Part 3 , In the ongoing and very enjoyable sparring with 
I dissect the postmodernists philosophy, which I see as exceedingly dangerous for the entire of western society, and it's survival.
(as per usual, the excerpts are faded, and my responses are in bold - here is the full post by
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@tarazkp/men-of-many-worlds)
René Descartes (1596–1650) was a French scientist, philosopher and Roman Catholic of the Enlightenment period who is often considered to be the founder of modern philosophy, breaking away from the ways of the middle ages.
Descartes departs from the philosophy of scholasticism with a concept of universal doubt.
He put much faith in the scientific method as a source of knowledge.
Lets begin, shall we...?
I think therefore I am....
To accpet Descartes assertion....
Is to accept that you are your own property .
And is to acknowledge that you are not owned by any other entity.
The extension of this sovereign state of being of course, is property rights.
If you are your own property, then the fruits of you expending your energy (work, labor), must also - logically- then belong to you also.
Private property acquired by you, through your own labors is then also yours.
The end of leftist argument and collectives, in 5 lines....!!!!!
(not to mention tax).
but I do not know if you think, or I am just thinking that you are.
No, but you do know that you think, so therefor is a logical progression to observe other people and then conclude that they also think.
You might be a figment of my imagination, it is possible that it is all illusory.
Intellectual concepts are fun pastimes, but not relevant in the real world.
It just wastes time on things that ultimately offer no value.
It is mental masturbation to exercise the conceptual muscles.
Many people do this to impress others of their intellectual prowess ...and normally found within the academic circles .
Someone mentioned asked today, what school of economic philosophy do I follow, a strange question if you think about it.
Why is that strange?
It was a natural extension from the conversation,.
I was trying to understand your perception of how money works, and your thoughts on economy, and thus to find a more precise meaning to understanding your perception.
Asking 'what economic philosophy do you follow' seems a logical progression of understanding.
On the assumption that you never came up with all the economic models yourself, and have read somethings about economic theory, then your influences on which you draw your conclusions, seems like a sensible question, not a strange one...
Which philosophy, the one of academic study or the one that directs behaviour? For me, the action is much more important than the definition of potential action and behavior.
Postmodernist word salad .
The action is more important than the definition of potential action....but you can't carry out an action unless you have defined what it is you are doing. Otherwise you couldn't do it....
Example:
You defined in your head that you were going type this post.
You had to define what steemit was, what a post was, what typing was.. and then you posted.
You had to have definition of your action, to execute an action...
postmodernist lettuce.... with dressing! lol...
When it comes to something like the economy, which do people follow, the one from the book or the reality of a system?
To understand (not follow) an economy , you need to dissect all the component parts, to realize the dynamics in question.
To identify .
You say there is no reality.
How then, do you follow the reality of a system?
That's illogical.
I have mentioned before that all markets are by nature free and that includes all of the manipulation, restriction and subsidy. It depends on what you define as free though.
What do you define as free, then?
Your avoidance of making definitions and not show a position- is showing your position, you do realize that?
A free market is no longer free if there are exterior forces acting upon any disruption of the price discovery mechanism, within a contract.
The PDM is an information system made up of a thousand different components distilled down to a number.
It's not perfect, but it is - by far - the best measurement we have ever had, to discover fair value.
I was thinking a little about my life after though and when it comes to my worlds, I rarely worry about the book view as by nature, it is always going to be skewed, history is largely written by the scholars of the victors after all. For me, experience plays a much larger role in my theories than exploring the theories of others.
Without exploring the theories of others, you are then stating that your personal knowledge - your experiences- is so vast that you feel no need to read others.
It that indicative of a mega intelligence dwarfing Einsteins (he read a lot)? Or is it Ego?
Yes, they might have a much better view of it all than me but, I find value in exploring my thought process, not in the repetition of other's thoughts and ideas about the world.
...the old discount with a 'but..'.
Yes, they might have a much better view of it all than me (BUT I don't really accept that...)...
How can you know that - one way or another - unless you first read all the material available on a subject?
You find more value in exploring ideas inside your own head without referencing them to an innumerable amounts of sources in books?
Sources from very intelligent individuals.
...it denotes an extreme narcissism, to be able to perceive your own experience to have that much value...to be that knowledgeable.
(Hicks has noticed a high degree of extreme narcissism to be prevalent in the post modernist- and the left. Very interestingly. Patriot has also noticed the left can't meme).
Narcissism is not a negative trait, in itself - we all posses is.
But like anything, it's by degree.
It can be very destructive in excess.
And, my thoughts on a subject will change as the moment changes, as experience shifts.
If thoughts on a subject change at a moments notice as experience shifts, then you will weight more value on a personal experience, than any empirical evidence. Data?
It is funny when people look for consistency in others...
Looking for consistency in others is a natural way to work out who you are dealing with. Lack of consistency can show emotional immaturity, or intellectual dishonesty (or weakness).
Knowing who you are dealing with is the commonsense approach to survival.
....as if they themselves are consistent and unchanging.
...the two are not connected, but in trying to make a logical connection to the first part, and the second part, confuses the issue. Muddies the water, and clouds the two separate issues.
A postmodernist strategy to avoid clarity of expression.
Being alive is being in a constant state of change.
In my opinion, it is a pretty poor position to adhere to a school of thought that by definition is going to be limited in information and insensitive to the changing needs of the moment.
Only an idiot would adhere to someone else's school of thought.
Reading the different schools of thought is entirely different.
Reading das kapital is as relevant as reading the works of Locke and Smith, and Bacon. (Painful, but true.)
Philosophy is not dependent upon changing needs of the moment. The very opposite.
