WOKE and proud of it....

[Alexis Jacobi]

Right, FDPs, and I would not expect very much different from you as a response. But in actual fact, if actual, meaningful, relevant and important and applicable philosophical ideas are the measure, your entire discourse is vain and void.

No offence, but the simple reality is that you've got a similar fantasy going on; something to do with being an influential thinker in the race realism movement or whatever far-right deal you are actually into. All of your references to philosophy are similar acts of costumery to his. You've read lots of books, but bat around empty terms such as "individual orientation within existential issues and questions" like a marketing robot.

However your general caustic commentary — largely the sum of your philosophical engagement and nearly every post of yours I’ve read — is intended as offense and nothing more. So I would suggest again that your engagement with philosophy, in the context of the present, is empty and vain. It is also irrelevant.

I like philosophy. The real stuff involving epistemology and ontology and papers written by working philosophers who aren't famous and whose names can't be used to impress rubes.

You also “like” boy’s assholes, right? But that sort of liking is of very little use to you or to any of us. It smacks of fetishism. You seem quite proud of yourself though, and I think that is a tell about the vacuity of your intellectual engagements.

I am sure, or in any case I hope, that those unnamed and little-known epistemologists and ontologists you reference write interesting papers. But it does not seem to me that they have much relevancy to, nor that you are interested in, the actual intersection of philosophical view and perspective with the issues of our day and time. Most of the debate and difference discussed here on this forum always turn on real issues of conflict, and these issues are what draw my attention.

Very poetic, but does it mean anything?

The better question, in your case, is any meaning intelligible to you? Turning to what you write I’d say you are not much moved by meaning and in a sense your concerns and preoccupations are meaningless.

For this reason I wonder about the value and relevance of your engagement with philosophy. I do not get a strong impression of relevant engagement among many who present themselves as philosophers. Therefore I have reasons to doubt their basic commitments. Are they, like you, merely decorating themselves pseudo-intellectually? Or is there valuable work being done.

I mean in comparison to numerous people who write here with concrete concerns and objectives but don’t seem to have crowable pedigrees.

You missed what I think is the better part of my post: the anomie and disunity that prevails among people here and all around us.

Finally, in regard to my ideas or any ideas of a Right-tending sort, I acknowledge your superficial, waspish contempt, but here too you are missing what is important: these ideas have been and are gaining ground and are influencing our present significantly. Awareness of this — and those of an ideological vanguard who influence the Right — is entirely relevant. Indeed indispensable.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Kropotkin suffers from the firm belief that he must be special in some way, but the inability to locate any talent that supports his notion. What he really struggles against is that.

I trust you have gathered that I am more interested in an examination of your fine person than in dissecting Kropotkin.

But in regard to the need to “feel special” I see it as a need or desire to connect with, to participate with, genuine and life-giving currents — socially, ideologically and spiritually.

My own primary interest is in this. Where people stand in relation to categories of meaning.

The fact is that many people who come to writing forums like this do so to test their relevancy on various levels.

What he really struggles against is that.

Is that really what he struggles with?

[Immanuel Can]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

Certainty of knowing is only a feeling.

Except the feeling isn't the important part. Kind of like "feeling of eating" and "feeling of dying."

Confusion is not better than clarity.

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

[Immanuel Can]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

What do you mean by “knowing” ?

I mean when how things really are and what you think really is line up with each other. Somebody might "feel" things are different; but it won't make things different than they really are.

[Immanuel Can]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

Are there different forms of “knowing” to you?

Yes.

[Harbal]

Confusion is not better than clarity.

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

I would say that feeling get's in the way of reason and logic all too often, causing us to be a bit too flexible about what we regard as evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

I would say that feeling get's in the way of reason and logic all too often, causing us to be a bit too flexible about what we regard as evidence.

That's yet another reason to push feelings into the background, and to subordinate them to one's reasoning faculties.

Feelings are, at most, like a "fire alarm" that can alert one to some emotion within a given situation...but it can't tell us why we have the feeling, or that the feeling is justified, or that there's something to be concerned about, or what we ought to do about it: for all that, reasoning must leap to the fore and take over from our initial feeling. If feelings are left on their own, and not subjected to reasoned understanding of what's provoked them, they're wild, foolish and uninformative of anything.

[Fairy]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

What do you mean by “knowing” ?

I mean when how things really are and what you think really is line up with each other. Somebody might "feel" things are different; but it won't make things different than they really are.

When things are really how they are. To know that things are really how they are, you would have to align your thoughts with that, yes, by aligning your thoughts with how things really are, that would become known to you, but that knowledge would only be secondary, it would be constructed solely out of your thoughts.

When your thoughts about how things really are, are in alignment with how things really are, how would you actually know the alignment is correct or incorrect without first a confusion being there to make a distinction possible, to be able to distinguish what sits right, and what doesn’t.

Confusion is the perfect state, it helps you to understand what you are actually feeling, it helps to discern between a potentially right or wrong thinking process. You get a strong feeling about whether something sits right with you or not, an intuition.

[Fairy]

Feeling is irrelevant. Feeling is not the same as knowing.

Certainty of knowing is only a feeling.

Except the feeling isn't the important part. Kind of like "feeling of eating" and "feeling of dying."

Confusion is not better than clarity.

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

You say knowing is different from feeling.

What about the claim to know God, to be knowing of God’s existence for example.

Is that a reasonable, logical and evident knowledge, a direct absolute knowing that cannot be unproven or refuted.
Or, is it just a feeling?

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by “knowing” ?

I mean when how things really are and what you think really is line up with each other. Somebody might "feel" things are different; but it won't make things different than they really are.

...that knowledge would only be secondary, it would be constructed solely out of your thoughts.

