Metaphysics Competition

[steve_bank]

Are there any aspiring Kants out there?

Put together in one post the most convoluted but consistent display of argument and metaphysics you can muster. Any topic.

Knock our socks off with mental gymnastics and contortionism.

If there are responses, at some point we will all judge the best. One post only and no revisions once the edit option times out. Sate the goal at the top.

Gentlemen and women, start your keyboards.

 

[WAB]

Goal: Explanation of Reality

WAB's Theory of Metaphysics (summary):

The in-itself and the for-itself are not identical to the within and the without, at least not with respect to the multitude of identification algorithms which co-depend in intellibility, contradiction, and ambiguity. However, one should not leap to unfounded assumptions regarding analysis and synthesis, for the analytic subsists in the intermediary between substance and non-being, whereas synthesis is the confluence of instantiation and movement: movement being the abnegation of stasis at the transverse of universal antipodes. It should be mentioned that none of this should be confused with truth, since truth contravenes on conceptual dogmatism and borders on sensation beyond the powers of induction or deduction. Therefore, p and not-p are not equal to determination nor negation, which follows from above, and contingent on this is the necessity for the recalibration of the phenomenology of thought, albeit thought qua thought is merely the by-itself and transcends the in-itself and the for-itself, and even the of-itself, for that matter. Did anyone notice that matter rhymes with hatter? The author wished to be a milliner as a youth in Vienna, but he was laughed at; yet this is neither here nor there. In fact, here and there do not exist, except in a black hole, where they are complete opposites, or exactly the same, depending on one's point of view. Now where was I? ...

 

[Angry Floof]

Are there any aspiring Kants out there?

Put together in one post the most convoluted but consistent display of argument and metaphysics you can muster. Any topic.

Knock our socks off with mental gymnastics and contortionism.

If there are responses, at some point we will all judge the best. One post only and no revisions once the edit option times out. Sate the goal at the top.

Gentlemen and women, start your keyboards.

Can I just say Star Trek universe and not type it all out? It's convoluted but can be made sufficiently coherent through said mental gymnastics and contortionism. That's my entry.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Portal:Main

 

[Bomb#20]

The in-itself and the for-itself are not identical to the within and the without, at least not with respect to the multitude of identification algorithms which co-depend ... where they are complete opposites, or exactly the same, depending on one's point of view. Now where was I? ...

Sir, you are an artist!

 

[steve_bank]

The in-itself and the for-itself are not identical to the within and the without, at least not with respect to the multitude of identification algorithms which co-depend ... where they are complete opposites, or exactly the same, depending on one's point of view. Now where was I? ...

Sir, you are an artist!

A work of art.

 

[WAB]

Thanks Bomb, and Steve.

But where are all the other entries? This is easy-peasy. I would personally love to read the metaphysical navel-gazings of my fellow travelers here. I might even offer rebuttals (absurdly, of course).

And Floof's: I think this was supposed to be absurd and funny. Star Trek - so damn serious.

Berkeley is very funny. You can open any one of his books and quote from anywhere. And no-one alive will know where you got it from.

As well with Kant, and Hegel.

Anyone ever tried to read Aristotle's Prior and/or Posterior Analytics? You will be mind-boggled within a few pages, and beg for death.

Spinoza*. Now there's the man. The "Prince of philosophers" - Deleuze (who was no slouch). See his work on the importance of film on the public mind.


*



Just look at that face.

He had attacks on his life and didn't blink an eye. He lived on soup and his pipe. He declined a position at a great academy in preference of a life as a lens grinder. He allowed his sister to take a large inheritance from him, without contesting.

Read Spinoza! And forget (if you can) the God element. He discussed emotions, the psychological make up of humans, like no-one else. Give the man a chance.

Ethica is a must read for anyone interested in philosophy.

 

[Angry Floof]

T
And Floof's: I think this was supposed to be absurd and funny. Star Trek - so damn serious.

Not sure I understand you. Are you saying Star Trek is too serious for this thread?

 

[WAB]

T
And Floof's: I think this was supposed to be absurd and funny. Star Trek - so damn serious.

Not sure I understand you. Are you saying Star Trek is too serious for this thread?

Well, yes. I'm pretty sure Steve meant it to be less than serious. Steve??

If I am wrong, deepest apologies, and I love Star Trek.

I should also mention that Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel, are tremendously funny.

 

[Angry Floof]

T
And Floof's: I think this was supposed to be absurd and funny. Star Trek - so damn serious.

