Philosopher = Strange Identity
The philosopher is opposite the gambler. The gambler plays to win. While losing, the philosopher learns to enjoy it. Poet Robert Browning wrote, “man’s reach should exceed his grasp.” In this same vein, the philosopher pushes onward towards contemplation of the impossible, knowing such a mountain climb up a vertical slope must fail.
Failure is nonetheless success because, in philosophy, arrival is not the goal. Success is hamstrung by endgame. Life is not an endgame, and philosophy is life. When we live, there is no arrival. When we arrive somewhere, it’s the aftermath of vitality, a funereal process. We tell ourselves arrival at a golden goal is the thing we want, but that’s just inspirational talk to keep ourselves going.
The philosopher makes bold at the outset, setting a goal known to be unreachable. In this way life, which has no meaning outside of the great NOW (itself more myth than reality), gets the surplus of vitality necessary for important discovery. The philosopher wants to discover & disperse the gold nuggets found en route to failure. Failure is intentional avoidance of the endgame achieved through strategic overreaching.
One of the seemingly silliest goals ever set by a scientist, the quest for a unified field theory of everything, wherein an ultimate list of the fundamental laws of everything are gathered together, was embarked upon by a great scientist, Albert Einstein. It was his swan song. It ended in failure.
Philosophers, find your pluck & continue. Great discovery will always be checkered by impossibility & failure. Imperfection is the reality that pushes you forward, armed with the myth of imminent success.
Even if you haven’t seen Groundhog Day, you can imagine what it’s like to keep living in the same movie that repeats endlessly. After a while, you know minute details about not only what will happen, but also about what can happen. That’s the POV of the world through the lens of ultimate laws of everything.
You say such laws will generate endless variations of contexts & endless variations of variations of contexts… That’s not the world of ultimate laws of everything. That’s our world. The ultimate laws of everything cannot be themselves because such laws must repeat themselves and such laws, if they are ultimate laws, cannot repeat themselves. Yes. I’m power-walking into the heart of paradox. Paradox, a transcendent being, escapes endgame, and the work of the philosopher is elaborating a new way of saying “Hallelujah!” in response.
Wait a minute! What if some audacious philosopher, knowing ultimate laws of everything must paradoxically fail, intentionally sets about attacking the quest for a theory of everything, being fatally curious about the nuggets that shower forth from this Hadron Super-Collider of a theory?
Einstein, in the last thirty years of his life, set forth upon such a quest. He was in the avant-garde of seekers who saw singularities, black holes, particle pairs, action-at-a distance & quantum uncertainty. Being gridlocked by the endgame of success pertaining to Relativity, he opposed this nugget shower of new science fathered by his own theory.
Success is hamstrung by endgame.
Einstein’s quest for ultimate laws of everything, in having its way, would have quashed the gold rush of new science that keeps Relativity interesting & alive in the minds of today’s scientists.
The bold philosopher uncouples success from endgame by embracing imperfection & failure, first cousins to the impossibility of greatness. In turn, Impossibility is loyal subject to the Sovereign, Interest.
The philosopher moves in the spirit world articulated by British scientist Arthur Eddington, who said, “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”
This is my attack upon philosophy, the marketplace of impossibility.
The game isn’t about being right. Instead, it’s about being interesting. Einstein fought to exclude the strangeness of the new science he foretold because, in the popular mind, science normalizes the strange, making it known & commonplace.
He wanted to be right, to be a winner. Instead of being right, Relativity fails (in the eyes of Einstein) with interest. Relativity, in the minds of today’s community of scientists, avoids jumping the shark by evicting endgame.
Failure is nonetheless success because, in philosophy, arrival is not the goal. Success is hamstrung by endgame. Life is not an endgame, and philosophy is life. When we live, there is no arrival. When we arrive somewhere, it’s the aftermath of vitality, a funereal process. We tell ourselves arrival at a golden goal is the thing we want, but that’s just inspirational talk to keep ourselves going.
