The case for metacategorical transcendence

One interesting and important finding that I derived from my categorical research is that we need to differentiate not just people but their mental structures from their own categorical specifications of these structures. The Diagram shows that there are a priori structures into which we are all born, and yet you can see that each individual within these structures is unique and differentiated from others. This comes from the fact that each individual creates their own categories (ideas) that they develop on their own and due to influences or inspirations from others. However, we need to notice that these internal distinctions of categories are not, in fact, categorical and therefore not a priori as Kant argued. I am writing this in order to show that the distinction of structure versus category (a form of content) is more important because it is a priori in regard to distinctions of categories within each individual’s philosophical worldview. Continue reading

A circular question: What is sleeping philosophy?

I first asked the question about sleeping philosophy when I was evaluating the Diagram. Although I think my first quandaries about the nature of sleeping philosophy were significant, I now believe sleeping philosophy is much more complex than it earlier seemed. Besides meeting a sleeper in real life, I’ve also found important sleepers in literature and art that need to be discussed here. In particular I want to mention the philosophies of Philip K. Dick, a character from Roberts’s Shantaram, and Andrei Tarkovsky, a Russian movie director. These new comparisons and findings lead me to believe that sleeping philosophy is the (two-positional) idealism/realism missing from the context of other categories. Yet speculations about whether this means that in the future sleeping philosophy may become a new category or would remain asleep are inconclusive. Continue reading

Reasoning behind the Diagram’s list: introduction and methodology

The listing after the Diagram contains many names in specific philosophical categories and, although aims to include all people, can ever be incomplete. It may or may not become an appropriate dataset for an actual theory, and additional reasoning wouldn’t hurt it. The Diagram is defined by expanded Complete Reality Hypothesis (CRH), which also contains necessary rules and parameters involved in categorization. Continue reading

Confusions of idealism

On Philosophy Forums on November 13th, 2015, I’ve written a post with unique arguments for categorizing Kant as a materialist. Bill Harris, my main opponent, criticizes me for not understanding Kant. However, I am convinced that it is Bill who doesn’t understand my arguments. The debate is still going on, so I think I should drive my point further home, as it also would be in Ayn Rand’s and Leonard Peikoff’s interests. Continue reading

Evaluation and conclusions of expanded Complete Reality Hypothesis

What follows is partly an evaluation of the expanded CRH Diagram, not a rationalization of why certain philosophers were chosen in it or an explanation of the method, all of which will be made clearer in a later post. The first and foremost value of the CRH is its practical use in understanding other people’s philosophies. CRH makes APEIRON into a hypothetical practical method based on Theory of Nested Concepts, which rigorously defines the Model. While the Model displays all knowledge, the Diagram displays all the categories that structure human consciousness and thus all of humankind. Continue reading

Expanded metaphilosophical categorizations

[This post is no longer being updated.]

Building upon Complete Reality Hypothesis (CRH), which is based on the Model, I have expanded the visual categorization method to cover more philosophies using four informal types, which describe Positions with adjectival derivatives showing Directions. Note that a Direction of the same root as a Position is inherent in the Position (e.g., idealists are inherently idealistic).

Continue reading

Towards New Ethics

The way epistemological physicalism works is by integrating metaphysics into the conceptual level of epistemology, thus using it to metaphysically necessitate the physical experience of sense perceptions that occurs naturally (Figure 4). However, reality is grounded in physicalism, just as in the sciences, and not merely in the materialism of such Kantian groups as the transhumanists. The quantum sciences with their views of particles lose their imposed contradictions when they are philosophically integrated into the perceived reality that can be seen with our naked eyes. The conceptual, theoretical principles play an important role in this integration as well as show humankind the way towards building a better tomorrow and helping us live happier, more enlightened lives. And we start exploring the far-reaching metaphysical principles — our purpose — as we pave the way to them with the exemplary basics — the ethics of epistemological physicalism. Continue reading