What am I? I am maybe a small part of what constitutes my nervous system, I am partially my senses. Partially my senses because there are other senses which I am not conscious of, these are called unconscious senses (collectively the unconscious). I exert will on my conscious senses, but is this will exerted by the unconscious and not what I call me? What is this unconscious? It is certainly not a thing or an object, I assume it is what we don’t know, a concept, it cannot be proved empirically, only by rational necessity.
Answering questions from a follower
My question concerning life is one: what is the point? There is no point to existence, there never existed a “void” a “nothingness” in which this existence spontaneously happened. It just is, and this makes my mind go insane, because normally everything has a cause and comes from something previous to it. But existence is just eternal effect, and nothing caused it.
My deepest fear is the fear of having fear; fear is horrible. Throughout my life I’ve had some panic attacks (but not many) concerning the fear of death and eternal “nothingness”. But I’ve rationalized death, so I don’t have this fear anymore, but I still do have a fear of that death fear.
Five things I’ve learned about life is that 1) everything depends on perspective 2) life is like a flowing river of moods, slowly changing through time 3) you are always on your way, always becoming, wanting what is lacking, missing, filling the same emptiness inside that has always existed 4) everything sort of comes and goes, especially people, so we must celebrate the arrivals as well as the partings 5) everyone is sort of like you, but not like you at the same time. Its confusing heh.
When I meditate on awareness, I can see the world and things as awareness, they just exist because I’m aware of them and retain them in memory. So for something to exist, you must be there to witness it. Therefore, things only exist in awareness of them.
The same thing happens when you compare awareness with experience. If there was no experience, then there would be no self or world, because you are the experience of your self and you are always experiencing your self interacting with the world (which is one with the self).
Michel Foucault, Interview about the birth of psychology and its relation to philosophy (1965)
Richard Rorty’s relativism:
The traditional view–call it Platonist, absolutist, objectivist or realist–is that when we do something like abolish slavery we move closer to an independent ideal and we bring our way of thinking closer to the One Right Way, the way dictated by reason or by our essential human nature. Rorty thinks this sort of thinking has been valuable in the past; but in more recent times it has become constraining rather than liberating. He therefore urges us to see intellectual and cultural progress as simply consisting in our exchanging one vocabulary for another. Descriptions of human beings that view themselves as entitled to equal rights before the law, and descriptions of the solar system that views it as heliocentric are both preferable to the descriptions they replaced; but not because they are closer to the truth. In both cases, we should prefer the newer descriptions on pragmatic grounds; they better enable us to achieve our purposes.
Michel Foucault’s relativism:
In works like Madness and Civilization, The Order of Things, and Discipline and Punish, Foucault tries to show how what we call “reason”, “science”, “knowledge” and “truth” are socially constituted and shaped by political forces. He argues that in order to pass muster as “scientific” or as “rational”, a discourse must satisfy certain conditions, and these conditions are socially and historically relative, reflecting the needs and interests of existing power structures. This relativity is more obvious in the case of classifications based on distinctions such as normal-perverted, natural-unnatural, rational-insane, or healthy-sick. But Foucault suggests that it applies also to other, more epistemologically central distinctions such as scientific-unscientific, knowledge-error, and true-false. The ideal of a neutral standpoint transcending epochs and interests is thus a chimera.