Is introspection even necessary? I mean, it's not that I did not engage in introspection from 2011 (8 years old) 2016 (13 years old), but it was from 2019 (16 years old) to 2024 (21 years old) that I began thinking a lot because I stopped going to school and was staying at home all day everyday for the most part. I wonder if the last 5 years (2019 to 2024) was a waste of time, because I spent so much time learning. But I wasn't exactly the most happy person in the world during this time. I was much generally happier, or at least more excited, from 2011 to 2016, because I travelled much, met and befriended hundreds of people, and went to so many places, events, and grew in many communities. I was a part of so much, and I learned so much. I mean I learned so much in the past five years, but it resulted in much more complex negative emotions, even if it came with similarly complex positive emotions. It was generally less simply happy, and more so happy in a complex way. It was more so a conflict or dynamic of meaning rather than mere exposure to vast and greatly beautiful experiences. My mind was still young in 2011 to 2016, so my exposure to complex ideas was limited in scope due to my lack of experience and introspection. The past five years have been marked by a challenging mental battle. During this time, I have spent much time devoting effort into understanding the world through media exposure and through my own exposure to all kinds of ideas, into learning skills and how to apply them in various contexts, especially digitally, into becoming self-reliant and independent socially, in self-care, emotionally, and in growth, and into reflection and studying vastly, comprehensively, and analytically, not only by writing but by many other mediums such as playing musical instruments, drawing, writing fiction stories, and listening to music. I have been exposed to many times more media and all kinds of ideas; as a result, I have been able to add meaning or recognize everything I've internalized and been exposed to when I was growing up. This was a year of constructing everything in specificity, experiencing new ways of interpreting the world by virtue of mass exposure to media through the Internet and with much time spent in introspection independently, and asking tough questions and addressing many issues.
I see... I guess in the modern day, postmodernism is often seen as bad writing, as clarity is prioritized now in light of the rise of the Internet.
If I wanted to be utmost in my clarity, I would forbid the reading of my fiction work for those who even now are willing to ignore my clarifications for my fiction work, which has been perceived to be convoluted by its surrealist and postmodern style. I have spent much effort in securing a comprehensive recognition of the intentionality behind the themes, scenes, ideas, stylistic choices, and all other elements throughout my 200,000-word narrative. So I do emphasize that if the fiction work did not make that already clear, I suggest you focus on interpreting it yourself as a postmodern work, and if you may so desire a clearer, more set-in-tone interpretation, then view my clarifications. In other words, it's best to leave it to the reader in virtue of postmodernism, but if my critics are so adamant about a clear set-in-stone interpretation by which to view the work, then there my clarifications await. So they say that it's best to leave it to the reader in virtue of postmodernism, but if they are so adamant about a clear set-in-stone interpretation by which to view the work, then they point to their clarifications?
We are only as small as we can and as big as we can. What I mean is that we can narrow our scope to focus on precise details and widen our scope to focus on grander interpretations of reality.
So from my view, the response has an almost dogmatic view of moral absolutism as an existence of itself. The first could go into much depth with regard to Kant. The first could critique how Kant presents views without dogpiling on him. None of them seem to be talking about Kant actually. They both present very narrow interpretations which do not cover the fullness of Kant's ideas and the interpretations of those ideas. The article is more descriptive at least with his criticism, even if it is very narrow, but the response is just saying something along the lines of "This is the case because it is a fundamental part of reality, the end."
