/lit/ - Literature

>>17543997
>you either believe your senses and reason work well enough that if you see something it actually exists, or you accept that you're insane and give up on belief.
Ugh. The idea of belief in senses or reason is so retardedly Cartesian as to be a cartoon of reason. Your reflective sensibility of reflecting on senses is already pre-determined by your being in the world prior to your being in thought. Your belief is confirmation, a twisted image-thought that’s a boring form of platonism. It’s incredibly autistic.
>>17544153
>Then you wind up with the problem(You) pointed out; you need to verify what you're verifying, right down to verifying your senses, which you can only do by relying on your senses, trapping yourself in a paralysis of skepticism.
> Action requires certainty; certainty requires faith; faith requires authority. That authority is going to be yourself or another, and its the better part of virtue to submit to another.
This idea (lol) of action bearing identity to a given reason as authority is entirely too static to line up with lived experience as such, the Greeks had paradoxes designed to show the limitations of this way of thinking
>remove a grain of sand from a pile of sand; at what point have you removed enough that it is no longer a pile?
Alternate:
>put grains of sand next to each other; at what point do they become a pile?
The issue is the static form of representativity underlying these thoughts, time represented in space rather than duration, static rather than process, chronos rather than Aion. My existence verifies the axiomatic existence of a variety of facts by dint of its continued becoming-other from what it is at a given perceptual present.
Platonism is for chomos, I am only given a stomach before I am able to eat, otherwise without the gift from god eat I cannot, no matter how much appetite I may have