>>7316723>but only as a collective representation of...So you are social constructionist by epistemology. Bad idea, it can't lead to anything but might-makes-right relativism.
>Also, experience isn't bound by logic the way this discussion/words areYou just made two posts about how you aren't bound by logic, because my idea of logic allegedly differs from yours.. Now you claim discussions and words are bound by logic.
I know the stuff you talk about. Your influences, if I had to guess, are people like alan watts, robert anton wilson, maybe even some post-modernists etc.
I agree that we all have a subjective experience, we are even bound by it. But this doesn't mean that there aren't objective things. There are many ways they can exist and the classic is, for example, a platonic realm, which differs from this realm of existence by substance. This means that it has it's own sets of laws and is unchanging, or objective.
Furthermore I'd actually agree with you in a sense, if I were a materialist. But I'm not and it's actually a quite incoherent philosophy in itself.
My view is that our mental phenomenon is a way to apprehend these objective categories. Of course, our faculties are unable to do so perfectly and thus we have to approximate and define our categories when we talk, but philosophically speaking, we are talking about the same things and therefore can fundamentally understand each other.
If we were to take a radical materialist/empiricist perspective, such as yours. There'd be no way of knowing whether we are experiencing, talking or even thinking about the same things. We'd have to take take everything on faith. Furthermore we couldn't even sensibly claim we are talking about the same things unless we socially agree to our common constructions, which of course brings power into the equation. If everything is left to just a negotiation about phantasms, we might just as well forget about truth, argumentation and philosophy and pick up our rocks and sticks.
