Are you a Realist or a Nominalist?

[Tamminen]

I imagine you as a serious scientific rationalist. I think for you the individual, not the universal, is the important thing.

For me, as I have said elsewhere, the subject is the Absolute. Everything that exists, exists in relation to the subject, the eternal present. Only the subject exists in the genuine sense of the term. I have written more about this, as you know. The subject is also the universal of all universals. But this cannot be explained, just seen by a deep phenomenological intuition. You can see it or you cannot. Such is philosophy when it is more than hair-splitting. It is beyond words. It is poetry. All I say here is poetry. All you say is poetry. All that Consul says is poetry, although he probably does not admit it. We can understand each others' poems more or less, or we do not understand them at all. I can understand your poems only superficially, but I cannot get a clear intuition of the essence of how you see reality. Perhaps nobody understands my philosophy. But here we are, reading each others' poems. It is sometimes boring, sometimes fun, sometimes enjoyable and exciting. Such is philosophy, the art of thinking.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I imagine you as a serious scientific rationalist. I think for you the individual, not the universal, is the important thing.

For me, as I have said elsewhere, the subject is the Absolute. Everything that exists, exists in relation to the subject, the eternal present. Only the subject exists in the genuine sense of the term. I have written more about this, as you know. The subject is also the universal of all universals. But this cannot be explained, just seen by a deep phenomenological intuition. You can see it or you cannot. Such is philosophy when it is more than hair-splitting. It is beyond words. It is poetry. All I say here is poetry. All you say is poetry. All that Consul says is poetry, although he probably does not admit it. We can understand each others' poems more or less, or we do not understand them at all. I can understand your poems only superficially, but I cannot get a clear intuition of the essence of how you see reality. Perhaps nobody understands my philosophy. But here we are, reading each others' poems. It is sometimes boring, sometimes fun, sometimes enjoyable and exciting. Such is philosophy, the art of thinking.

Have you posted your philosophical poetry anywhere online so I can read it?

[GaryLouisSmith]

I imagine you as a serious scientific rationalist. I think for you the individual, not the universal, is the important thing.

For me, as I have said elsewhere, the subject is the Absolute. Everything that exists, exists in relation to the subject, the eternal present. Only the subject exists in the genuine sense of the term. I have written more about this, as you know. The subject is also the universal of all universals. But this cannot be explained, just seen by a deep phenomenological intuition. You can see it or you cannot. Such is philosophy when it is more than hair-splitting. It is beyond words. It is poetry. All I say here is poetry. All you say is poetry. All that Consul says is poetry, although he probably does not admit it. We can understand each others' poems more or less, or we do not understand them at all. I can understand your poems only superficially, but I cannot get a clear intuition of the essence of how you see reality. Perhaps nobody understands my philosophy. But here we are, reading each others' poems. It is sometimes boring, sometimes fun, sometimes enjoyable and exciting. Such is philosophy, the art of thinking.

Here's what I don't understand about your philosophy. How many subjects are there? Is each conscious human being a subject? Or is there only one Super Subject and all human subjects are somehow "in" that?

[Tamminen]

Have you posted your philosophical poetry anywhere online so I can read it?

I usually refer to this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15258
but if you have time, have a look at this:
https://ajatuslaukkaa.blogspot.com/

How many subjects are there? Is each conscious human being a subject?

Yes, and all the 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 insects. Nobody knows how many individual subjects there are.

Or is there only one Super Subject and all human subjects are somehow "in" that?

Yes, all individual subjects are its manifestations. If you are really interested, read the texts I refer to above.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Have you posted your philosophical poetry anywhere online so I can read it?

I usually refer to this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15258
but if you have time, have a look at this:
https://ajatuslaukkaa.blogspot.com/

How many subjects are there? Is each conscious human being a subject?

Yes, and all the 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 insects. Nobody knows how many individual subjects there are.

Or is there only one Super Subject and all human subjects are somehow "in" that?

Yes, all individual subjects are its manifestations. If you are really interested, read the texts I refer to above.

I read What is Being. I think I understand your philosophy much better now. You write well. Thanks. Now I'll go to your blog Philosophical Fragments.

[GaryLouisSmith]

I usually refer to this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=15258
but if you have time, have a look at this:
https://ajatuslaukkaa.blogspot.com/

Yes, and all the 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 insects. Nobody knows how many individual subjects there are.

Yes, all individual subjects are its manifestations. If you are really interested, read the texts I refer to above.