The philosopher makes bold at the outset, setting a goal known to be unreachable. In this way life, which has no meaning outside of the great NOW (itself more myth than reality), gets the surplus of vitality necessary for important discovery. The philosopher wants to discover & disperse the gold nuggets found en route to failure. Failure is intentional avoidance of the endgame achieved through strategic overreaching.
One of the seemingly silliest goals ever set by a scientist, the quest for a unified field theory of everything, wherein an ultimate list of the fundamental laws of everything are gathered together, was embarked upon by a great scientist, Albert Einstein. It was his swan song. It ended in failure.
Philosophers, find your pluck & continue. Great discovery will always be checkered by impossibility & failure. Imperfection is the reality that pushes you forward, armed with the myth of imminent success.
Even if you haven’t seen Groundhog Day, you can imagine what it’s like to keep living in the same movie that repeats endlessly. After a while, you know minute details about not only what will happen, but also about what can happen. That’s the POV of the world through the lens of ultimate laws of everything.
You say such laws will generate endless variations of contexts & endless variations of variations of contexts… That’s not the world of ultimate laws of everything. That’s our world. The ultimate laws of everything cannot be themselves because such laws must repeat themselves and such laws, if they are ultimate laws, cannot repeat themselves. Yes. I’m power-walking into the heart of paradox. Paradox, a transcendent being, escapes endgame, and the work of the philosopher is elaborating a new way of saying “Hallelujah!” in response.
Wait a minute! What if some audacious philosopher, knowing ultimate laws of everything must paradoxically fail, intentionally sets about attacking the quest for a theory of everything, being fatally curious about the nuggets that shower forth from this Hadron Super-Collider of a theory?
Einstein, in the last thirty years of his life, set forth upon such a quest. He was in the avant-garde of seekers who saw singularities, black holes, particle pairs, action-at-a distance & quantum uncertainty. Being gridlocked by the endgame of success pertaining to Relativity, he opposed this nugget shower of new science fathered by his own theory.
Success is hamstrung by endgame.
Einstein’s quest for ultimate laws of everything, in having its way, would have quashed the gold rush of new science that keeps Relativity interesting & alive in the minds of today’s scientists.
The bold philosopher uncouples success from endgame by embracing imperfection & failure, first cousins to the impossibility of greatness. In turn, Impossibility is loyal subject to the Sovereign, Interest.
The philosopher moves in the spirit world articulated by British scientist Arthur Eddington, who said, “Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine.”
This is my attack upon philosophy, the marketplace of impossibility.
The game isn’t about being right. Instead, it’s about being interesting. Einstein fought to exclude the strangeness of the new science he foretold because, in the popular mind, science normalizes the strange, making it known & commonplace.
He wanted to be right, to be a winner. Instead of being right, Relativity fails (in the eyes of Einstein) with interest. Relativity, in the minds of today’s community of scientists, avoids jumping the shark by evicting endgame.
Comments (39)
That sounds childish. Dualisms have issues and I don't know a dualism which posits end game vs beginning game and nothing formally is derived from that I'm aware of.
You have an insight but you're using imprecise language.
What does that mean? Please be clear.
Quoting ucarr
The second sentence cannot be connected to the first one. It's not what one would logically expect. Both their subjects and predicates differ. At least one must be preserved: they must both talk about either the gambler or winning/losing. Examples:
"The gambler plays to win. When the gambler loses he doesn't enjoy it."
"The gambler doesn't enjoy losing. The philosopher learns to enjoy losing."
I feel like a teacher correcting a school essay here, and I could just ignore all that, but I also feel that I have something to say, because I believe that clear and correct descriptions are very important in here.
Good luck with that. A Nobel undertaking. Let's start with a clear and correct definition of "being". :cool:
:smile: What's a small oversight between philosophers, eh? We're not computers that have issues like not understanding IF x > 9 TEHN print "Hello world". Reading isn't a passive activity, is it? :chin:
:lol:
Ah, silly you say? The quest for great knowledge is futile to some, but intellectuality, methodology, precise accuracy, these are the measures of science.
