Philosophy, thinking, and memories of metaphysics...

Before we even attempt to define what philosophy actually is, we really ought to take a look at the nature of knowledge itself. Most cognitive experts would say it consists of three parts—1) the information known, 2) the knowing subject (the UMA), and 3) the relationship between them. That’s how standard sciences work, at least—but in philosophy, these three factors have to be treated differently. Because our philosophical inquiry deals with Being as a whole—as Aristotle says.

And I’m sure Heidegger would agree that all other sciences merely "carve out a slice of Being and observe its accidental, manifest forms within the world."

Hegel noted: "Philosophy therefore lacks those advantages held by other sciences—namely, having clear, distinct objects of study."

Which is why certain narrow-minded people insist I should just focus on "rambling" instead of picking up a wrench and a hammer to fix some plumbing...
Check out my other thread regarding THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY...
...
So, the fundamental task of philosophy is the question of Being (in its entirety!). Being as Being. And further, the Being of beings. The sciences grab just ONE CATEGORY of being and manipulate it through formal logic—which has frankly degenerated thanks to Aristotle and the sheer mental laziness of his later followers—alongside natural sciences and technical tools. Heidegger would probably love to bring up the idea of the "concealment" of scientific "objects" here...
...
However, man is condemned to interrogate his own existence, which—to put it ontically for this level of discussion—influences the study of philosophy. Knowledge is essentially smuggled in as if it were a fundamental attribute of Being itself.
...
Hence, the inherent reflexivity found in Husserl!
...
Man is mortal. And his philosophy is too, if you ask me! Philosophy strives to transcend the boundary between Being and Nothingness.

Heidegger said: "Either we go to the VERY END, or there is no philosophy!"
Like most philosophers, Plato demanded UNASSUMPTIVENESS at the beginning of the world—and by extension, at the start of any philosophical investigation.
Even phenomenology couldn't quite reach that ideal of unassumptiveness; it ended up lingering on the subject's consciousness as the "founder of the world"...
...
Yet, human finitude brings us four modes of human knowledge—that is, philosophy itself: (1) HISTORICITY, which is the inevitable result of temporality; knowledge is always historical. (2) PROJECTIVITY—which could easily be replaced by the phrase the Petrović arrival, signifying an openness to new possibilities... On the horizon of our lives, we always have a choice. (3) DISCURSIVENESS; this refers to language, which enables MEANING AND PURPOSE—allowing us to battle ideas and forge our worldview into linguistic signs, which then collide with the worldviews of others... Sartre would sing about inter-subjectivity here, while Jaspers remarked: "Philosophy seeks... eternal truth... Being is given to us only in TIME... Truth is always a phenomenon that vanishes—therefore, it is historical." (4) CRITICALITY, which is the unavoidable consequence of UNASSUMPTIVENESS. Nothing is absolute; nothing should be taken for granted, and we must constantly return to our primary findings—pushing thought to its very limits is essential.

...

Man is the only being whose essence is the boundary between himself and the world (Nothingness).
That is yet another definition, alongside Heidegger's...

😎

UM

Philosophical thought is rigorous—in a very specific sense—even more so than scientific inquiry. While philosophical knowledge possesses rigor, it isn't based on empirical data; rather, it deals with "certain uncertainty and uncertain certainty"...
...
And the guarantor of that rigor is—the MIND. Hmm...! Hegel relies on the mind, and then there’s Fichte..! Nowadays, everyone seems obsessed with mocking the intellect—claiming it’s just idle daydreaming and that our gadgets will tell us everything we need to know.

...

"The ontological encounter of being with Being itself—which is the true subject of philosophy—ontologically precedes the distinction between being and existence..."

Because the power of cognition isn't some isolated faculty separate from others—like love, rage, or artistic talent... In short, the MIND is a totality, not just a cognitive exercise...

That is, if you will, a new definition of the mind.

The logic of identity is gone; we are moving past the definitions of truth established by Descartes and Aristotelian logic.
...
Nietzsche: "Parmenides said: 'One cannot think what is not,' but I say: 'Whatever can be thought is certainly not—it is merely garbage and delusion!'"

Instead of the mind acting as an organ for truth and cognition, we have SPIRIT—claims Nietzsche. Man as a whole. Not some single organ—a human THINKS AS A WHOLE. Nietzsche was arguably the greatest fighter against nihilism, which he believed was embodied in Greek metaphysics and Aristotelian logic.
...
"The non-existence of a thing is the reason why that thing exists, not the other way around!" he says.
So, how are we supposed to engage in philosophical thought now, you lovely masses of this absolute circus of a forum that falsely calls itself an agora?
Unfortunately, *petitio principii* is necessary at the start of any philosophical journey. Even Heidegger began that way... 😁
An introduction to philosophy is an adventure.

Eugen Fink: "It is not about an introduction to philosophy, but an introduction to—PHILOSOPHIZING! ... You have to dive into philosophy—there is no course for it, no step-by-step guide; either you philosophize, or you get lost!"

Kant: "One does not learn philosophy, one learns philosophizing!"

Even Plato, with the "Cave" from his REPUBLIC, showed that entering philosophy requires a leap. You can't do it if you're some lazy guy praising nature while digging septic tanks. Personally, I'm too busy fixing a leaky faucet in my bathroom just to avoid getting ripped off by a plumber...
...

