No, this is not about porn or trespassing properties (calm down fellow gutter rats).
This is me feeling like a lazy ass for not writing more frequently, yet again.
When I first wake up, I have a lot on my mind. Things like how science enables us to discover what our physical bodies are comprised of, yet no science has discovered what our consciousness is comprised of.
A posse of presenters argued that the lack of a complete theory by neuroscientists regarding how neural activity translates into conscious experiences (such as redness) means that a physicalist approach is inadequate or wrong.
Michael Shermer, What Happens to Consciousness When We Die
I guess I have a penchant for philosophical musings but I actually don’t care that much about other philosophers. In that way I would be considered somewhere near solipsism but also with respect to dialectics.
Here is what Wikipedia says about Dialectic:
Fichtean/Hegelian dialectics is based upon four concepts:
- Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time.
- Everything is composed of contradictions (opposing forces).
- Gradual changes lead to crises, turning points when one force overcomes its opponent force (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
- Change is helical (periodic without returning to the same position), not circular (negation of the negation).
The concept of dialectic (as a unity of opposites) existed in the philosophy of Heraclitus of Ephesus, who proposed that everything is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.
I am not gonna pretend like I know what I’m talking about because my philosophical/rhetorical knowledge is limited to my undergraduate education. And do I remember things beyond the overall, big-picture themes and a few names? Hell no. I’m only citing things because, contradictory enough, I respect other people’s opinions and expressions since their diction and explanations of things far exceed my own capabilities, especially in areas that I lack expertise.
Opinions are dangerous because it’s also a dividing, no, divergent agent (internal rhymes make for great times). The stronger your feelings are about a subject, the more divisive the result is. Of course, there is the factor of execution. If you present a well-written, evidence-based opinion on why you hate chocolate, people are probably going to hear you out more than you shouting out how much you hate chocolate in a real, in-the-moment conversation. There was a rhetorician that said something on opinions and the separation they cause, but I do not remember his name (I performed a vague google search and nothing came up).
The moral of this story is that I wrote something today and that I have thoughts and opinions.