Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!
From selections of the absolutely dank writing of 20th century continental philosopher Gilles Deleuze; This is a concept of philosophical pluralism, based on the philosophy of Nietzsche:
One way to introduce pluralism, would be in observing our present situation, the consequence of how a philosophical or scientific “observer”, a theoretical inclination which has been idealized to some extent since the 17th century, becomes caught up as involved, part of, or is participating in what is being observed.
It has been said by many that this broadly signifies a techtonic shift, in our world but what does it mean? This shift is huge, even if only taken in a technical sense, as just mentioned as an appraisal of our scientific paradigms. Of course, we may take for granted that modern humanity is “the scientific”.
Deleuze's notion is humanistic. Paying his respects to Nietzsche, it is a humanism radically born open to interpretation.
However that prospect may initially ring, in general, what I would call the “openness” in general, does not to me seem to be only a sophisticated relativism for people's entitled opinions, or a “politically correct” basis of meaning. This is actually regarding a world and cosmology in such openness that belongs to the world itself.
Of course I am writing off the cuff, and I do not have the time and energy to exhaustively debate and defend such a thesis which could be interpreted these ways. There is no doubt that Nietzschean thought is politicized before any actual consideration today, and yet here I nonetheless am sharing this view, perhaps because what Nietzsche, and continental philosophers have called "perspective", is first of all not absolute regard for dialogue, this collective march, and willing towards truth, which for modern humanity seems to be an even moral edification. The truth, after all, how could we turn away for a moment, from the interrogating sphinx of truth?
As important, and ultimately impossible to disregard, as this theory of unified truth may be, as Nietzsche said, we might best look away from the absolute. And simply put, our "modern" world, which we indeed share in many respects, does call for radical appraisal, still only beginning to be heard.
When the observer becomes burdened as part of what is observed, something that has happened within the affairs of sciences, this is something philosophers have long spoken of. Mostly they have towed the line in formality, in a modern world, in expositing the basis of the "subject to object" correspondence we consider. Any background metaphysics this may imply as necessary (what a “conscious subject” is, or how it relates to a world, etc.) is typically assumed as common sense of the epistemological (so to say, more broadly "scientific") priorities. A subject relating to object is necessary for our sciences, something which occurs or happens in a "state of affairs" or approximate situation, by fiat. We consider conscious subjects, and the objective world, in an empirical relation of “sense” (or in linguistic philosophy, the sense we ”make” in linguistic utterances, which implies this – sometimes called a “state of affairs” in the logic of the world.)
Yet as said, even in this ideal state of affairs, we are having trouble in view of modern paradigms, of defining what is strictly sensed or observed! The epistemelogical baselines (Cartesian dualism for instance) which ground empirical observation are themselves in form and structure in question today, at least in their previously consolidated instances. To anyone observing this horizon, aside from the clammy grip on things of modern humans, these formalities are indeed most of all being questioned, not just by philosophers, but by the present paradigms of science.
Many have suggested we take a more nuanced theoretical universe, with a pragmatic foresight, to what we now call substantive in a “theory”. There are others who have suggested the need to “deconstruct” the history of thought which informs overly formalized notions of modern epistemology. Then again, by far prevalent, it is suggested by our society that the technical organization of sciences and what they stand for to the modern world, truths, and our straight forward intellectually upright consolidation of them, is what is important. The intellectual background of 20th century logical positivism, remains in such institutions, and economies of discourse. (I think pragmatism is the moderate suggestion)
Many of these suggestions are at odds.
What Deleuze suggests, is that what we are actually doing, is acting, and willing, and thus in our understanding, we are observing our own force in the world, when the observer is tied to the observed. It appropriates the observed. This sense of burdened consideration, is what he calls "interpretation", or "openness". He no doubt suggests a duty in being a philosopher (as many continental philosophers have expressed) that may less be in ideal truth, but in recognizing power structures, whether they are in our own power we are complicit and burdened to represent authentically, or in the world we live in and find unity in.
