Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aelfrictr t1_iw4mor8 wrote

Reply to comment by ridgecoyote in A cross between an Existentialist and an Old Testament prophet, Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard urged his "single individual" reader to follow the "highest passion" of faith rather than becoming one of the stereotyped pseudo-individuals of "The Crowd" by thelivingphilosophy

Compared to our potential. Time and time again I see we will never achieve it fully. And it's not helping our social structures does not reward certain actions compared to short sighted unfiltered goals.

I think there is objective reality but we lack the tools to interact with it in it's complete form because it wasn't really useful for our survival within our evolutionary process. An interface of simplified perception was way more energy efficient to stay alive and still achieved the purpose of reproduction. This interface called body has enough senses to ask the right questions and look for answers up to certain point but at the same time is not satisfying if you gathered enough independently tested scientific knowledge.

I'm sorry I couldn't write a lot as I am at my phone, I will try to explain better when I get to my pc. I will try to do my best to understand your position that triggered a reaction by my words.

2

ridgecoyote t1_iw83gxw wrote

So what defines our potential? The Bible? Mein Kampf? Scientology? You? Whatever ideals you’ve assimilated , the fact of Human potential is the potential to destroy life on the planet and while I’d say that’s pretty stupid, it’s certainly not weak.

The intellectual problems that come with asserting an objective reality are myriad but I’m happy to continue the discussion at a leisurely pace. William James said that he didn’t see how a philosophical club or society would be possible when it takes so much patience to define terms and understand the others. If you have the time and patience, so do I.

1