Against Philosophical Prose (or self-indulgent conversation)

Philosophy is not nearly rigorous

Philosophy can hardly agree on a single axiom. How could such a failure exist? The pursuit is too independent and internal to be of any use to anyone

In my view, things should have axioms that cannot be proven wrong. Also these axioms should be self-evident, and true by nature of obviousness. Such an example is that combining two integers creates an integer which is a combination of the two. In other words, 1+1 = 2, or 2+2 = 4. Naturally, such a thing is self-evident when you have two equal things, but in physical reality, nothing is truly equal. Even if you take two sticks, and combine them, one stick will be different than the other stick, whether it is the shape, the amount of atoms, the isotopic decay rate of carbon. There will always be a difference no matter how minute. So one naturally becomes drawn towards the metaphysical realm -- where we can imagine two perfectly equal things, such as the number 1, and another number 1.

In any case, I am saying perhaps inelegantly, that axioms are essential. It seems that we have missed much throughout history, as the way we communicate is inherently limited. I believe it was Lacan who said something along the lines of "The basis of all human interaction is miscommunication." What did he even mean by that!?

Obviously, he means we are using language, which can never properly communicate what is going on with our experience. However, we all can assume we are having a unique experience. At least I can only hope. I fall into solipsism a lot, perhaps as a result of being a simulation theory fanboy.

Please do not confuse me with the delusional Frenchman Baudrillard. I am speaking more techno Nick Landian here. I fear I am losing the plot of my own plot a bit now. Let me set it straight, there can be no agreement, not among humans. Humans must find agreement by being in sync and understanding nature, or physics -- as I am inclined to state as a physicist. Such a man versus nature standpoint seems essential to me. Man can only truly find happiness by acting in agreement with nature. The man versus man / man versus society questions are encapsulated within the man versus nature framework. Studying thermodynamics and entropy, it seems obvious that we are trying to simply find the efficient route of action, whether it is spiritually correct is irrelevant, we are a victim of evolution, and shady neurochemistry. Meaning - we sometimes act hedonistically. Naturally, religions have covered this from the dawn of time, in a far more elegant way than I could hope to, but what I can say is that, modern philosophy is dead.

I think of thought as a sort of exploratory space, technically, one could imagine anything, which implies infinity. So infinite thought and realms exist, naturally. It is somewhat impossible though, because of our energy requirements, to spend all day exploring that space. Of course some do strive for that, namely monks or other holy professions. But most common people must work to survive. I believe with the rise of computational intelligence, perhaps the entire space could be mapped. I called it once "knowledge quelling unknowledge" analogous perhaps to light consuming darkness. I think Eastern philosophy is most accurate with its knowledge of Yin and Yang.

I think it is ironic, the point I originally wanted to prove was how inelegant language as a means of communication was, and here I am rambling about nonsense, it goes to show that humans can only hope to agree on a universal language, one such as mathematics. That is what is so interesting to me about the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms (with the axiom of choice) -- indeed it is present in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I cannot claim to fully understand the mathematics of it all, but I know in my bones it is true, how the the smallest kernel of truth can blossom into the very fabric of reality that we are experiencing in this moment. In any case, it goes to show how elegant mathematics is, and how useless and self-indulgent philosophy is. drops mic