Quoting ucarr
Indeed, imperfection is the sickness of life. And yet, there must be some perfection at the outset. I think you agree. Otherwise, we would not be here.
Regarding imprecise language, your use of "that" above refers to my entire OP, the last paragraph or some other part?
Quoting Shwah
I don't intend herein to set beginning game in opposition to end game. Instead, I'm trying to root my observations within the NOW, admitting however, that said NOW is elusive.
Within the perspective of life, which is the NOW, there is no beginning & no end. We the living, so far as we know life directly empirically, have always been alive & always will be alive. Of course we have thoughts about our birth & death, but these are just more life experiences.
I suppose I'm writing a POV that's away from duality and rather at eternalism as a purported bounded infinity.
I appreciate your encouragement re: my having an insight. Thank-you.
:lol: Good one!
As to my meaning above, whereas the gambler strives to beat the odds by slipping the laws of averages, the philosopher, per my thesis, strives to antagonize the odds via strategic overreaching. Even though we've all been terrorized by Alien, I nonetheless declare "nature loves a bold explorer." Make bold if you want Nature to cough up her deep secrets.
Quoting Alkis Piskas
You got me with this piercing criticism, and your couplet above is an excellent clarification of my mishegoss. Now, let me walk back my mea culpa half a step. My sentences are misaligned because sometimes interesting details are asymmetrical. Isn't asymmetry how the Big Bang got triggered?
You are not totally wrong! :grin:
Quoting Agent Smith
Well, you tell me. I'm a computer programmer! :smile:
But, don't we have similar conditions in philosophy, appearing as logical schemes? Can they work if statements, arguments and propositions are not stated clearly and correctly?
I try to be original, but oftentimes I find myself dealing in the currency of cliche nonetheless. :roll:
As far as I can tell, there's no point in reinventing the wheel. Nevertheless, there's a premium on innovation.
We have to fill in the gaps, principle of charity; Trolls, a different tale.
I apologize for the convolutions pointed out by Alkis Piskas. In the above quote, I'm trying to applaud Einstein's quest for ultimate laws. However, I'm trying to do it ironically by arguing that the serious quest for ultimate knowledge will be foiled, whereas the pessimistic quest for ultimate knowledge will sometimes yield gold nuggets, as with Einstein, even though he fought against his own productive, (unintended) overreaching in favor of perfection & victory.
How's that for indirection athwart of clarity?
I'll venture to say he was unfortunately thrown into conflict with his own genius. The richness of Relativity extended far beyond Einstein's credence regarding what, in general, is possible within the physical universe and what, specifically, are some real implications of the theory.
On the contrary, gamblers, like lovers, play to lose – to keep the games going. The action is everything, that's the jones! :broken:
The philosopher lives beyond "winning and losing". Amor fati. :fire:
So gambling is compulsive.
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe Amor fati & the great NOW are sharing a handshake.
Thank-you. :grin:
I think that were the circumstances of a previous bang running to its end. There were no internal asymmetries, so to speak. While foiling the standard approach to the unifying theories, being pessimistic and not seriously about it, you can actually arrive at a unifying model.
So he attacks that quest while he actually wants to see one at work?
It was a correction, not a criticsim. But if you like this word, you can consider my remarks as "constructive" criticism. :smile:
Quoting ucarr
You got me clueless! :smile:
Quoting ucarr
Right.
[i]A mathematician, a philosopher and a gambler walk into a bar. As the barman pulls each of them a beer, he decides to stir up a bit of trouble. He pulls a die from his pocket and rolls it is a showy way on the bar counter. It comes up with a 1.
The mathematician says: "The probability that 1 would come up is 1/6, and at the next throw it will be the same. If we roll the dice infinitely many times, the relative frequency of the number 1 will converge to 1/6, that is, to one occurrence every six throws."
