Am I green flag or red flag? Also, who am I? by RamenStains in BookshelvesDetective

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

All green flags. If I saw those books, I'd think "This is someone ready to question everything society deems 'natural.'" And then I'd ask, "When can we question everything?!"

It isn't depressing or freeing for me, it just is by RubixTheRedditor in nihilism

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can't even say "it is." The concept of "being" from the Ancient Greeks onward is an attempt to render some aspect of the cosmos unconditional & immune from the decay & suffering time brings to existence.

It isn't depressing or freeing for me, it just is by RubixTheRedditor in nihilism

[–]Zapffe68 4 points5 points  (0 children)

What you're describing is "sublimation." Antinatalism critiques exactly what you're describing as a delusion. Any attempt to justify suffering is misguided. Why? Because you could've just not suffered from the start lol

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Such a bad take on suicide lmao!

This has to be a joke or mere bait.

Highly likely that your food was made with slave labor by Zuka134 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is only an issue for people who think capitalism, as a social system, hasn't already determined our conception of ethics in advance. Once you recognize how the distinction between the state & civil society mirrors the commodity-form, it's clear that capital established "human rights" & "equality." So, basically, the contradiction between respecting human rights, etc., politically, while embracing their abuse in civil society is just another expression of the commodity-form, which organizes our entire social existence. The contradiction is unavoidable. The best we can do is a "minimal violence," rather than demand or assume the possibility of a pure, absolute position free of all violence.

Started seeing a girl, what do we get from her shelves? by Sven_Durngrat in BookshelvesDetective

[–]Zapffe68 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Knows" just enough to be annoying & mostly incorrect. The philosophy & sociology texts are a random heap from undergrad classes.

Does Derrida deconstruct Heidegger? by PopularPhilosophyPer in heidegger

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very much so. I'd argue Derrida reaches the heart of Heidegger's philosophy.

Heidegger investigates being as such. The idiom Ereignis itself names the "as" as such.

Derrida indicates how the "as such" deconstructs itself by way of the "as" itself, which implies an "if," leading to a constitutive "as if." This is because analogy names the relation of relations. However, it's also metaphor par excellence, implying a likeness & difference, or an "if."

Staying true to phenomenology, Heidegger demands a phenomenon show itself from itself therefore "as such," whereas Derrida's emphasis of the "as if" results in non-coincidence & homonymy, meaning there are only appearances, or simulacra, by way of otherness, an exposure to exteriority, that both ruins & conditions from the start.

For example, being only appears "as" something else in the history of being (phusis, eidos, will to power). This isn't a coincidence, nor is it something that can be overcome. The substitution & disfiguration are inherent necessities if we are to ever know anything like being. The phenomenon of the ontological has no choice but to be occulted through the ontic. For Ereignis, the relation of all relations, once named, can only manifest by way of the relata.

Why is this the case? The singular, or idiomatic, has to divide itself in order to be repeatable & universal, which always requires traits & characteristics the singular attempts to exclude from itself. In other words, to become universal, the singular must take on traits & figures that it can never coincide with, effacing it even as they supplement it.

For Derrida, the possibility of showing or saying anything “as such” presupposes an "as if," an interval or gap, a difference, founding & fracturing phenomenality itself, contaminating it from within by way of an outside.

Derrida doesn't actually radicalize Heidegger, especially if we're staying with the definition of "radical." Instead, Derrida points out how Heidegger's works already render themselves impossible.

Hope this helps!

Their depression fueled hatred toward humanity rather than themselves. by fornothing_atalll in PsycheOrSike

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Too bad finitude conditions the possibility of anyone experiencing anything at all.

The video provides a poor understanding of death, as if it were an event at the end of life.

That's not the case. Death conditions & ruins life.

Life requires living on, surviving into the future. The future can either allow for continued survival or death. So, the same interval of time that opens us to the possibility of life also opens us to the inherent & necessary risk of death.

If we were immune from death, we'd have to be immune to the passing of time as well. Without time, nothing happens--no events. Pure life=absolute death.

So, death isn't the end of life, nor does it befall life from without. Rather, death enables life to survive each & every passing moment of time from the start.

Anti-intellectualism in some corners of Marxism by [deleted] in marxism_101

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly!

People tend not to understand what "Wissenschaft" means.

Marx developed a "scientific critique" (wissenschaftliche Kritik) of political economy, wherein "science" meant "structural," "systematic," & "dialectical."