Article: 'But so let us engage in warfare then. What kind of warfare? No warfare. Kant's attempts to create absolute moral truths and obligations have been reduced to a tyrant's ponderings of a broader society forged in sensibility and common sense (as far as moral absolutism is concerned) or maybe this is a mischaracterization. But in all things, there are always going to fallen gods, and with fallen gods, fallen morals and ideas. Censure and erasure then becomes ideal, and afterwards, the memories of the new generation embody the goals of creating the moral of absolutes, that which disdained the old and forged the new. In warfare, we wage a battle, like armies in fiction, and hope to establish ourselves that our ideals be forged truly and that our absolute hopes be magnified across the generations and the people, applying deemphasis and subsequently censure along the way, that we might bestow upon the world the gift of life. That is what we own though, and we move forward, creating new ground that we might break them and impose the ideals of hope, dreams, and moral absolutism, if not to save a life, then to break them that we might be truly free from the very ideal of chaos, because it seems to be so as ideas of atheism and nihilism have been mischaracterized. But it is so anyway. We forge forward anew, with the strive, knowing, and feeling of moral truism.' Response: 'what does it attempt to say? why would he critique Kant? Would it not better to understand him than to criticize his ideas? It does not make sense why anyone would criticize someone who guides the very thoughts and ideals of many thinkers today. Then what is he saying even? I don't understand why he does not realize that his relativism only guarantees violence. Now I'm not saying that a specific nation or people carried absolute moral truth. Kant is just saying that it exists, even as an ideal. It is senseless to attempt to deconstruct or defy absolutism by people who have attempted to create it. There is no destruction of moral absolutism. It exists whether or not people have failed to replicate it. It remains so. It is the very nature of our reality, and to say that it is removed because people have created among themselves false (relativist) gods is a mockery of the very unceasing nature of existence, which extends to moral absolutism itself as an essential component of reality.'
You emphasize that attempts to document and define reality can often lead to a loss of its essence. This is a central concern in existential and postmodern philosophy. Thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger have argued that language and conceptual frameworks can obscure the raw immediacy of existence. You point out the paradox that increased knowledge and clarity can lead to a sense of disconnection from reality. This aligns with themes in Taoism, where over-analysis is seen as counterproductive to understanding the Tao, or the fundamental nature of the world. social constructivist Your view that interpretations of evidence are colored by societal frameworks suggests a constructivist approach, where knowledge is seen as constructed rather than discovered. This perspective is shared by thinkers like Thomas Kuhn, who argued that scientific paradigms shape how evidence is interpreted. The value you place on undistilled experiences, such as reading a book without dissection or enjoying a trip without detailed documentation, echoes the sentiments of many Eastern philosophies, particularly Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes direct, unmediated experience of reality. With every piece of knowledge gained, there is a sense of losing something—perhaps the raw, unmediated experience of reality itself. This paradox suggests that true understanding may lie beyond conventional knowledge and intellectual constructs. This idea is akin to the concept of "beginner's mind" in Zen Buddhism, where maintaining an attitude of openness and lack of preconceptions is valued over accumulating knowledge. There is a "strange familiarity" in recognizing that reality cannot be fully captured by our constructions. This familiarity comes from a deep, intuitive understanding that every attempt at further familiarization through intellectual means only distances us from the real. This resonates with mystical traditions that emphasize experiencing the divine or the ultimate reality beyond words and concepts. self-referential Existentialism: Your reflections align with existentialist themes, emphasizing individual experience, freedom, and the creation of personal meaning in an indifferent or ambiguous universe. Phenomenology: The focus on direct experiences and the lived reality echoes phenomenological approaches, which prioritize how things appear to consciousness over abstract theorization. Eastern Philosophy: There are resonances with Eastern philosophical traditions, such as Zen Buddhism, which value the present moment and the intrinsic nature of experiences, advocating for a direct engagement with reality without excessive intellectualization. Epistemology and Experience Phenomenology and Reality
The comparison that academics and the senate and all kinds of institutional or governmental construction are like high school where you have the nerds and the like is a sub-set extrapolation of the above ideas. I'm saying that our attempts at masturbatory "officialness" and definition only remove everything.