That's not the case. Reality is not "constructed out of thoughts," solely or otherwise. Reality is what reality is. If one fails to respect reality, it no longer matters what one's "thoughts" are. If you "think" you can fly, and jump off a building, reality will instantly prove to you that your "thoughts" do not control reality.

Confusion is the perfect state,...

Perfect state of uselessness. A confused person has no grasp of what's going on, and no understanding of what to do.

[Immanuel Can]

Certainty of knowing is only a feeling.

Except the feeling isn't the important part. Kind of like "feeling of eating" and "feeling of dying."

It could be if what you are clear about is mistaken.

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

You say knowing is different from feeling.

So do you. But let that be...

What about the claim to know God, to be knowing of God’s existence for example.

What about it?

Is that a reasonable, logical and evident knowledge,

Yes.

... a direct absolute knowing that cannot be unproven or refuted.

Ah. You're making the old mistake of thinking that knowledge has to be incapable of error in order to be knowledge.

No, knowledge of empirical facts is probabilistic, not absolute. Only knowledge operating within closed, self-referential systems of symbols, like in maths, can be absolute. Human knowing never is...not even in the most enlightened of our sciences.

[Fairy]

I mean when how things really are and what you think really is line up with each other. Somebody might "feel" things are different; but it won't make things different than they really are.

...that knowledge would only be secondary, it would be constructed solely out of your thoughts.

That's not the case. Reality is not "constructed out of thoughts," solely or otherwise. Reality is what reality is. If one fails to respect reality, it no longer matters what one's "thoughts" are. If you "think" you can fly, and jump off a building, reality will instantly prove to you that your "thoughts" do not control reality.

Confusion is the perfect state,...

Perfect state of uselessness. A confused person has no grasp of what's going on, and no understanding of what to do.

I didn’t say Reality is constructed out of thoughts. I said knowledge is constructed out of thoughts.

And for a person to be able to grasp what’s going on, they would also need to know what’s not going on. So knowing what’s not going on is very useful because it informs that what is going on, is not what’s not going on.

Same goes for having no understanding of what to do, would require to understand what to do, and to be able to differentiate between the two. That’s why confusion is the perfect state for the human, it’s how they are able to know differences.
Confusion is useful only in its uselessness. It’s ok to be confused. Confusing can be about simply not understanding some knowledge yet, and does not mean that that knowledge will never become known, just that it will eventually become known, soon as it actually becomes known.

[Immanuel Can]

...that knowledge would only be secondary, it would be constructed solely out of your thoughts.

That's not the case. Reality is not "constructed out of thoughts," solely or otherwise. Reality is what reality is. If one fails to respect reality, it no longer matters what one's "thoughts" are. If you "think" you can fly, and jump off a building, reality will instantly prove to you that your "thoughts" do not control reality.

Confusion is the perfect state,...

Perfect state of uselessness. A confused person has no grasp of what's going on, and no understanding of what to do.

I didn’t say Reality is constructed out of thoughts. I said knowledge is constructed out of thoughts.

No, thought is produced by the proper interaction of human cognition with reality. It's not "constructed" out of nothing. Reality has to govern it, or it's not knowledge.

It’s ok to be confused.

It's okay for confused people and children. It's not okay for adults to remain confused, especially when they could know better.

[Harbal]

Could be. Might not be. That's why we have reason, logic and evidence. But "feeling" doesn't really help there.

I would say that feeling get's in the way of reason and logic all too often, causing us to be a bit too flexible about what we regard as evidence.

That's yet another reason to push feelings into the background, and to subordinate them to one's reasoning faculties.

Unless you are part robot, that's easier said than done. I seem to think there are studies that show the majority of our decisions are made on emotional grounds, even when we think we are being completely rational. You probably know more about them than I do, and will have, no doubt, armed yourself with a refutation of them.

Feelings are, at most, like a "fire alarm" that can alert one to some emotion within a given situation...but it can't tell us why we have the feeling, or that the feeling is justified,

True. I have had many feelings that weren't justified. I often go with my intuition, but I have learned over the years to not have complete faith in it.

If feelings are left on their own, and not subjected to reasoned understanding of what's provoked them, they're wild, foolish and uninformative of anything.

Yes, feelings can be unreliable, but so can our reasoning. I've seen wild, foolish and uninformative reasoning written on this forum often enough.

[Immanuel Can]

I would say that feeling get's in the way of reason and logic all too often, causing us to be a bit too flexible about what we regard as evidence.

That's yet another reason to push feelings into the background, and to subordinate them to one's reasoning faculties.

Unless you are part robot, that's easier said than done.

Lots of important things are somewhat hard to do. Adults can do it better than children can, precisely because children are so much more at the beck-and-call of their feelings.

Growing up is good.

I seem to think there are studies that show the majority of our decisions are made on emotional grounds,...

I can't imagine how one would reliably test for that.

Feelings are, at most, like a "fire alarm" that can alert one to some emotion within a given situation...but it can't tell us why we have the feeling, or that the feeling is justified,

True. I have had many feelings that weren't justified. I often go with my intuition, but I have learned over the years to not have complete faith in it.

That makes sense, though. A "fire alarm" is a good thing to have; but just because it goes off does not guarantee there's a fire.

If feelings are left on their own, and not subjected to reasoned understanding of what's provoked them, they're wild, foolish and uninformative of anything.

Yes, feelings can be unreliable, but so can our reasoning. I've seen wild, foolish and uninformative reasoning written on this forum often enough.

But you'll note that the wild, foolish and uninformative reasoning is almost always induced by somebody being in a high state of emotion. Calm people do a lot less of it, and reasonable people do very little indeed. Nobody's absolutely immune. It's all about reducing the percentage of stupid responses to an absolute minimum; but it cannot ever be, among human beings, a matter of eliminating the possibility of wrong, impulsive or irrational reactions altogether. That's just life.