Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James's avatar

I’m struggling to grasp what you mean by the terms you’re using.

For example, what does it mean to “believe that one is not contingent” or “to be the source of oneself”? These phrases seem to imply a denial of dependence on anything beyond oneself—but what exactly is meant by “source” in this context?

I also find the phrase “the final reference point for truth” philosophically confused.

I understand truth as a property of a proposition that accurately describes some aspect of reality. Truth, then, is relational: it depends on a correspondence between what is said and what is. Its reference point is not the self, but reality—because truth describes reality (which can include oneself since we are part of reality).

While it is the self who forms and evaluates propositions, truth itself is not grounded in the self, but in the objectivity of what exists.

As for “power” and “reality,” I’m unclear on their connection. Reality is what it is, independent of our beliefs, preferences, or ignorance. Power does not determine reality—objectivity identifies it. That is, reality takes metaphysical precedence over mental processes.

Objectivity is the epistemological principle that recognizes this: it is the mental orientation that gives primacy to reality over the contents of the mind. And when the contents of the mind—such as evaluations or propositions—successfully reflect what is, we say they are objective and true.

So if your formulation is meant to describe a kind of radical subjectivism or self-deification, I think it would benefit from more precise language. But maybe I’m misreading you. As it stands, it appears to conflate categories—truth, power, and reality—and risks smuggling in metaphysical confusion under a rhetorical approach to these issues.

Anyway, I look forward to hearing what you have to say in an effort to clarify what you mean.

Expand full comment
12 more comments...

No posts