E-Mails That Never Received a Reply #1: A Philosophical Discourse

Fri, 07/16/2004 — Sak

The following email was originally sent to "Drew", creator of this piece of art approximately a week ago. He never responded.

Dear sir or madam (I'll assume "sir", since your name appears to be Drew, and for all purposes, the name is usually associated with the masculine form of a name in Western society),

It's recently been brought to my attention that you have constructed a philosophical treatise based upon the quotations of one Sinistar. I will agree your claim that Sinistar is one of the greatest unknown philosophical minds of the contemporary period, but will argue that most of what Sinistar had to say is derived from the later Wittgenstein (cf. "Philosophical Investigations"), and therefore, many of Sinistar's aphorisms (namely, concerning his answers to the mind-body problem and the problem of omniscence) contain an inherit foundational problem. Also, much of what Sinistar had to say concerning the free-will / determinist debate had been previously answered by the phenomenological philosophers Husserl, Merleau-Ponty, Heidegger, and the relatively unknown deviationalist, INVINCO.

You assert that Sinistar's claim is one of self-awareness, which I won't disagree with, but his premises fail to bring us to the conclusion of self-determination. I am not in the Sinistar camp out free will, however. I think by taking a look at Sinistar in light of Kant, we can clearly see the first's Critique's influence on Sinistar (viz. Sinistar is a compatablist, he asserts that he _is_ a thing - living breathing, no doubt, but he makes no claim to whether he takes a libertarian stance or one of predetermination; I commiting he fallacy of assumption here, but I can see no other choice that Sinistar can possibly make in light of his following treatises).

"I hunger" -- I do agree with your claim that Sinistar is a monist, but I must also assert that you seem to back yourself into a paradox when you claim that quote #5 supplies Sinistar a sufficient reason to claim for himself a sort of Cartesian skepticism. I think you can back yourself out of this corner if you make the assertion (that many in the so-called "analytic" tradition have made of Merleau-Ponty) that Sinistar is a "intuitional physicalist", in that, while being an intuitionalist (whether Cartesian, or more probably, phenomenological), he sees that the body plays an integral role in forming consciousness (and in turn, reality).

You argue that "Run, coward!" asserts that Sinistar's ethics are deeply deterministic, and while I agree to some extent, I must again argue that Sinistar is most definitely a proponent of "fake free will," or compatabalism. He realizes the absurdity of asserting some form of foundational ethics, and that the only sort of ethical truth that could possibly be some form of pragmatism / instrumentalism. Likewise, some have argued just the opposite of what I have, asserting that Sinistar promotes a form of moral a priorism in the form of the categorical command, "Run, coward!" -- these philosophers don't take into account that Sinistar's moral philosophy is merely a part of the whole, and can not be divided away from his holistic thought (which, in my opinion, is far too relatavistic for moral a priorism); furthermore, they fail to see the playfullness and irony of Sinistar's text.

I find your exegesis of "Run, run, run!" deplorable -- to say the least -- and will argue that this is not a theological statement, but rather a non-theistic phenomenological deluge into ontology. While taking into account the abeyance of causal relationships, Sinistar has discovered that the term Being can only be seen in terms of _Becoming_; we're always constantly running _towards_ something, but that something may ultimately be unattainable (a teleology without a telos, if you will). I honestly think that this phenomenological reduction of Husserlian preportions is simply the most brilliant portion of Sinistar's philosophy, and I find it somewhat disheartening that you failed to understand it even on the most elementary of levels. (cf. Heidegger's "Introduction to Metaphysics", Heraclitus' "Fragments" [trans. Wheelwright])

You state, "One should resolve issues for one's self, based on their own doubt and deduction. More importantly, however, is the idea that God is what you make it, or, as is the usual case, what someone else makes it for you." Sinistar's entire statement of "Run, coward!", however, is loaded, even nonsensical, perhaps to put the traditional Cartesians in their place. However, this portion of Sinistar's treatise happens to be my least favorite of his aphorisms, as it seemingly takes an empircist view point (while the others are throughly phenomenological and pseudo-intuitionalist). This is where Wittgenstein's private language argument comes into play -- by arguing that a private language's syntax, semantics, and sensations only make sense to the immediate speaker, and not a soul else. While, "Beware, coward!" might be making a statement of sorts, it is ultimately lost on deaf ears, as we can not make sure who is on the receiving end of this statement (since it is not simply a general, universal statement).

The final two quotes, I believe you have nailed dead on. However, I think that if you combine Sinistar's thought with another great unknown contemporary philosopher, INVINCO, the whole of Sinistar's philosophy will make that much more sense to you, and ultimately shall be much more gratifying. The following URL explains much of Invinco's thought, which I shall elaborate upon further: http://zeroes.overclocked.org/invinco.htm.

"Beware, I live!" - a comment of Nietzschean preportions, extolling humankind's indomitable will to power. INVINCO's claim of "PLAY INVINCO!" is that much more forceful, exciting -- even terrifying. A true reminder that while humankind oft struggles for power, we also live in a world, a world of Das Man, -- "they"; that while a post-Kantian assertion of ethics may be absurd, we don't have to abandon an ethical system completely (cf. Levinas, "Totality & Infinity"). "Argh," can obviously be coupled with INVINCO's claim of, "HIT STAR TO EXPLODE SURROUNDING TARGETS", a claim that, while we can speak of philosophy en abstracto, perhaps some of its problems are a bit absurd (another allusion to Wittgenstein), but also, while it may be frustrating, there are phenomena (and in particular, noumena), that we sadly will have to settle for being completely unexplainable.

-Sak

Comments

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <hr>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Robots ain't welcome around these parts.
_irbuster:
©2004-2010 The Andore Seven