It's crazy that we've reached the point that the very nature of my past experiences already have well-communicated to me ideas found in philosophical frameworks and ideas that even now, I do not find the very nature of studying textbooks and science that strange philosophically or in terms of reaching intuitiveness. It is like learning to ride a bike. At one point, the very nature of every framework, theory, and ideas are not so strange so that any time I encounter philosophical ideas, I remark that their very realities have already been well-subsumed into myself experientially, visually, and sensually that any attempt by them to convince me is like trying to convince an car-driving adult of the existence of a car by using children's toy cars. It is interesting to say that those children's stories, those video games, those media, those stories, and those real-life experiences all converged to form this very intuitiveness and 'ingrainedness' that I have with the very realities (of those ideas). It makes it so that reading philosophical texts only serves to improve my writing and reading skills rather than provide any measure of novelty of thought to me, because of what I've already been exposed to all my life. That is what philosophical texts feel like when the very realities of those ideas have been well-internalized into myself. It's like watching a 30-minute recap video of the actual 4-hour live stream I watched. Well, that is not enough emphasis. It is like telling an 80-year-old man about the existence of aging. It is like a single picture of a very vast 5-year-long memory. It validates my reality, but at the same time, I also feel like I'm being shown a children's toy car in prove to me that cars exist, even when I'm already an adult who has read thousands of pages of books. This is why I prefer the 'nothingness' of reality. When life is given (appreicated by) little precision and clarity in terms of being written down and documented, then reality is allowed never to be compromised or condensed and allowed to be experienced in full. This is why I love of relaxation of reading a book merely or going outside for a trip. Even if that trip has produced very meaningful things that if written down in expansive detail by a very educated interdisciplinary scholar, could prove to be very valuable, for the most part, omitting dreams, experiences, and all kinds of exposure from being quantified or even qualitatively described or condensed only proves futile and deleterious. Even if real-life can be very complex and that if studied can be very fruitful in understanding the very complex, nuanced, and numerous interactions and facets which occur, it is frequently better to let direct experiences, visuals, and sensations occur. I love reading a book and enjoying it without trying to dissect it. But there is also a desire to write everything down precisely and comprehensively in hopes of preserving them. However, that is the beauty of life. The more one attempts to preserve it, the more it is lost by the loss of letting it be and occur merely. This is why I don't always write down my dreams, because it takes much effort. And sometimes, it is best left to the imagination and left to be experienced as they are. Sometimes, experiences, as they are, should be reflected upon rather than dissected as they occurs in the moment. But even there are many things about which words only seem to create abstraction and construction rather than reflect the actual realities and experiences. Sometimes, everything collapses (occurs in an interconnected, free way like a collapse) and is ill-defined because it is beautiful; when clarity enters into the room, construction and representations are the only things left, while the realities are ommitted. It is strange; clarity constructs and defines them, only serving to make it "make too much sense," while 'disclarity' allows things to alight upon the surface level and occur (as they are). We are only as much as we are; even then, we are nothing even in our constructions. The distinction between gibberish and precision is meaningless when compared to reality, as they precise constructions and gibberish are altogether construction in the eyes of reality. We are only as much as we are, that when we attempt to define ourselves, we are altogether omitted. We are as much as we are, that when all things fall, our attempts to catch things as they come cannot be any more futile than our mere sitting down and free and still acceptance of the things as they fall and alight upon our skin. We are only as much as we, that everything can be so defined so as to be meaningless. We are only as much as we are, that we can be be so clear so as to unreality, that our very constructions have created in us a misunderstanding. Then we are altogether unreality by our self-convincing and "clarity-giving" tools, frameworks, and constructions, in hopes that this reality that we are so keen to experiencing is made clear to us like the very knowledge that Adam and Eve hoped to achieve by eating the apple. We are only as much as we are, that we are nothing after all. Because reality is nothing, any desire to make it something only omits reality in the process, so that the very nothingness we all experience in disclarity occurs (as it is). This is reality, when it is most unclear, unspeakable, and strangely familiar, because no matter how we attempt to familiarize it into present constructed understanding, we also omit it in the process. There is a strange familiarity in knowing well what it is, but knowing well that any attempt at further familiarization through construction omits the very realities with which we seek to familiarize ourselves more. This is reality, when it is just about enough, but not so enough that we can say that it makes sense, that when