Hi, good morning
Quite very defined the scheme for the rest of essay.
Also, have to say I'm evitating politic opinions on the text, as long as it's epistemology.
My politics theory would be on the balanced bases of freedom and solidarity, and the forgetting of the concept of the violent revolution as something valuable, excepting in tragic situations (we could identify this I mean to the concept of legal self-deffense, though this is always able to be interpreted).
Politics is very complicated subject. And it's needing more principles than perfectly closed codes: for anthropologic and historic reasons related to each community with its own way of life.
On my essay, I'm searching for a fundamented explanation of the bases and limits of our reason, noticing the last point I commented (social and identitary contextualism of communities) is affecting its definitive development in ways that are impossible to be defined for all cases in a closed way (as politics; though we could also talk about social differences, education at home, at school...). It's the Structure I'm talking about.
Obviously, my methodology is not for a dictatorial final pronouncement. I'm telling my opinion next to two unrenounceable methodologic principles: intelectual freedom and the justifying by the best argument.
Obviously, its not possible to close the cercle, as long as the knowledge I'm making, somehow, is ending in the brain of the reader, who will be judging what I put together as one in one book.
What I'm saying is that the suposition of intelligence and formation is unavoidable from the writer, as much as the acceptance of negative critics, undependently they're finally well or bad fundamented.
And what I'm also saying is that, as in the life, history does usually give and take off reasons (literal translations, meaning time will tell who's right; though this is not always sure), in any case. By this I try to mean that the real best arguments do usually get the corresponding status, if it's truly the best (if there're not organized conspirations for silencing an argument).
Though well, I'm not so sure on this. Cause history chosed Descartes instead of Pascal. And it's not Descartes was not saying very useful things for fundamenting the incipient science (scientists take Newton as that period reference, instead of Descartes, however -and obviously: for closed fields of reason), but Pascal was also saying something more that it's true.
I know the fundament of what I'm saying is key for the philosophy history, but I do have to express it well, and philosophicaly, as a epistemology. Whatever politic choices or cultural diversity, there's an unavoidable reference there: our biologic constitution. From this, and from scientist discoveries and from deep reflections, it's possible to get better conclusions.
The structure of the human thinking is not broken, by instance, in the case of intelectual geniuses or aspergerian people. It's the same happening when we go from one cultural community to another one. My idiome has 8 words for describing the snow, and another one has only 2: this is not meaning there're not a common innate and universal structures that make our reason work, which works through and by them.
Finally, have to say these questions I'm writing about are not affecting any kind of national or global securities. It's not breaking the peace and democratic order. It's just bringing sense, which is bringing peace at once to the people who understand it.
As I said, I'll be very carefully defining my own methodologic principles (assuming freedom and the need for recognizing the best argument) and my field of investigation: the structures of our reason, as an epistemology, like Kant's or Descartes'.
It's difficult to me to understand the watching by the agencies of some states, cause this is quite far from the coming of extraterrestrial beings or a revolution against the global order.
We could say people would be wiser by understanding what I say, and then would be more critic against states and corporations. But Remember they are composed by people, also. And a better sense in all would mean a better living on this planet, which has to face many humanitary and ecologic challenges.
I'm not against the global markets. I know this is unavoidable. And in the social and politic fields, I would just basically ask for the respecting of the well known principles of the very ancient french revolution. Nothing too unusual, we should admit.
But this is not epistemology, this is part of morals, politics...
Anyway, I know many other people is also watched on these days; and the tries for disturbing by people as neibo (sorry but it's a closed -and Truly hated by me- way, for the too prolongued unfair ways) may probably have another reason, related to those accusations I talked about yesterday, or maybe related to some very mistaken therapies...
Well, some more minutes here than the needed for the writing cause I had a call, questions from the University.
It's ok, I'm finishing.
Just wanting to say that philosophy is not an enemy to people and communities, and not a cause of problems. Integration by the sense and on values is simply the key.
Have a fine day.
Greetings Good!