A Critique of Impure Reason
A Critique of Impure Reason: Why We Can’t Have Nice Things;
The Post-Structuralist
Enrichment of Kant
At first glance, it would appear that they don’t think it be like it is, but it do. This is a paradigm that must be overcome in order for one to move further. The Faustian has come full-circle into being, or fulfilling, as it were, the millennial culture-blend of arithmetic and Apollonian tribalism. What axe bears the mother, oh mother, oh mother, oh brother. Cliques of Faustian thinkers can be found anywhere, you just have to open your eyes.
1 // Metaphysics of creationism
In order to fully understand — to the extent necessary — the thought processes and psychological barriers that bring one to engage in the mental gymnastics that is creationism, one must first deconstruct the fundamental thought process behind creationism, as well as the axioms and assumptions that go with it. Plato’s Guardians signify the first existence of the distinction between spirit and many essences of the universal creation-will which blossom thereafter.
Aristotle invented science in a week; God created the galaxy (but not the universe) in a fraction of a lifetime. Aristotle then invented metaphysics, but nobody knows what that is. Creationism is argued to be a pseudoscience by its detractors, but can we really know if that is the case? We don’t know what metaphysics is, so it thus follows that we don’t know what creationism is.
Truly, we cannot fully grasp the concept of Metaphysics, let alone the concept of Creationism. We can only circumnavigate around these concepts until we satisfy ourselves from the purely masturbatory exercise that is philosophical inquiry.
“No, I cannot prove that God does not exist — but nor can you prove that leprechauns do not.” — Sir Richard Dawkins
2 // It’s not what you think it is.
Everything you think about ethics is wrong when you think about it. Imagine a trolley which may run over five people. You can turn the lever, but you might end up causing a murderer to kill your friend. It thus follows that lying is always wrong. But at another moment, just as you get done saving your friend — killing the other 5 people in the process — men with poor haircuts who wore stained long-sleeved shirts and had acne scars. It was the gayest sequence of actions I had ever done and would not recommend it to anyone, unless you’re a girl; then it’s cool.
But getting back to the Monist Impossibility of Sincerity. One can read the conclusive essay in the chapter below this one. But to make things clear, one must realize that not all things are conclusive.
3 // It’s really not what you think it is.
Kant is a butthurt kind of guy who couldn’t understand the importance of English philosophy and he made it his life’s work to destroy it (that is to say, he was a philosopher). He failed miserably and instead left behind the legacy of continental “philosophers” (philosophers).
sniffles* Today I am going to talk to you about the problem of philosophy. It *sniffles* is a problem because philosophy itself creates *sniffles* problems. It is not a capitalist or socialist or so on and so on and so forth but a philosophy problem. In this philosophy problem, you are creating the problem *sniffles* by thinking of it. But what causes *sniffles* to sublimate *snifs*? The distinction between the phenomenological cocaine, and the cocaine as such. The dark ontological reflection of a snowy absolute. Also Stalin was misunderstood as a genocidal dictator but have you seen that moustache?
4 // It really is now not what you wish to dream of.
But actually, the lever redirects the train to another track and the most likely scenario is that pulling the lever will save five peoples’ lives—from an antinatalist perspective, this is a violation of the categorical imperative—and you can stand over them and jack yourself off all day, provided you are a diurnal Being, thinking about what a tragic figure you would be if you made such a difficult decision to leave five people to their fate based on vague, semiotically wise philosophical principles (spooks) and then were haunted(!) by that moment for the rest of your days but never regretting your decision despite dreaming of their bones crunching and their warm blood splattering onto you and soaking into your fedora or you could pull the penis or lever and save the people and they’d say thankfully you were there to help I can’t imagine how that would of gone if you hadn’t been here oh god thank you so much is there anything I can do to repay you, I owe you my life, my children would’ve been sent to live with their pedophile uncle neo-Nazi if you hadn’t been here to save me.
5 // Reality and other Falsehoods.
When we think reality, we think of all things that appear real to us, that is what reality encompasses to us. But what we don’t know is that the reality is that reality really isn’t real. Now imagine a hotdog bun. Stroke it. Tell me. Whisper to me, what would be the impressions you register from this empirical experience? Have you learned? Or do you still need practice?
Schrodinger locked his cat in a box and injected it with Polonium-230 isotopes to prove that reality doesn’t exist. As the cat cannot be proven to be dead unless you open the box and the box happens to be in the 4th dimension; ergo sum, cogito ergo no es.
6 // (The real one) value as a function of identity
It is important to understand that any identity assigned to an object is arbitrary at the macroscopic level. What one man may call a baseball may be called a manufactured product of wound thread and leather. Neither interpretation is wrong, but one must understand that the true identity of an object can only be ascertained by observing the identity and function of the object as a whole as well as its constituents. In doing so, a person is able to make the most absolute statement possible concerning the identity of an object. From this, an arbitrary value can be assigned to an object based on its identity. A large problem arises from this method, however. Nearly every object has an intangible characteristic, like chemical composition, which makes it inherently valuable without providing any indication of such value. This creates a necessity for a deeper level of analysis which takes into account minute factors of an object to provide a more accurate depiction of something’s value.
Enter micro-analysis of identity. Micro-analysis concerns itself with determining and analyzing minute aspects of an object. For an idea, this would entail analyzing the ethical, long-term, and moral reproductions of an idea along with the actual content of the idea. If one applies these principles not to an object, but to a theorem or idea, one can gain a very accurate and detailed understanding of the thought’s identity and value.
7 // Caught in the Rectum of Perception : The Beginning of Philosophy As Well As Its End
Back to basics. Western “Philosophy” begins in Greece. Thales and the pre-Socratics did not have tools, they just made statements based on sonic relation to cosmological coincidence (i.e.: there were throwing that shit out there hoping something would stick). Heraclitus went down to the river and put his foot in it and thought about it. That’s philosophy, bitch. So start at the beginning.