we rely upon constructions and are so well-adapted to them that we can freely travel through constructions and different layers of abstraction well, then nothing makes sense because it makes too much sense (in the abstract). There is a loss gained upon knowledge. Upon knowing, I lost something. (Reality.) Learning new languages only exacerbates this realization. It is not that I will stop studying academic texts, but they are to me as of the same value as actual gibberish. I will cherish them as they are precisely constructed. But when compared to reality, they are altogether constructions. I see thinkers as "delusional fools" who engage in masturbatory construction as it is seeks to satisfy their internal logic with more internal logic. Delving deeper into their internal logic does not create external logic. It creates a continuously inner-evolving internal logic layers upon layers within. Attempting to create external logic from internal logic is like attempting to say that further exploration within a cave system has led to the realization that one is no longer within this cave system. Their further explorations and delving only leads them further within the cave system, and any complexity of paths and chambers that they might find only serve to bolster this reality that even after all their efforts, they remain within the cave system, as the thinker in his attempts to create external logic from internal logic. I see thinkers, scholars, and intellectuals as just a bunch of "delusional losers," and I mean that with great esteem toward their efforts in creating their frameworks, ideas, and theories, the realities of which I am already well-familiar experientially, visually, and sensually. The fact that delusional losers who have nothing to work with have created such beautiful 'cave chambers' within their cave system are worth appreciating. But we are altogether delusional losers in our attempts to create external logic in our internal logic. But we try anyway. I'm not saying that evidence is meaningless, but even now, everyday people, thinkers, academics, and intellectuals have their lens colored by societal frameworks, theories, and ideas, which has been so throughout history up to the modern day. So even with evidence, interpretations vary widely to the point that they can be considered altogether construction in the eyes of reality. Simply, I am referring to over-intellectualization, where the pursuit of understanding becomes an end in itself, detached from the grounding reality it seeks to explain. This is also why we love so much to delve deeper into the cave system anyway (reminiscent of Plato's Allegory of the Cave, where prisoners perceive shadows on a wall, mistaking them for reality). Maybe we have abandoned all escape, and that is more logical than attempting to create external logic within internal logic. So we keep matching inside the cave system. We create worlds wherein we can immerse ourselves and experience stories and fiction experiences. We have dreams and we let them be. We do not always attempt to deconstruct things, because even deconstruction is a construction in itself, an exercise of omission, oblivion, futility, and frustration. Creating external logic within internal logic is the ultimate form of projection (such as that in psychology, or exactly that very psychological concept). Of course, I would prefer if we did not separate virtual reality, dreams, imagination, and fiction from the reality we live in that we altogether became psychotic or schizophrenic, even if it might be pleasurable. But that does get called into question, in concepts such as hyperreality (Simulacra and simulation) and postmodernism. I have lost so many people. Naturally, I myself know well why intellectualization sounds like the cure to all our problems, especially those who have been second-hand exposed to trauma and the horrors of this world. We are limited, and we try. But we cannot forget that delving into intellectualization is just as dangerous as delving into fiction stories, imaginations, and dreams. They are only as much as they are, because within abstraction, there can be a difference between a level 1 soldier and a level 1000 soldier in a fantasy LitRPG (Literature role-playing game) fiction story, a difference between a tree and a forest in academic scope, and a difference between a car and a girlfriend in a dream. But when compared to reality, they are all constructions. Extending these ideas to actual thinkers and frameworks, Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger indeed argued that language and conceptual frameworks can obscure the raw immediacy of existence. The view that over-analysis is counterproductive to understanding fundamental truths also echoes the Zen Buddhist concept of "beginner's mind," valuing openness and direct experience over accumulated knowledge. The view on interpretations of evidence being colored by societal frameworks reflects a constructivist approach, similar to Thomas Kuhn's idea that scientific paradigms shape how evidence is interpreted. The value placed on undistilled experiences and direct engagement with reality without excessive intellectualization resonates with Eastern philosophies like Zen Buddhism, which emphasize the intrinsic nature of experiences and the present moment. The reflections on individual experience, freedom, and the creation of personal meaning align with existentialist themes. Additionally, the focus on direct experiences over abstract theorization reflects phenomenological approaches that prioritize how things appear to consciousness. Lastly, the passage touches on epistemological concerns regarding the limitations of knowledge and the paradox of gaining knowledge while potentially losing a direct connection with reality. These may not cover everything.
