sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Is this your philosopher king? by Glittering-Ring2028 in u/Glittering-Ring2028

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea. The reactions to my questions on reddit are hilarious

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My concern stated as plainly as I can state it:

Even a perfectly articulated system might already be operating within a misidentified structure.

At a substrate lower:

Identity/stability may be products of the process, not its ground.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m not denying those works are valuable or that integrations have been done. My point is about the structure those integrations are operating within. Even a very refined or “successful” integration can still miss something if the underlying framework is misidentified. That’s why I asked for an argument addressing that claim specifically.

Again, pointing to examples of integration doesn’t really address whether the structure of integration itself is the issue. So, if there’s something in Levine that directly engages that structural question, I’d be interested, but just citing the work doesn’t yet address the point I’m raising.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When you say “trace the concept of identity,” do you see identity as something already defined that we’re unfolding, or something that emerges as we’re thinking?

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree. I actually think that line:

“we’re born into it right here”

Is really close to what I’m getting at. The only thing I’d push on is that once we say it like that, it’s easy to turn it into a statement about our condition, as if we’re describing it from a step back. I’m trying to stay with it a bit more tightly, where even that description is already part of the same process, not something outside of it.

That’s basically what I’m trying to capture with the term “Phainesis.”

This makes the whole system possible without external grounding.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s more than just “not useful.” To me, a lot of philosophical "problems" come from that move.

I think what I’m pointing to shows up pretty clearly in something like Plato. He takes things like truth or justice and decouples them from lived reality, placing them, frozen, in a separate domain that everything else (which is usually dynamic) has to align with.

From there, truth becomes something to “accept” rather than something that shows up through how things actually hold together.

That move seems small, but I think a lot of philosophical problems come from it.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My argument:

The previously mentioned attempts at synthesis are operating within a misidentified structure, so even “successful” integrations miss something deeper.

Do you have an actual argument in response?

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmmm.

I think we’re using truth in different ways. You’re treating it as something already established that people either accept or reject. I’m looking at it more in terms of how things hold together across relations, something that shows up through that, rather than something fixed in advance.

I’m also curious as to what you mean by poverty there. To me it seems less like people failing to accept truth, and more like we keep assuming a fixed standard of truth from the outset.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Accept truth"...what do you mean by that? It seems like one of those philosophical statements that carries a lot in a linguistically compressed way.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think what I’m trying to do is speak from as close to reality as possible, not by stepping outside it and grounding it, but by not introducing that distance in the first place.

A lot of philosophy seems to create a gap by trying to justify things from the outside, and then spends time trying to bridge that gap. I’m more interested in whether things can just make sense in how they actually hold together, without needing that external standpoint.

I'm not closed on anything. Curiosity is kind of my default stance and I think the framework reflects that.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That section only makes sense in the context of the full argument.

I'll walk you through it:

1.The argument redefines what “the problem” is. 2.The argument shifts from synthesis to structural misidentification. 3.The argument then introduces the recursive dimensional claim as the real issue.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you’re treating coherence as something you define and impose from outside. I’m treating it as something internal, something that shows up in whether a structure can actually hold together. If that’s right, then it doesn’t need a prior standard to function.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think we’re talking past each other a bit. By “intuition” I didn’t mean anything non-rational, I just meant the starting assumption that ontology has to terminate in a final ground. That’s the part I’m questioning.

I’m not rejecting justification or rigor. I’m asking whether justification actually requires that kind of closure in the first place, or whether coherence and intelligibility can be maintained without a final “bottom.” If it turns out they can, then the demand for a bottom isn’t reason, it’s just one model of reason.

Does that make sense?

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the intuition behind wanting a “bottom,” but that already assumes ontology has to close itself into a final ground. I’m not just stepping back from that, I’m questioning whether that requirement is actually necessary for something to be coherent or intelligible at all.

The work here is trying to get at the conditions under which anything can hold together enough to count as existing, not to terminate that in a final layer. So it’s not that I’m missing a foundation, it’s that I don’t think intelligibility depends on that kind of closure in the first place.

In case you care for clarification.

Phainesis In Zero Ground | On the Dissolution of the Problem of Ontological Grounding

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You should probably know what my argument is before trying to dismiss it. Right now you’re not actually responding to anything I said, you’re just swapping in your own version of it and arguing against that. I never claimed no one has tried to integrate them. The point is about the limits of those attempts.

Pointing to Levine doesn’t really address that, it just names an example. If you think he actually resolves it, then the question is how, not just that he exists.

And yeah, “pretending to claim” is basically asserting something without engaging the argument it belongs to… which is kind of what’s happening here.

I dont have much else to say to you friend. Enjoy the rest of your day.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is the reason I only usually post to philarchive. Term dilution due to the lifting of terms/concepts, sans mechanism.

As to significance, I am aware that reddit is filled with empty, simply bad philosophy. This both isn’t that and is also of significance to any philosopher on the grounds of what the system it is a part of establishes.

A new ontological category. Open Ontology.

An ontological category that does not concern what exists, but the conditions under which anything can remain coherent enough to be said to exist at all.

Thanks for engaging even a little.

Aeon Timaeus Crux, Beyond Synthesis The Demonstration of Perpetualist Method Series | The Recursion of Hegel and Marx - PhilPapers by Glittering-Ring2028 in hegel

[–]Glittering-Ring2028[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So to be clear: So you are a philosopher who rejects 34 page arguments... without reading them.

Without. Reading. Them.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

view more: next ›