To err and commit evil, is to engage with both a great freedom and a great tragedy. Reconsider: transcendental philosophy vs. analytic philosophy, as a means to explain the sin (error) of the thinker. The architectural plans of these distinct set of ideas (to the kids, these may appear one and the same - is not to transcend, to analyze, in some way? perhaps the kids are right here - I'm losing track of what is important in my search for the real/a real), must assume the validity and stability of their parts. The vaguest of these, conditions of possibility of something. To be frank, I feel much of the same towards human existence: possibility of something. Something --- unclear and yet to be revealed.
May I demand these qualities (validity and stability)? Pure reason suggests so; perhaps, a combination of both approaches would be most useful in its examination and comprehension. The uniformity of motives and voluntary actions, to be understood as a simulation of cause and effect (?) If the motive (belief/cause), does not presuppose voluntary action (effect/maneuver), we may thus begin a hopefully relevant examination of "faith without works is dead" in relation to "take the action, and the faith shall follow" (aforementioned Fido logic).
Brain muddled with terms from a dead language. I swear, if I hear one more dolt use a priori incorrectly, a swift return to apathy/inaction shall soon follow (abilify/lamotrigine cocktail). Not interested in conducting the above mentioned analysis. This is partly due to said muddling, but mostly due to an overwhelming reticence to get involved with anything with any significant degree of commitment.
Praying to the pharmaceutical G-O-D to relieve me of the burden of self. To be sure, there is better living through chemistry.
Am I going crazy? Hedonism conceptualized as antithetical to suicidal ideation, we shall see (look into this with passion and zeal, or contemplate letting it die - hehe).
- Z
No comments:
Post a Comment