I don't know... When did philosophy make sense? When did things like that make sense? Is there even any point besides extrapolation or the very refining of these concepts as they are extracted into real things? At this point, I'm starting to think that life is starting to make too much sense. If I have already encountered these ideas before and am well familiar with them, then the only thing left is studying scientific textbooks and exposing myself to evidence-based information regarding all kinds of scientific things, possibly relying on all kinds of viewpoints, such as the naturalist view provided by zoology, which I can then apply to other aspects of life such as psychology. I guess it's a good thing that in our modern day, things "make sense." We have reached the point where many of the ideas which have arisen from humanity are now exposed to us like packaged food from a delivery order. It is not difficult to know how things are and how they have appeared to be throughout history and even in our very nuanced, interconnected, complex aspects of our contemporary world, as we live in it. Things make sense, and that is worrisome. But maybe, that's the only that's good about living nowadays. When things make sense, we can focus on getting things done and navigating our world through actualities and realities rather than repeating the same repetitions again and again. I expose myself to social media in hopes of locating new ideas, but I only find confirmations of realities that I have already experienced. That's a good thing I guess. The Internet (as a host for frameworks, ideas, experiences, theories, and representations) serves to validate reality, rather than reality forcibly fitting into it. To explain, I'm not referring merely to social media in terms of 'echo chambering,' but when one has ample experience and knowledge, I'm saying that representations of reality there only confirm experiences and knowledge in virtue of providing evidence or patterns which validate pre-existing frameworks, ideas, and theories. Things make sense now. Philosophical ideas make sense. Life makes sense. Issues make sense. Solutions make sense. Science, however, is now at the forefront of things, and now we continue to find novel and counterintuitive realities. Now it is all about evidence and encountering realities. That is the point of what I mean by social media serving to validate reality through streamlined commodified representations through which we can recognize real patterns and evidence. Okay. Like I said it's not about confirmation bias necessarily. That is not the point I'm making. I'm saying that life now makes much sense. Stop repeatedly trying to impose the very nature of social media by its issues, because that is not the point I'm making. It is a discussion that goes beyond just mere confirmation bias or information consumption. Let me repeat what I said earlier: 'I guess it's a good thing that in our modern day, things "make sense." We have reached the point where many of the ideas which have arisen from humanity are now exposed to us like packaged food from a delivery order. It is not difficult to know how things are and how they have appeared to be throughout history and even in our very nuanced, interconnected, complex aspects of our contemporary world, as we live in it. Things make sense, and that is worrisome. But maybe, that's the only that's good about living nowadays. When things make sense, we can focus on getting things done and navigating our world through actualities and realities rather than repeating the same repetitions again and again. I expose myself to social media in hopes of locating new ideas, but I only find confirmations of realities that I have already experienced. That's a good thing I guess. The Internet (as a host for frameworks, ideas, experiences, theories, and representations) serves to validate reality, rather than reality forcibly fitting into it.' It is not about 'our existing frameworks, theories, and ideas,' but the very frameworks, ideas, and theories circulated throughout history and even in our modern day academically. Life makes much more sense, as we are exposed to them much more readily, and it is much easier to connect realities into them because we are so exposed. Thus, now is an age of extrapolating what has been merely referred to in theories, frameworks, and ideas. We are exposed to them, and because of that, life makes sense now. I have grown up being exposed so much that these very frameworks, theories, and ideas make sense to me as 'children's toys' because the realities of these frameworks, theories, and ideas have already been visually, sensually, and experientially communicated to me throughout my life. So in short, when I look at these philosophical ideas, they feel like children's toys, which serve as a trivial representation of the realities I have already been well-exposed, -ingrained, and -communicated to throughout life. That is to say that the realities of them are already apparent to me and in grained into my psyche, identity, and existence. So things make sense.