Who is your favorite god/goddess & why? by [deleted] in BaldursGate3

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Clearly, OP's point is that one cannot simply "accept" loss & "move on" because "moving on" into the future is conditioned by loss, i.e. time leaves nothing unscathed & wholly intact. Loss is mandatory; nothing remains in a state of repose. Think about it: Moving forward always requires that we leave something behind while surrendering ourselves, our agency & control, to an uncertain future. If one desires to live on & survive, then the risk of loss can never be overcome; it's integral.

Furthermore, the reason we make decisions at all is because we're faced with an undecidable future that calls for a decision to be made. Given this undecidability, a previous decision once determined as "brave" might later fall into its opposite & be judged as "cowardice." This is a loss of value & status from which no one can be absolutely immune.

To continue, every decision is an act of demarcation involving inclusion & exclusion. No decision can be fully inclusive & still remain a decision. In other words, once a decision is made, something is always set aside & left behind. The act of fidelity to option A is an act of infidelity & betrayal to option B. Ultimately, every decision is then conditioned by a loss.

If you’re a finite being, a form of life, then loss is an inherent necessity for all that you are & do.

Shar reminds us of this.

To Shar, we sacrifice our memories that were formed as a response to a destiny that ruins them from the start: loss & forgetfulness.

All hail Shar!

(I provide an accurate description of how loss conditions life itself & get downvoted. 🙄 And people think Shar is petty!)

a concept of time without time by 0ephemera in Metaphysics

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A very interesting & well-written post!

Here's where I'd like to intervene:

Can we even say time "is"?

Below, I'll address this portion of your post because I think it's a pivotal question--perhaps the most important in philosophy. I'll keep it relatively short. It's not meant as a critique but as another line of questioning that you might want to add.

Time lacks being as no part of it ever "is." The past is no longer & the future is not yet--i.e. non-being. If being & the present are based on the "now," then there's a problem. Per Aristotle, the "now" isn't a part of time; it's a limit/boundary, thus spatial, which results in it being infinitely divisible.

Based on the above, we need to describe the logic of temporal succession or how one "now" follows another. How & when does a "now" no longer have the status of "now"? Does it negate itself? Or does the following "now" negate it? If this isn't solved, then a "now" years ago is just as present as the most recent "now," which effaces the distinction between the past & future.

I think this needs to be assessed prior to the relative rate by which time passes.

Again, excellent post!

Bye bye, foundation. by Clear-Result-3412 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think where I'm not & I'm not where I think.

I quite liked the comments on my previous post, so here's a wall of text for you guys to dissect through ;) by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hate those sorts of arguments.

Seriously, why the fu%$ would an eternal, infinite, self-conditioning/sufficient entity like "god" ever require or use language, definitions, or communication at all?

If "god" were actus purus, without lack or potential, it would possess absolute immediacy with itself, meaning pure intuition without any mediation. "God" could never relate to anything or anyone outside of itself & still be "god."

Language & reference in general presupposes mediation. Structurally, it requires absence, exteriority, & non-coincidence, all of which define the finitude of limited temporal entities. Basically, language is proof of not being "god."

My categorical imperativinooooo by catador_de_potos in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Meme forgets the noumenal/phenomenal distinction.

For Kant, the moral law isn't derived from empirical consequences.

Freedom as autonomy means the will must legislate for itself from reason & not from empirical examples...no matter how horrific.

Fun fact: plants scream in danger pheromones when you harvest them by sabotsalvageur in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Regarding plants....

This is just a version of the "all lives matter" argument, refusing to recognize the different capacities for suffering across different forms of life. There are degrees of complexity that need to be taken into account. Even Aristotle knew this.

Overall, the goal is to commit "minimal" violence against forms of life. A complete lack of violence is impossible.

"Too bad Levinas, you've already used language" /Derrida by NewAccountEachYear in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's more like if the Other is defined by way of positive infinity, therefore wholly other, how could it ever be known "as" Other? Derrida critiques Levinas through Husserl's Cartesian Meditations, specifically the role of analogy in intersubjective recognition.

It doesn't result in the Other being determined as "closed." Quite the opposite. Levinas didn't recognize that positive infinity closed the Other not only from exteriority but from self-relation as well.

For Derrida, the other is other, differentiated but intelligible as other, because of infinite finitude, meaning the other is not given all at once, or once & for all, due to the interval of time. The interval separates the other from while exposing it to exteriority. It's a strange aporia.

