CS
Programming has been a great relief to me as of late. I've surpassed my class by far and am attempting to make my own side projects, such as the practical 'flash card' program and the more practice-based in-depth diner program that is meant to utilize all the basic skills of computer science and to holistically understand object-oriented programming. CS is the greatest technique discovered for the analysis of ontology in our day because it can use mathematical reductionism and apply it into a simulation, leaving us with the ability to make an effective model of the mysterious bottom-up approach to Being itself (something math could only ever dream of). There's a great number of theories from CS that constitute a large body of knowledge in contemporary metaphysics, yet the philosophy it presents is still fractured and poorly organized. I don't want to argue against positivism or empiricism or any of that, but things have changed. Aristotle made the claim for associations as the source of knowledge and science has effectively proven empiricism and rationalism both partially right which is why early modern philosophy is worthless.
As Heidegger claimed, history has accumulated too much bullshit and what we can do in the modern day is see things in a new light. Positivism may make claims for our ability to gain knowledge, but CS can be used to test that claim. The idea is this: science makes a claim to how something works in physics, the claim is modeled and integrated, then the results are measured. Assuming we have a perfect grasp of the language (which is a whole other story), then we will be able to model the situation. What did science teach us? That modernism would be the way to utopia. What happened? An unstable function. We didn't get utopia. Our arrogance made us think technology would lead to nothing but good but that didn't happen. Computers, if told correctly, know this. Phenomenology knew this. Kierkegaarde warned of our delusion with it. Nietzsche gave the striking image of the death of God which in relation to existentialism was the definitive symbol for modernism. Heidegger took a very literal complaint of events to come, actually tried to fight it, and paid the price. This is something that is still not entirely accepted. What was foretold as early as Aquinas is unfolding. But the belief in total reflection from existence ruined it. As CS is bottom-up ontologically, none of this applies. In fact, the roles are flipped. Now, CS will not line up with existence, but we know it has to be right.
I need to develop this stuff further. The CS part. I need to create an independent ontology that somehow speaks to our own being through Being. It'll be hard but it can be done. Inside a world with objects, there is no suffering, because I haven't added a method for it. Yet.
As Heidegger claimed, history has accumulated too much bullshit and what we can do in the modern day is see things in a new light. Positivism may make claims for our ability to gain knowledge, but CS can be used to test that claim. The idea is this: science makes a claim to how something works in physics, the claim is modeled and integrated, then the results are measured. Assuming we have a perfect grasp of the language (which is a whole other story), then we will be able to model the situation. What did science teach us? That modernism would be the way to utopia. What happened? An unstable function. We didn't get utopia. Our arrogance made us think technology would lead to nothing but good but that didn't happen. Computers, if told correctly, know this. Phenomenology knew this. Kierkegaarde warned of our delusion with it. Nietzsche gave the striking image of the death of God which in relation to existentialism was the definitive symbol for modernism. Heidegger took a very literal complaint of events to come, actually tried to fight it, and paid the price. This is something that is still not entirely accepted. What was foretold as early as Aquinas is unfolding. But the belief in total reflection from existence ruined it. As CS is bottom-up ontologically, none of this applies. In fact, the roles are flipped. Now, CS will not line up with existence, but we know it has to be right.
I need to develop this stuff further. The CS part. I need to create an independent ontology that somehow speaks to our own being through Being. It'll be hard but it can be done. Inside a world with objects, there is no suffering, because I haven't added a method for it. Yet.