The philosopher strokes his chin, and remarks: "Well, this doesn't mean we won't get that number again at the next throw. Actually, it's physically possible to have the same number on the next 1,000 throws, although that's highly improbable."
The gambler says: "I know you're both right, but I wouldn't bet on that number for the next throw. Because I trust mathematics, and so I expect that number to come up about once every six throws. Having the same number twice in a row is a rare event. Why would that happen right now?"[/i]
The gambler indeed "strives to beat the odds", as you say.
Fortunately, mathematicians and philosophers are not gamblers! :grin:
:smile:
Philosopher = Stange Identity
I liked this opening post, for it says something. It sticks its neck out, and says, "there is no achievement possible in philosophy if you equate finding the truth as the achievement of a philosopher."
Neatly packaged, as well.
But my most favorite part is the misspelling of Strange in the thread title. It's like printing a whole bunch of twenty dollar bills on your computer at home, leaving the W out of Twenty.
In Canada, in the tri-city of Kitchener, Waterloo and Cambridge, false Canadian dollars were circulating for a short while, back in the nineties. The bills had the word "Twenty Canadian Dollars" spelled in Chinese characters. Nobody gave a hoot. Much like the quarter denomination of coins in Canada comes with weird fucking embossments, people thought that this was a governmental initiative of diversification efforts, and the money was accepted as legal tender.
Another typical example how a man's reach must extend his overbite.
(Descartes, of course ... "Learning by losing")
:smile: I know a dentist!
The philosopher is a player who does not know that he is also playing.
Thanks for sharing.
[Please don't analyze. If you explain what you intend to express, you will still not explain it (because you will have to explain the explanation) and kill your style.]
This sounds like you maybe agree that pessimism-fatalism is a useful frame of mind for conducting philosophy.
Herein, my word choice of "attack" is unfortunate. In this context, "attack" means "line of attack," or "approach to the solving of a problem," not "attack" as in "find fault with," or "criticize."
I'm thinking about this seriously, with intent to incorporate it into my methodology, when I have a better understanding.
Thanks for sharing. It feels like good advice, albeit an approach whose use should be made sparingly, lest one fall prey to obscurantist language games.
Why must ultimate laws fail?
Quoting ucarr
So he tries to solve the problem of finding a unified theory how? When I criticize the standard model of unification, the unifying principle, in particle physics, and by that same criticizing, a new unifying principle comes along, should I criticize that also?
This question digs into some of my currently evolving thinking about ontic boundaries of material objects in the context of an origin story, one of the impossibles that philosophy is tasked with solving.
An ultimate law of physics (or, for that matter, of any scientific discipline) holds the status of First Cause. Re: First Cause, I lean towards Kant with the notion that such a thing is transcendently real, meaning it can't be pinned down to anything like a satisfying specificity, which is what human mind hungers for in its quest for an origin story.
Why must First Causes be transcendently real? Even with a First Cause, the element of context remains. Well, the context of a First Cause, being the "holding space" for said First Cause, must stand apart from it, thus negating First Cause status of First Cause.
If we say First Cause is its own context, we posit our thinking within the inner sanctum of paradox which, existentially speaking, is a transcendent object, so First Cause, though extant somewhere, escapes our firm grasp again! Well, this is the terrain of quantum uncertainty, is it not?
With the transcendent paradoxicality of QM, we get a probablistical handle on First Cause, but it's just an admission that something passable as First Cause is out there, somewhere, although there's no discreetly specifiable there there.
P.S. - Big Bang Theory appears to have this ontic boundary problem as described above. What's the context of an infinitesimal point? We're halted from saying "itself" because there is no dimensional expansion. Is the pre-Big Bang universe a transcendently paradoxical entity? Wow! Let's try to wrap our heads around that one. Impossible!
On point, god must be atheist! I could try to say "stange" is some of my bad French; would anybody buy that? Naw! Di-stinguer has an extra syllable, and the spelling is totally different.
Your feedback is encouraging & much appreciated.
Ain't no fun in a truly broken heart.