😎

I gotta say, I actually find your lectures super interesting👍 , but maybe—since you’re hanging out here on the forum (you know, the digital agora)—you could try making things a bit more of a back-and-forth dialogue instead of just delivering one long monologue after another.😉

mistyfox812 said:I actually find your lectures quite fascinating👍 — though, given you're posting here on the forum (essentially Times Square) — perhaps you could approach your philosophy more as a dialogue, rather than just delivering a monologue...😉

Well, who exactly am I supposed to talk to?
If the top tier isn't composed of our best—Slavko, Essenca, Jonathan Brooks8, George Washington, and at the very peak—myself, the lonely genius in "Times Square," or the local players?!
Even my idol Martin Heidegger wasn't exactly known for his conversational skills; people either worshipped him from afar or absolutely tore him to pieces...
I'll admit, maybe I just lack the knack for back-and-forth...
Come on, someone suggest a direction before I dive deeper into this topic—purely in a solitary, Heideggerian style...😁 😉 😎

Maybe go practice your maieutics a little. Even Socrates didn't have anyone at first, and look how that turned out—he had a whole crowd following him a few decades later. Plus, I’m guessing you’ve got some kind of teaching instinct kicking in, otherwise why else would you even be sending in your stuff?

Honestly, I view my posts as little "messages in a bottle." That’s really the whole point of chatting online, isn't it? If someone happens to find them meaningful—well, that's great. There are a few people out there—maybe a dozen or so, though I won't list those who haven't quite surrendered yet...🙂😉—scattered across various threads...
The follow-up should touch on what you mentioned—philosophy within the context of time; specifically, how this technological age has somehow "forced us to recall a metaphysics that never truly existed—one that contemplated the distinction between Being and beings, yet remained "unaware of itself"...
Being is actually NOTHINGNESS, which withdraws to make room for the existing...
Quite cunning, wouldn't you say?
In that sense, Being turns out to be a sort of vacuum, and we've solved the problem of Being so elegantly; if we can't see it, we simply claim its invisibility is perfectly natural...!😁

A message in a bottle washed ashore...

Fleming: “Before we even attempt to define what philosophy actually is...”
Here’s yet another definition that misses the mark—thank God it isn't the last one—Philosophy is essentially an extravagance of reason, much like music serves as an extravagance of sound.

Fleming: “Man is the only being whose essence is the boundary between himself and the world (Nothingness).”
“Being is, in truth, the NOTHINGNESS that recedes to make room for what exists...”

In his spatial and temporal distance, man learns to perceive object and subject, being and existence, as separate entities rather than a whole; yet Being is everything—the totality of all knowledge and ignorance—contained within the smallest possible particle.
In humans, this separation manifests as the distinction between mental light and darkness; thus, darkness is NOTHINGNESS, while that which is illuminated is EVERYTHING. The realm of existence consists of nothing but light and dark, the illuminated and the shadowed. Existing knowledge, when viewed through a different light, lends a new color to understanding—a fresh experience of the known, which in turn expands the vast expanse of the unknown.

mistyfox812 said:I actually find your lectures quite fascinating👍 , but given that you're on this forum—this digital Times Square—perhaps you could approach your philosophy more as a dialogue rather than a series of monologues delivered from a podium.😉

So, you singled out two specific words from that quote: "...your philosophy..."

I enjoy reading Fleming's lectures; honestly, they're superior to most of those vulgar "histories of philosophy" found in cheap paperbacks. However, as someone attempting to break into the field, I would argue they have nothing to do with true philosophizing—not with the raw, living philosophy that breathes.

What is the point of these lectures?
Are you trying to guide us seekers closer to the essence of things? Is your ego restless? Or are you simply searching for companions in the act of "philosophizing"?

Fleming claims he lacks intelligent forum users like himself. Fleming claims he has never truly soared. Fleming doesn't realize that flying is much better when you do it alone.

Sorry... just rambling...
I don't know what wisdom is. I only catch glimpses of what philosophy and philosophizing might be.
If someone spends an entire year reciting what Kant said, where Hegel was brilliant, and arguing why it’s wrong because Thomas disagrees—even though Aristotle's truth remains unchanged despite Thomas failing to grasp it—then what's the point? Is anyone actually learning?
God, Fleming, how do you know all this? How did you arrive at the truth?
Did Kant, Hegel, and the rest of the gang just hand it to you on a silver platter?

I'm struggling here. Maybe I have no right to complain, since all I see right now is a staggering darkness. I see that I am blind, yet simultaneously, I refuse to let others look in my stead.

Who knows.

Don't take offense.

Even though I despise quoting others, I'll indulge in it once.
The good old Heidegger once said that in philosophy, there are no precursors and no followers. To follow is to be enslaved, and if philosophizing relies on anyone else, then it isn't philosophizing at all. Therefore, to anyone wishing to enter philosophy, the mandate is simple: rethink everything from scratch.

It’s actually pretty consistent if you think about it. Like, it feels to Sophia Williams like there’s nobody left worth talking to here, so she just starts debating those old legends from centuries ago.
I mean, philosophy is basically just a massive conversation—that's why Plato wrote all those dialogues. It can be your soul talking to itself, or maybe to other souls—assuming they even exist.
The real headache with chatting with the ancients is that they’re dead. No matter how you phrase the question, they always give you the exact same answer. Plato laid that whole struggle out perfectly in Philadelphia.

Fleming said:Rather than treating the mind as just another isolated organ used for processing truth and cognition, we have the SPIRIT—that’s Nietzsche’s take. He views the human being as a complete whole. It isn't about one specific faculty; a person THINKS AS A WHOLE. To me, Nietzsche stands as the ultimate warrior against nihilism, which he believed was baked right into Greek metaphysics and Aristotelian logic.
...

"The soul of a thing is the reason it exists, not the other way around!" he asserts.

😉