LogFAQs > #941233433

Romes187 posted...

probably sartre

i like hegel. I like logocentric thinking

Yeah he's fine too. I guess I like his phenomenology stuff more than the outright existentialist stuff.

Romes187 posted...

This idea of involuntary liberty as being the ability to limit your voluntary liberties (and create meaning) is what creates the tension between the two sides. Social order can indeed provide meaning, but it can become so rigid that it inhibits the ability of the citizens to take on voluntary responsibility. We cannot forgo all liberties for a life of absolute and infinite meaning, but we also cannot have pure liberty with no sense of meaning. In both cases, our consciousness would be unable to experience anything at all. If everything has infinite meaning, everything is meaningless. If everything is meaningless, there is no self-awareness because you must find meaning in something to be aware of it.

This is the inner tension that creates the dialectic. We need meaning in our lives to experience things and to protect us against suffering, and this meaning requires freedom to take up responsibility. But the structures that allow us to do this, our social and political order, become weakened by too much freedom. This in turn will sublate with the social order to create our new synthesis. What do we get when we synthesize meaning and liberty? Voluntary suffering (in varying degrees).

At this point it kind of sounds like Jordan Peterson? Idk

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]