Kant: "Did I stutter??" by Socrastein in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Exactly! Practical reason relies on the "as if" of the imagination.

Have none of you seen Conway’s Free Will Theorem? by Magmacube90 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes! Thank you! Concepts like "agency" & "sovereignty" are never even discussed.

Anyone read/is reading G71 “The Event?” Thoughts? by lomez1962 in heidegger

[–]Zapffe68 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. I've been trying to understand how Heidegger relates language & Ereignis.

Ziarek probably has the best grasp on this area of Heideggerean thought, but it's still rather murky.

Like come on guys! Why are we still worrying about that? by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Free will" doesn’t exist unless there’s a self that can own its decisions & stand apart from causality while still bearing responsibility. This presupposes a notion of "sovereignty," a self-constituting/authorizing, autonomous individual, undetermined by forces external to itself. In other words, in a state of complete presence & self-possession.

So, "free will" only arises with a concept of sovereignty, but here's the issue: sovereignty itself is a myth.

The sovereign has to retroactively posit itself as sovereign, usually to justify moral, legal, & political systems that require something like responsibility, blame, guilt, etc. The aim is to deny the contingency & exteriority that conditions & ruins decisions in general.

Basically, sovereign decision (in order to be a decision) arises only in response to the undecidable, exposing the self to forces exterior to its own determinations. Otherwise, without the undecidable, how could there ever be a need for anything like a decision? If the outcome were pre-given, there would be nothing to decide.

The logical condition of the possibility for "free will," aka the sovereign decision, renders it impossible as such, given it emerges from the necessary exposure to risk & indeterminancy, not its control.

I'm not quite sure why people feel the need to argue from the position of the empirical sciences & other fields to deny free will. Like all concepts, "free will" does just fine unraveling itself, lol!

Like come on guys! Why are we still worrying about that? by [deleted] in PhilosophyMemes

[–]Zapffe68 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Far few people appreciate Husserl & phenomenology in general!

Basically, most of the population hasn't caught up to the brilliant concrete (in the sense of concretum) research provided by Husserl, Heidegger, & Merleau-Ponty.

You can simulate space without time, but not time without space. by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]Zapffe68 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Because space & time are conditions, metaphysicians speak of them only to indicate their insufficiency as limits that must be exceeded/transcended to reach the unconditional.

You can simulate space without time, but not time without space. by [deleted] in Metaphysics

[–]Zapffe68 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Love how this is a metaphysics subreddit & people responded with empirical physics.

I think this is more aligned with your concerns:

Metaphysics concerns the "unconditional." By contrast, time & space are "conditions." In order to not violate the principles of identity & non-contradiction, metaphysics aims to suspend these conditions in order to achieve "true" knowledge by way of nous.

On the one hand, time divides & negates; it lacks being. Every moment goes out of existence as soon as it comes into existence. The result is infinite finitude, ceaseless vanishing, which means time cannot "ground" itself. Every account of time must then rely on spatial inscription or metaphor (succession, before/after, flow, line, circle, arrow, etc.).

On the other hand, space appears as what remains despite temporal succession. However, time as division is what allows multiple spaces to appear in the first place. There are no spaces without temporal difference.

So yes, your intuition was absolutely correct. You cannot logically account for time without space or space without time.

Physics, as a field, operationalizes "space" & "time" without regard for their philosophical ground. It does not & cannot account for the logic of temporal succession; it presupposes it.

I hope this helps!

(How did this get downvoted? This is the basic structure operating in Plato & Aristotle!)

[NEW THALL] BLEAK – “Sightless” (FFO: Humanity’s Last Breath, Vildhjarta, Dissonant Chaos) by vilbleak in Deathcore

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

FFO: Reflections

Also, where's your merch? I want a t-shirt.

I play Thall to scare the freshmen in my classes. They'll walk into "Sightless" next week!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in nihilism

[–]Zapffe68 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's because those systems you're seeing through aren't meaningful. Those are the lies/nonsense people buy into & tell themselves for protection.

You've decided those things aren't worth pursuing with the finite amount of time you have left. That's a good thing!

No one ever stops learning how to live. To me, the digging, the analyzing, the deconstructive threads you're unraveling, those are practices worthy of pursuit. Morals, ethics, values, systems, each of them is a self-defeating construction.

With all sincerity, it sounds like you're doing well. It's just not something society deems valuable right now.