Perhaps this pluralism is most clear in conception of primordial cosmology, where being and becoming, are the key, and turn to our world... which always come together and yet are different, as the gnomic presocratic philosopher Heraclitus had said. For instance, "being" might roughly correspond to logos, the staticity of our representations of things in the world, while "becoming" might signify physis (in greek, literally "nature" "growth" or "becoming"). Or perhaps what we consider in is dike (The greek deity of justice, and her cold eye) and the primordial spark and fire of existence Heraclitus wrote of? Where, in these antinomies does pluralism come in? Delueze writes "multiplicity is the inseperable manifestation, essential transformation, and constant symptom of unity"...
Philosophos does not mean "wise man" but "friend of wisdom". But "friend" must be interpreted in a strange way: the friend, says (Nietzsche's) Zarathustra, is always a third person in between "I" and “me" who pushes me to overcome myself and to be overcome in order to live (Z: "Of the Friend” p.82). The friend of wisdom is the one who appeals to wisdom, but in the way that one appeals to a mask without which one would not survive, the one who makes use of wisdom for new, bizarre and dangerous ends-ends which are, in fact, hardly wise at all.
Heraclitus denied the duality of worlds, "he denied being itself '. Moreover he made an affirmation of becoming. We have to reflect for a long time to understand what it means to make an affirmation of becoming. In the first place it is doubtless to say that there is only becoming. No doubt it is also to affirm becoming. But we also affirm the being of becoming, we say that becoming affirms being or that being is affirmed in becoming.
Heraclitus has two thoughts which are like ciphers: according to one there is no being, everything is becoming; according to the other, being is the being of becoming as such. A working thought which affirms becoming and a contemplative thought which affirms the being of becoming. These two ways of thinking are inseparable, they are the thought of a single element, as Fire and Dike, as Physis and Logos. For there is no being beyond becoming, nothing beyond multiplicity; neither multiplicity nor becoming are appearances or illusions. But neither are there multiple or eternal realities which would be, in turn, like essences beyond appearance.
Multiplicity is the inseparable manifestation, essential transformation and constant symptom of unity. Multiplicity is the affirmation of unity; becoming is the affirmation of being. The affirmation of becoming is itself being, the affirmation of multiplicity is itself one. Multiple affirmation is the way in which the one affirms itself "The one is the many, unity is multiplicity. " And indeed, how would multiplicity come forth from unity and how would it continue to come forth from it after an eternity of time if unity was not actually affirmed in multiplicity? "If Heraclitus only perceives a single element it is nevertheless, in a sense, diametrically opposed to that of Parmenides (or of Anaximander) …
We will never find the sense of something (of a human, a biological or even a physical phenomenon) if we do not know the force which appropriates the thing, which exploits it, which takes possession of it. A phenomenon is not an appearance or even an apparition but a sign, a symptom which finds its meaning in an existing force. The whole of philosophy is a symptomatology, and a semeiological system. Nietzsche substitutes the correlation of sense and phenomenon for the metaphysical duality of appearance and essence and for the scientific relation of cause and effect. All force is appropriation, domination, exploitation of a quantity of reality. Even perception, in its diverse aspects, is the expression of forces which appropriate nature. That is to say nature itself has a history. The history of a thing, in general, is the succession of forces which take possession of it and the co-existence of the forces which struggle for possession. The same object, the same phenomenon, changes sense depending on the force which appropriates it. History is the variation of senses, that is to say "the succession of more or less profound, more or less mutually independent processes of subduing" (GM I1 12 p .78). Sense is therefore a complex notion; there is always a plurality of senses, a constellation, a complex of successions but also of coexistences which make interpretation an art."All subjugation, all domination amounts to a new interpretation."
Nietzsche's philosophy cannot be understood without taking his essential pluralism into account. And, in fact, pluralism (otherwise known as empiricism) is almost indistinguishable from philosophy itself. Pluralism is the properly philosophical way of thinking, the one invented by philosophy; the only guarantor of freedom in the concrete spirit, the only principle of a violent atheism. The Gods are dead but they have died from laughing, on hearing one God claim to be the only one, "Is not precisely this godliness, that there are gods but no God?" And the death of this God, who claimed to be the only one, is itself plural; the death of God is an event with a multiple sense.
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, Jokeshopbeard, DividedQuantum 311 topic views. 3 members, 2 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Print Topic | ]