The trouble is locating the river.
So yes, no one likes Descartes these days (a lie to validate my pathetic, unverified existence) but he was right to at least go back to square one. Pythagoras pythagoras pythagoras pythagoras pythagoras Heraclitus B.
Anyway;
Axiom 1: all things are (like) Air. Of course this doesn’t make much sense at first, what do we mean? Air is the invisible substance we breathe, it surrounds us totally, it gets inside us. Air is not recognizable by eyesight yet it is there. We can remove air, we can move into space where there is no air. So if Air is a substance, what if the myriad of things around us are all made of Air, but are simply condensed forms of Air? When a person dies, the breath leaves their body. When they are born the breath enters and exists, repeating until death. When the body is decomposing it is air that is eating away at the flesh, oxidizing it. The gases are escaping. Does any of this make sense? I’m talking about sex and food. If you didn’t know anything about biology or any natural science then of course it does, until we counter with another idea.
Axiom 2: all things are (like) water. Same shit as above but we assume that essential, unitary element is water. I won’t repeat myself, needless to say that there is air in water, and there are atoms in air.
Axiom 3: all things are (like) atoms. We imagine that we can break every single thing down into smaller units, and we can break those units down into even smaller units, and so on and so on (sniff) until we reach the absolute smallest unit of matter, the atom. But what, exactly is an atom, and how deep down must we go to agree that, yes, this is the deepest point, there bottom of this ocean is here. Of course we know atoms are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons. The quark is even smaller. Of course we must ask, what, then is inside the quark?
Axiom 4: all things are like quarks. What the fuck is a quark? Why would you call it a quark? A character on a TV show that virgins and atheists deeply enjoy, jouissance. This is to say, life is absurd. Do we know what we’re doing?
8 // Nay son. But yeah, aesthetics.
We as a society have been taught a certain discourse based on democracy where the opinions of the masses only count as moral basis; this way the democracy stops being part of politics and becomes a ghosts that lingers in the minds of the masses. If we take in consideration the most basic interpretation of how a department of propaganda (footnote to add: the US used to have a government body called like that, weird shit) can easily manage the general opinion, then the mass becomes just the regulator of the official discourse. Under such scenario all the aspects that are considered unimportant turn into a nebulouse of angry madmen shooting in whichever direction they woke up that morning.
During the 50’s, before the left wing turned against the CCCP with great minds like Gidé or Camus attacking the obvious wrongs of a system sustained on nothing, the propaganda extended its reach into the world of art.
9 // What is up with Airline Food?
The question has daunted the sexes for relativistic millennia: what is up with
airline food? Well, before the question can be directly addressed, one must pursue the underlying assumptions made within the query itself. What is food? I mean, am I right? Like, are vitamins food? It’s so crazy. But I guess, as the old saying goes, “if it goes down, then it turns brown.” However, Jenkinesque aphorisms aside, food is sustenance, and only a dittle-twadder might try to deny such an unbold claim.
So, our next point of interest lies in the subtext involved with the supposedword: ‘airline.’ Air is, by definition, a collection of gaseous particles that obeys Brownian motion, a bit like Keynes’ mystically praised ‘stock market.’ So, for one toimply air can be arranged in a line, while still calling such a segmented portion ofparticles ‘air,’ is completely preposterous. Thus, the innate nature of a so-called ‘airline,’ is akin to the nature of the apparent ‘food’ that it describes. This draws us further to the point, one that defies Cartesian coordinates.
‘What’ is exactly what is up with airline food? The food itself is prone to anupwards trajectory. Hence, the what in question is exactly what is within the parameters of the question posed: airline food is up. That is what ‘is up’ with it, itself. So, a reflexivity is drawn here to illustrate the flexy, curvy nature of things, and moreimportantly, stuff. The food is being asked in terms of verticality because verticality isinherent within the food. Whether or not the supposed ‘food’ is of high quality is outside the question, for as John “Lockdown” Locke has stated, “there is nothing outside the text.” ® So in current conclusion of this investigative report [you’re safe OJ ;) ], what comes up, must come down, only brown. However, further mysteries surrounding the principle ideological character of the question regarding airline food and the food itself remain. I will further expand here.
Once the food abandons it’s correspondent space (fish on the water, birds on the sky) it loses the metaphysical connection with it’s peers. Is a fish on plane food the same as any fish? Of course not, fishes can’t fly. If it isn’t the animal it’s supposed to be then it would wrong to call it meat. It’s a series of components that, under other circumstances, could represent meat. Just like we could take a series of bags with the correspondent amounts of chemicals that form the human body without actually having a person, airline food isn’t the things our eyes show. 200 years ago Hume would have shat his pants, right?
We are confronted with this small compendium of chemical elements that could generate on us the same effects as if eaten in the correct form (although we’ve already covered the effects of the food on the body previously and the answer is that it wouldn’t) and little choice in the matter of what to eat. Humans can’t sustain themselves on peanuts, okay? We find ourselves in the need to extract sustenance from this mixture.
10 // On Text
When deciding whether or not to write your section of the text in an obnoxious font it is important to consider the ethical implications — it is entirely possible that using a different font to everyone else will subconsciously add more weight to what you say in the reader’s mind without it being significantly more interesting or well written than anything else in the text (a [very light] form of brainwashing via subliminal clues — in fact I would go as far as to argue that written ideas in general are morally wrong since you are allowing your ideas to influence others [essentially brainwashing them — imagine if you were to write in a silly font that killing yourself was morally a good idea and your mother were to read it and kill herself, you would feel horrible so it therefore follows that all writing is wrong- and manipulating them which is using people as means to an end]) — as well as the moral and theological.