Not sure I understand you. Are you saying Star Trek is too serious for this thread?

Well, yes. I'm pretty sure Steve meant it to be less than serious. Steve??

If I am wrong, deepest apologies, and I love Star Trek.

I should also mention that Berkeley, Kant, and Hegel, are tremendously funny.

Yes, it's obvious that it's a light hearted thread, just humor. It's just weird that someone thinks Star Trek is not light hearted and humorous. It's one of the most light hearted and humorous things in existence. So I was a bit confused at your response.

 

[WAB]

Sorry again! Sure, there's a lot of humor in Star Trek.

I've seen TOS over and over again. I've practically memorized each episode. I could win many quatloos in TOS comps; but I know nothing about the NG or anything else.

My apologies, Floof. I have misspoken.

 

[Treedbear]

...
Spinoza*. Now there's the man. The "Prince of philosophers" - Deleuze (who was no slouch). See his work on the importance of film on the public mind.
...
Read Spinoza! And forget (if you can) the God element. He discussed emotions, the psychological make up of humans, like no-one else. Give the man a chance.

Ethica is a must read for anyone interested in philosophy.

Thanks. Maybe I will. For the time being I'll quote this article:

Among philosophers, Spinoza is best known for his Ethics, a monumental work that presents an ethical vision unfolding out of a monistic metaphysics in which God and Nature are identified. God is no longer the transcendent creator of the universe who rules it via providence, but Nature itself, understood as an infinite, necessary, and fully deterministic system of which humans are a part. Humans find happiness only through a rational understanding of this system and their place within it. On account of this and the many other provocative positions he advocates, Spinoza has remained an enormously controversial figure. For many, he is the harbinger of enlightened modernity who calls us to live by the guidance of reason. For others, he is the enemy of the traditions that sustain us and the denier of what is noble within us.

I don't find there's the need for monism in the guise of Nature to get to the same result, which I've bolded in the above quote. That predjudice is probably what kept me uninterested in reading anything about him (despite my having worked in optical manufacturing for 25 years). But then Spinoza lacked the benefit of Darwinian revelation. Frankly I'd probably still be a theist if it weren't for this intellectual wellspring of order and harmony in thinking as well as emotions. But it was only through casting off that yoke that I was able to realize the importance of understanding nature and our place in it in finding meaning and purpose in my own life.

 

[steve_bank]

Mostly serious. A good convoluted short essay is a great mental exercise. It requires in depth thought and concentration. It is a creative exercise.Working out such exercises while meaningless can improve your overall communication skill. I had 4 classes in philosophy. Looking back it is where I learned to communicate in writing and speech. Thinking through a topic and taking a position.

As to why only one poster it is much easier to talk about something than to work out something. IMO.

I look at it as mental gymnastics. One can appreciate gymnastics and I enjoy watching, especially the uneven bars and the balance beam. Likewise I can appreciate a good metaphysical display.

 

[WAB]

Mostly serious. A good convoluted short essay is a great mental exercise. It requires in depth thought and concentration. It is a creative exercise.Working out such exercises while meaningless can improve your overall communication skill. I had 4 classes in philosophy. Looking back it is where I learned to communicate in writing and speech. Thinking through a topic and taking a position.

As to why only one poster it is much easier to talk about something than to work out something. IMO.

Sorry I took your words 'mental gymnastics' and 'contortionism' (in the OP) to mean you wanted something humorous. Anyone purposely going for "mental gymnastics" or "contortionism" is doing one of two things: trying to be funny, or trying to dazzle you with bullshit.

Probably couldn't tell from my recent posting style, but I have a couple thousand posts in the archive, and most of those were in the philosophy fora. I posted many very long and very thought-through posts.

 

[steve_bank]

Mostly serious. A good convoluted short essay is a great mental exercise. It requires in depth thought and concentration. It is a creative exercise.Working out such exercises while meaningless can improve your overall communication skill. I had 4 classes in philosophy. Looking back it is where I learned to communicate in writing and speech. Thinking through a topic and taking a position.

As to why only one poster it is much easier to talk about something than to work out something. IMO.

Sorry I took your words 'mental gymnastics' and 'contortionism' (in the OP) to mean you wanted something humorous. Anyone purposely going for "mental gymnastics" or "contortionism" is doing one of two things: trying to be funny, or trying to dazzle you with bullshit.

Probably couldn't tell from my recent posting style, but I have a couple thousand posts in the archive, and most of those were in the philosophy fora. I posted many very long and very thought-through posts.

Humor qualifies.