I have read most of your blogspot writing. I admit that after a while I did jump around, but I think that makes no difference in understanding it. It is easy to read and rather enjoyable. It becomes addictive. I imagine your writing is the flapping of the wings of a moth as it flits around the Flame, which of course is the Subject itself. There is one thing that I didn't find in your writing that I would like to read. Please write about the place philosophical writing itself has in relation to the Subject. In my writing the Boy is the appearing of Philosophy itself. How does the Subject become reflexive in the words it might use to speak of itself. Write about philosophical writing and the place it has in that Trinity of Subject-consciousness-object. If you have any questions about what I thought of your writing, please ask. Is Finnish your first language? If it is, your English is impressive and perfect.

[Consul]

Where do you think Deconstruction finally leads a human mind?

pudding-headedness

[GaryLouisSmith]

Where do you think Deconstruction finally leads a human mind?

pudding-headedness

Here's a book on Deconstruction for your reading pleasure - https://www.dropbox.com/s/z4ue8kvcoyas1 ... n.pdf?dl=0

[Consul]

Here's a book on Deconstruction for your reading pleasure - https://www.dropbox.com/s/z4ue8kvcoyas1 ... n.pdf?dl=0

I'm sorry, but I cannot derive any pleasure from reading unreadable texts.

Jacques Derrida > Deconstruction: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec

[Consul]

"Without properties, objects are empty and predicates blind."

(Martin, C. B. "The Need for Ontology: Some Choices." Philosophy 68/266 (1993): 505–522. p. 513)

Properties are needed as ontological posits for reference, truthmaking, similarity, and causality. The view that things (objects or substances) are nothing but propertyless "blobs" is extremely implausible. Property-talk is ubiquitous both in ordinary and in scientific language, and it cannot convincingly be paraphrased away in such a way that it becomes entirely ontologically innocent or neutral. I fail to see how an ontological commitment to properties can be avoided sincerely. (Note that this is not to say that all predicates or concepts represent real properties—that there is a 1:1 correspondence between predicates/concepts and properties!)

Of course, given realism about properties, the question as to whether they are universals or particulars is still unanswered. (My answer is that they they are particulars.)

[GaryLouisSmith]

Here's a book on Deconstruction for your reading pleasure - https://www.dropbox.com/s/z4ue8kvcoyas1 ... n.pdf?dl=0

I'm sorry, but I cannot derive any pleasure from reading unreadable texts.

Jacques Derrida > Deconstruction: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/derrida/#Dec

You will like that book. I guarantee it. It's funny. It's not one of your erudite high academic things.

[GaryLouisSmith]

"Without properties, objects are empty and predicates blind."

(Martin, C. B. "The Need for Ontology: Some Choices." Philosophy 68/266 (1993): 505–522. p. 513)

Properties are needed as ontological posits for reference, truthmaking, similarity, and causality. The view that things (objects or substances) are nothing but propertyless "blobs" is extremely implausible. Property-talk is ubiquitous both in ordinary and in scientific language, and it cannot convincingly be paraphrased away in such a way that it becomes entirely ontologically innocent or neutral. I fail to see how an ontological commitment to properties can be avoided sincerely. (Note that this is not to say that all predicates or concepts represent real properties—that there is a 1:1 correspondence between predicates/concepts and properties!)

Of course, given realism about properties, the question as to whether they are universals or particulars is still unanswered. (My answer is that they they are particulars.)

You do know the art of taking something that is rather simple and making it impossibly complex.

[Tamminen]

Is Finnish your first language?

Yes. As to the role of philosophical writing, I think I have nothing clever to say about it at the moment.

[Consul]

"Without properties, objects are empty and predicates blind."

(Martin, C. B. "The Need for Ontology: Some Choices." Philosophy 68/266 (1993): 505–522. p. 513)

Properties are needed as ontological posits for reference, truthmaking, similarity, and causality. The view that things (objects or substances) are nothing but propertyless "blobs" is extremely implausible. Property-talk is ubiquitous both in ordinary and in scientific language, and it cannot convincingly be paraphrased away in such a way that it becomes entirely ontologically innocent or neutral. I fail to see how an ontological commitment to properties can be avoided sincerely. (Note that this is not to say that all predicates or concepts represent real properties—that there is a 1:1 correspondence between predicates/concepts and properties!)

Of course, given realism about properties, the question as to whether they are universals or particulars is still unanswered. (My answer is that they they are particulars.)

You do know the art of taking something that is rather simple and making it impossibly complex.

What do you think is "rather simple" here?

[GaryLouisSmith]

You do know the art of taking something that is rather simple and making it impossibly complex.

What do you think is "rather simple" here?

Instead of having only simple universals, you have doubled up everything with tropes and concepts and then tried to make it all fit together.