Consider the following scenario. You have no money and your friend has no money, so you agree to sign a contract stating that you owe them $100 and they sign an identical contract stating that they owe you $100. Clearly the debts cancel one another, resulting in zero net debt, but the effect of the contracts is that you can show one of them to someone else, proving that your friend owes you $100, and pay with this ‘asset’ instead of cash. That someone else may give you $100 worth of veggies because they know you have no other way of paying and they also need money. The problem with this arrangement is that new funds were created out of nothing and everyone else’s money became less valuable by precisely this new amount, so there is a hidden theft occurring, by taking a tiny amount of purchasing power from everyone else. This is how banks operate when they issue credit, but their dishonesty has another level; they charge you a higher interest rate than the rate they are willing to pay you, they require you to pledge your house as collateral for your side of the contract but they do not pledge collateral for theirs, and they do it on national scale, with everyone who needs money, and only they are allowed to do it.

One way of assisting in the realisation of Holocaust is to ostensibly object to it but choose, as supporting evidence, an ‘unverified’ photo that can be ‘discovered to be misleading’. This creates initial hope for the victims of the Holocaust and then crushes it, disseminating doubt about their victimhood, demoralising the opponents of Holocaust and empowering the abusers.

On the meaning of words

A practical solution to the ambiguity or incompleteness of the meaning of words in natural languages is to agree that there is a strict relation of identity between the term/word and its definition. For example, Let ‘synonymy’ be ‘the relation of identity wth respect to the signified meaning’. Let us also agree that our mutual capacity to define ’the relation of identity wth respect to the signified meaning’ is what it means to ‘speak a language’. It is not necessary to also agree on the meaning of words in the definition, provided that the sentence constructed from the defined terms (which are thus symbolically formalised as identical to the respective statements of definitions in a given language) can be subjected to formal evaluation of consistency (analytic), or inconsistency (contradictory). In the case of a synthetic result, additional definitions are required, until an analytic or contradictory form results. We may then further conclude, analytically, that to ‘speak a language’ implies the capacity to reach commonly meaningful, analytical or contradictory conclusions.

We may consider physical reality (objects and phenomena) as a form of object-language on which we already (informally) more or less agree, can repeat and mirror actions and the effects of actions, which provides grounding for agreements about meaning in natural languages, insofar as they are meta-languages about reality.

What you mean by ‘brain’ is just your idea of ‘brain’ (or else you do not mean what you mean), and ideas are part of the mind, so it does not make sense to posit the mind (the totality of ideas) as ‘emerging from’ brain (an idea). Nothing can contain itself plus something else, or it would not be itself.

Philosophy educators fail philosophy students if they teach how to problematise the uncontroversial and create disagreements rather than solve the existing problems, settle the existing disagreements. Philosophy eduction is nowadays done mostly in bad faith, weaponising curiosity and intelligence to subvert what we have in common, under the guise of wisdom.

The sense of ‘contradiction’ is intrinsic to sense-making, therefore to conscious agency. Every conscious being is constitutively aware of this fundamental limit; one may only err in its identification under complexity The function of proof is to simply the context to make the contradiction salient.

Gaza is a concentration camp.

The rationale of cities, towns or suburbs is no longer persuasive, insofar as workers can work remotely. It is no longer essential to house the workforce within a daily commuting distance to their workplace, with the exception of manual labourers. I anticipate that this will cause cities to shrink and ultimately die out, in favour of dispersed living. The current generations are conditioned to enjoy the buzz of the city, the crowds, but the buzz is fast degenerating to discomfort, toxicity and stress of an impoverished ghetto, as the most affluent flee to the wilderness and rejoice in not having to brush shoulders with the commoners.

Materialism is logically inconsistent: an idea of being that is not an idea (already contradiction), that includes itself as an idea (Russell’s paradox).

Universal Language

Animal species experience the world in terms of a common object-language; the language of experience intrinsic to their species-typical constitution. The Biblical idea that ‘the whole earth’ once had one language is consistent with the premise that at some point in time all species on earth were in the animal state, and only subsequently, with the emergence of symbolic representation, abstracted contingent meta-languages ‘about experience’. Those who possessed the capacity for abstraction came to be known as Anthropos, ‘those who are alike’, thereby abstracting their individuality in terms of the idea of their own kind. The object-language was nevertheless not forgotten or erased, so every meta-language about experience was, for the most part, translatable into any other language. At a later point in time, the capacity for abstraction became sufficiently consistent to discern the system of rules presupposed in the possibility of meaningful abstraction, or simply of ‘meaning’. That system of rules was identified as Logos: the highest order meta-language that that has no outside, that supports all identity, all being.

Science is a stage in the process of consciousness trying to explain itself.

The argument that something “is good for the economy” was always a red herring. So what!

The logical incompleteness of language, the indefinite meaning of words, is essential to the function of language. Without the ‘fuzziness’ of langauge it could not be stretched to express unique thoughts. A language without fuzziness is a dead language that cannot support creative consciousness. https://open.substack.com/pub/michaelkowalik/p/the-meaning-of-words

The biggest political problem are people who blindly believe whatever the government or the news media designate as the biggest political problem. Every other political problem can be reduced to this problem.

The idea of a ‘reasonable person’ is just as unreasonable as the person who has that idea.

The argument that something is good if it ‘saves lives’ implies that anything can be good (torture, mass murder, terrorism, vaccines) as long as its net effect is to save some lives. If the goodness of something is conditional on circumstances then nothing is good or bad in itself, which contradicts the premise that ‘saving lives’ is good.

Simulation of Language

The meaningful vocabulary for most people (irrespective of social class, wealth or formal eduction) consists of about 200-500 words related to physical action/situation (stand, walk, sit, run, yes, no, me, you.. etc). Beyond this word-set they only simulate speaking a language, reproducing words they are unable to consistently define. Most speech/writing is dominated by simulation of language.

Irreconcilable disagreement may be the result of only simulating language and imagining that we already speak it. As long as we use words without having a consistent idea of what we mean, mutual understanding is impossible. Nevertheless, with some effort we may begin with the simulation of language and then work towards actually speaking that language, by reciprocally negotiating definitions and reflecting on the meaning of words. All language-learning begins in simulation, whereas speaking a language requires reciprocal effort to generate meaning and reach understanding.

Government: noun, a terrorist organisation endorsed and financed by the majority of voters.

Philosophical questions are typically posed without having a clear idea of what one is asking, as if hoping to make the question meaningful and redeem oneself by means of a charitable response.

Philosophical arguments are typically posed without having a clear idea of what one means by the invoked terms, as if hoping to make them meaningful and redeem oneself by means of the questions that the argument may provoke.

This deficiency of meaning is utterly hopeless and virtually unconscious outside of philosophy: in sciences, culture and politics.

We are yelling and grunting and moaning into the abyss, hoping for the same sound to be returned by something. We are throwing pebbles into a bottomless pit, hoping to hear a splash.