——- I’m getting confused on the switching between blog apps. I’m sure my learning spot will catch up on the curve one day.
*
I can appreciate these philosophical discussions.
However, It’s kind of strange to me how bristly I get when I think of Mark Chalmers. I think it’s because I had a friend named Mark Chalmers in high school. We were kind of friends, but he was kind of an enigma, and I could never really figure out why he was the way he was.
*
To me the questions that the Philosoher Chalmers and others are writing and thinking about are more like a game of trying to define and play a game at the same time. It’s like they’re just stuck in the game in the of ‘One way’ of thinking. I mean, it’s interesting, and can be fun to place the pieces on the board in particular way, and then say you can only move pieces in certain ways, and then play the game. But when it comes to philosophy, I’m not really sure that they’re getting to what they’re talking about, which I think is much of the point, ironically, about what they’re talking about. So to my mind, I’m not sure why they continue to play that game.
That’s Lance’s Dilemma: why do seemingly intelligent people continue to play the game and never call out the game that they’re playing?
😂
I think I answer it by saying that reality is the game, and, indeed we do have to participate in the game in some sense, but Philosophy has something more to do than simply this game that we call reality. I say we can talk about the truth of things.
Diatoma mentions the philosopher about “physicality”, but even so, I feel by saying there’s some sort of difference between the physical and ideal tends toward just saying that we must play this game that has to do with a fundamental dichotomy between physical things and ideal things, and this is the only real game.
But there are certain repercussions, certain real repercussions, in continuing to play the game that particular way that, I wonder, if people who are playing the game really want to take responsibility for.
I think people would rather just continue playing the game, and not really think about it, because ultimately, aren’t we all just trying to like, make some money, eat some good food, go water skiing, maybe have some children, and hopefully die without feeling too much like shit when we get old? 🛸
But it is interesting so please comment.
——- PS:
Thinking of Wittgenstein and “language games“. This is not simply about the meaning we make, nor about the eternal recurrence of such language games.
Rather, it is what I refer to as “orientation”.
I think the more significant question has to do with what is actually happening. Less about conventional efforts of career and identity, and more about how these are shaped by how we interact with those, and ultimately, how we represent, literally ‘present again’ those absolutes within which we want to argue there is no absolute, that I have an idea as compared to some ‘neutral’ physical reality out there. It is more that we have to contend, the conditions are such, and that if we are going to speak on some thing, I feel that we need to be clear about what it is we are actually involved with, rather than assuming there is this “other Ness“ that everyone who considers themselves human is dealing with at all times and everywhere.
Anyways. Please comment.
X