Week 11 Picks & Discussion...

Why on earth aren't you applying Marx right now?
He actually laid out a specific procedure for how to answer that very question.

Harold Doyle3 said:Why on earth aren't you applying Marx right now?
He actually laid out a specific procedure for how to answer that very question.

So, what’s this "procedure"?

ruggedraven36 said:So, what’s this "procedure"?

Dialectics!

Harold Doyle3 said:Dialectics!

I figured you'd jump on that. Just look back at my last post—it’s pretty obvious I was using dialectics there.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, whenever anyone starts talking about "who they are," they’re really just talking about their whole damn self. Why would I be any less me—or not exist at all—if I stripped away the very things that make me unique? The "Who am I?" question is universal, sure, but... It’s more than just that. It’s a universal question, really. I can't tell you if this thing is just me—some deep-seated personal quirk—or if it's something specific that isn't part of my DNA. The truth? It’s both. You can't untangle them. They're fused together.

The line between the individual and the collective is so blurred it’s almost pointless—once you pin down one, you’ve basically grabbed the other by the throat. It's all the same thing. When someone starts baring their soul about their own specific, messy life experiences, anyone listening realizes they're just looking at a mirror of their own universal human experience. And vice versa—you start talking about those big, sweeping "human truths," and suddenly everyone’s seeing their own personal struggles reflected back at them. It's a loop. You can't have one without the other.

Is the "you" sitting there right now exactly the same person who was here, say, three days ago... or have you changed?

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve dropped a clumsy phrase on this forum, only to catch it later—usually, I just stay quiet and hope nobody else notices my slip-up. Case in point: I just used the expression "apply dialectics." It’s nonsense. You don't "apply" dialectics—that's not how it works. Dialectics teaches us that the method is inseparable from the substance itself, not some external tool you just slap onto a subject from the outside.

Harold Doyle3 said:Is the "you" sitting there right now exactly the same person who was here, say, three days ago... or have you changed?

It's both—simple as that. If I didn't stay fundamentally the same, I wouldn't be able to grow at all. Otherwise, it wouldn't even count as my change.

ruggedraven36 said:It's both—simple as that. If I didn't stay fundamentally the same, I wouldn't be able to grow at all. Otherwise, it wouldn't even count as my change.

If what stays the same is the essence... then what changes is just the byproduct, right?

Harold Doyle3 said:If what stays the same is the essence... then what changes is just the byproduct, right?

I have no idea what you're even asking me.

ruggedraven36 said:I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve dropped a clumsy phrase on this forum, only to catch it later—usually, I just stay quiet and hope nobody else notices my slip-up. Case in point: I just used the expression "apply dialectics." It’s nonsense. You don't "apply" dialectics—that's not how it works. Dialectics teaches us that the method is inseparable from the substance itself, not some external tool you just slap onto a subject from the outside.

So essence has no content? Is there no dialectic there?
By what method did Hegel arrive at being—the transition from essence to non-essence and back again?

ruggedraven36 said:I have no idea what you're even asking me.

Is pure me really any different from pure garbage?

Harold Doyle3 said:Is pure me really any different from pure garbage?

Nope. Pure being is immediate indeterminacy—it's raw. But a "pure self"? That's just pure unity reflecting on itself. It isn't immediate; it happens because it strips away all specific content and definition. We're talking about pure self-awareness here, not just the blunt fact of existence.

Harold Doyle3 said:So essence has no content? Is there no dialectic there?
By what method did Hegel arrive at being—the transition from essence to non-essence and back again?

Man, you actually nailed it. "Being lacks substance." I mean, if something doesn't have any substance, what does it have? Nothing. And what is it that lacks substance? Nothingness. So, Being basically just turned into nothing.

So what is nothingness? It's just the thing that has no substance. Nothingness is basically... Nothingness somehow exists. How? Just like anything else that lacks substance. You're calling that "Being." "Being lacks substance." Basically, nothingness became being.

The way Being shifts into nothing is just vanishing. And when nothing shifts into Being, that's becoming. So, vanishing and becoming? That's just "becoming" itself.

James Lee77 said:Man, you actually nailed it. "Being lacks substance." I mean, if something doesn't have any substance, what does it have? Nothing. And what is it that lacks substance? Nothingness. So, Being basically just turned into nothing.

So what is nothingness? It's just the thing that has no substance. Nothingness is basically... Nothingness somehow exists. How? Just like anything else that lacks substance. You're calling that "Being." "Being lacks substance." Basically, nothingness became being.

The way Being shifts into nothing is just vanishing. And when nothing shifts into Being, that's becoming. So, vanishing and becoming? That's just "becoming" itself.

Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

Harold Doyle3 said:Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

Not quite. A fight and nothingness might feel similar, sure, but they're fundamentally different things. You can't really claim "hollow" and "empty" are opposites—they aren't. With a battle versus nothingness, you've got a true contradiction on your hands; with hollow versus empty, you don't.

Harold Doyle3 said:Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

I guess I'm kind of leaning towards agreeing with you on that. 😢

Harold Doyle3 said:Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

The "Self" is basically just a collection of experiences. Every single thing we go through belongs to someone—it’s always tied to a specific "Self." There isn't such a thing as an experience that doesn't belong to someone. In that sense, I guess the "Self" is what Kant calls the "condition for the possibility of experience."

It really just boils down to one question: are we looking at an ontological or an epistemological shift from nothingness into a void? But hey, if you follow absolute idealism, being and thinking are basically the same thing anyway. If that’s true, then there isn't even a difference to begin with.

Gerald Jackson48 said:It really just boils down to one question: are we looking at an ontological or an epistemological shift from nothingness into a void? But hey, if you follow absolute idealism, being and thinking are basically the same thing anyway. If that’s true, then there isn't even a difference to begin with.

Simultaneously identical and different

Since philosophy hasn't actually managed to crack the code on what a human being is—leaving religion and science to fight over the scraps of an answer—everything else feels like it’s just drifting aimlessly in the void...
It's surreal. There is simply no solid ground to stand on.

The search for "Who am I?" remains an ongoing investigation.