that judgement that it is false. There is no basis to compare something to what is real and say it is false. I think the best we can do is say “This appears real” and therefore that is false. At the same time realizing we have no idea if what we are saying is true or not. Just the best we know in the moment.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[notathoughtgiven]

So by trying define a norm for a category we invite the herd mentality. That people want to be seen as the norm so they will try to fit into it or enforce it on other people in the category. Which in time erases individuality and is replaced by the herd mentality.

But if instead we see it as variations or a spectrum of possibilities within the category without a norm then individuality remains intact. If someone comes along that is different it is nothing unusual. Just one of the possibilities on the spectrum.

[Author]

Posts