For me, my experience in the worlds I have lived are the points that carry through to my immediate behavior and to date, I have never met a person who has learned to surf from a book.
I've never met a person who has learned to read by surfing, either.
Your point makes no sense to me...can you help me out? lol
When it comes to all skills owned, it is a process of movement, learning, investment and as I see it, thought is no different, it is a skill that must be earned. Parroting thoughts from a book might make one feel clever but when the reality calls for action,
Improved thought process is indeed earned.
If one feels clever because they reference others work, it just shows a in insecurity in their own intelligence.
You keep mentioning reality, when you've said previously there is no reality...I'm confused. (See inconsistency above).
Or are you saying that there is such a thing as reality? An example of what is real..?
the lessons of those books rarely come to mind let alone hand, they are not lived. I am lucky in many ways, I have had a chance to live many worlds, in many ways.
Which books are you referring to? (hence the question of economic philosophy).
You are typing on a computer and that was learned.
You learned these skills by first understanding letters.
Letter found in books.
The ability to communicate online is all thanks to the magic that are letters.
Reading books and learning this skill comes to hand with every letter you ever type on a keyboard.
They are 'lived ' very much.
People are encouraged to focus their mind, find references to tie themselves to, points to hold, to follow, adhere to, make an authority of, revere, to center. Controlled?
people are encouraged to find a position within themselves. This is what gives you the foundation to build more.
If you control yourself, you are not controlled. If you are your own property, you are not controlled.
Again, the postmodernist logic only leads to confuse, rather than to clarify anything.
An entire philosophy that emerged from the empirical failures of Marxist doctrine.
Reason and logic have no place.
My big question is what are the postmodernists really afraid of?
Appearing intellectually weak?
Losing some perceived influence (control) over others?
Some people like details but while they focus, they miss the importance of all the other interconnected and largely unknowable factors that impress upon their narrow view of the world.
You can never see the big picture unless you understand it's component parts. How can you see the interconnected, if you cant see the details?
Unknowable factors are unknowable, how does this compute into any equation?
A narrow view of the world becomes bigger by understanding that narrow part,and then expanding from that knowledge.
You understood one letter of the alphabet first, and then another, then another...
Postmodernist logic is truly inverted...and dangerous.
Big pictures with intimate knowledge is a perspective bound to cause continual confusion as more inforamtion (details) forever come to light.
Big pictures without knowing the details is bound to cause confusion you mean.
Again, an inverted logic that can be seriously mentally damaging to weak minded individuals.
Confusion reigns. Chaos on mind, is the result.
Very dangerous stuff.
What is interesting when it comes to knowledge is the sheer amount of knowledgeable people who are suffering in various ways in their life.
Are you then saying if they were not knowledgeable , they would not be suffering as much?
How can you possibly presume, or conclude this?
Based on what?
Are you conflating knowledge with suffering?
What good is knowing anything if it doesn't lead to a reduction of suffering?
As human knowledge has increased, suffering has decreased. This is empirical.
Ergo, knowing leads to less suffering.
So by the logical extension of that, post modernistic philosophy is the acceptance of not knowing anything as real or empirical.
Ergo not knowing leads to more suffering.
And in a world where information is cheap to obtain, there is very little reason to learn through experience, any wiki is good enough.
Cheap Information is a tool to be used to enhance your experience and to maximize the benefits.
It doesn't lessen the value obtained through experience, just makes the process more time efficient.
Less trial and error.
How different is this world of thought to the world of reality? It is hard to tell because they intertwine so heavily, they are impossible to tease apart.
They are not intertwined so heavily.
They are not impossible to tease apart. They are very easy to separate apart.
If you can't differentiate very easily between reality of the world and thought, I would suggest you seek professional help matey....
Or keep talking to Patriot. lol
But, living vicariously through other's descriptions of their own experience is not living,
Well, obviously. Whats your point?
watching a movie of a war does not make a soldier, a book of giving birth does not make a mother.
Well, obviously. Whats your point?
Reading a book on having birth does not make you a mother, but it does give you more information – more tools – to handle the experience differently.
Essentially, we are all living a life of theory and philosophy developed through our experiences collected on the assumption that our evaluation of our worlds is correct.
Essentially, we are not. The total opposite in fact.
We are living a life of reality, and then applying our learned theories and philosophies onto that life, and not the other way around.
Chicken, and egg sir...
Living on the assumption that our evaluation of this world is not correct becomes the engine to exploration and growth.
There is quite a big difference of perspective, there...( I would say humongous actually, and that's without over dramatizing the difference)
We assume correct because to knowingly act on incorrect is not the way we behave ...
Humans act in this fashion all the time.. shoplifting, staying out late at night when you have work in the morning, not eating healthily...etc etc...
so, all those who we might consider wrong in action, for some reason or another, they feel justified in their behavior, otherwise they would not have behaved in such a way.
Justification of an incorrect action, is not the same as knowing you are acting incorrectly.
One is defensive emotional posturing to try and validate , and the other is objective knowledge, and understanding the difference between the two options.
....I'll not even get into the philosophical position of postmodernism not even acknowledging 'correct' or 'incorrect', as real.
We are all rational actors,
We are not rational actors.
That is false.
Learning disciplines such as math , science, and philosophy, enables us to become more rational.
it is just that what seems rational in my world, may not be in accordance to the rationale of others. We all live across many worlds, in thought at least.
And hence the need for objective truths and not post modernistic clouds of nothing that only confuse people.
Less knowledge leads to more suffering, as logically shown.
Which - rationally speaking - leads to yet another question...
Why would anyone decide to expound a philosophy onto others, that confuses and confounds?
What would be the motives behind expounding a philosophy that contracts the human experience through confusion, rather the expand the human experience, through knowledge...