No. 284039 [PM]
You know wat I think? Lately, a lot actually. So, you know this very insignificant movement, called right wing? So, there are these very unchill dudes, on the extimist side of this right, and they have very wacky ideas. But wat is interesting is that for them there is simply no negative. There is no tradeoff in their constellation of thoughts, wat there is is only a gain
For example, suppose there is this very interesting race, sicko race even. Dunno, lets just say German race. So, if we take extremist right wat do they want? Many things, but mostly some way of regeneration and stuff. Primarly, their race. Why race? Well, the degeneracy, you see, there can be no future if people are too dysgenic. Or some thing, any way, They want the Jews gone. Why is dat? Well, Jews, it seems, are behind every thing, and they pollute the German race by magical shenanigans, any way, here is where things get interesting
So, how do a extremist right conceptualize dysgenic state of race? Ilness, of course, and ilness exist where? Right, on the body. So, the metaphor will be dat of health and hygiene. Racial hygeine, watever dat mean. Thats not wat is interesting, wat is interesting is that everything that they dont like, things like dysgenic stock, degeneracy, Jews, they just say that they are like cancer on body. So, they want to amputate the limb. No, thats not wat they actually say. Wat they say is dat they want to cut the ill tissue
So, lets just say, dat in time of the French revolution, violence was conceptualized primarily as a medical procedure. Wat theyve wanted is to, through blood, to make clean the Nation. To destroy ancien regime and make a beautiful Republic, La Partie, equalite, egalite, fraternite, all dat stuff. The guiliotine was then no different from a scalpel of a surgen, it cut the diseased tissue of the body of the Partie. Violence was necessary for the survival of the Nation, establisment of the Republic, and perpetuity of the Freedom that it grants, the Revolution…
And extremist right is very similar in this. Just way more extreme in their deed and rhetoric. Turns out, for them, it wasnt just a metaphor… So, lets take one absolutely random conuntry for extemist example, I dunno, Nazi Germany. Wat did the Nazis want? A revolution, of course, theyve wanted a revolution. In time of the Wall Street crisis or some thing, the people were pushed to seek new solutions, as the old system died from a heatstroke. And wat did they choose? Theyve chosen, actually, a somewat coherent 'world view', in which strongest eat weak, own race matters more than all, where Jewish bankers did all ill imaginable. And, of course, Bolshivism, they really didnt like dat. Any way, and how did they want to improve lives of Germans? Easy, all they set on to do is to reverse the ilness. To give it the right remedy. So, wat they set out to do, is cure, theyve started sterilizing people unfit genetically, theyve started branding Jews, theyve started doing all the sicko stuff. And there was, for them, absolutely no negative. If someone must be sterilized, it was good. Why? Because then the race will be more pure. There is no trade off here. Thats the thing, the whole point is fear of the trade off. Wat I want to say is dat, according to extremist right, sterilized Germans would not and could not feel bad about it, in fact, they only ever could support it and wish that on themselves, or so the line goes
Wat do I want to say? Well, firstly, the twisted logic is really twisted. And secondly, is that this is very hard to actually reason against. Well, some professor and master rhetorician could. But the point is, if disgenics are just a given, and health is just a given, there is no counter argument inside the whole specter of biology, psychology, genetics or watever, that can definitevly disprove it. There is no thing you can say to some one who, for example, thinks that Jews are behind all money. Not because it is irrational position, induced by stereotype and bias, but because this belief, bigoted as it is, is just one star in the constellation. There all other stars all around that are beliefs just of the same
Well, it is hard to put into words wat I wanted to say at all. But wat I come to think about is that many people read not for enlightment, but to confirm biases. And now I think if I have such disease too…
No. 284178 [PM]
>>284039I love your posts so much
No. 284205 [PM]
>>284199Why suffering though? Dunno, sounds very Stuart Mill(I love names)
I dunno. Wat you say is kinda right, well, that is just describing why would a crazy guy would have really weird view about race and watever. Though, well, that is in itself just one imperative, or I guess, a totalizing narrative, so, I dunno
We cant ever know if someone is truly believing wat they believing, wat is sure is that we can say dat people who by own intention damage humanity are kinda evil and perhaps they should get no pithy. If there is a guy, a maniac, that just because he sniffed from a fart that his own race is just plainly superior to all other, wat is it worth then try to relativise the immense not even hatred, but plain denial of humanity, that follow from his own belief?
I mean, if dat is so, that every thing is relative looking through the fish eye, then wat is the point? Yeah, wat you say is right. But is it really your opinion? If it in the end is all about taste(aesthetics?), then, well, that surely sound a lot like nihilism or some thing
But let me then ask you. If it is all about the taste, wat is your taste? Wat is it that you like? I like believing that rhetoric creates power, that there is no better choice unless we both agree on it. So then, in my eyes, wat you meant to say is that we have to rely on rhetorical devices and skills and in the end it will all about persuasive energies, I dont like this word, but cant think of a better right now (I have hard time not to perceive every thing as not rhetoric)
No. 284215 [PM]
>>284205the point is to overcome the pointlessness, because nihilism is scary position to be at. i think the true pure nihilism is anti-life and unwillingness to live. in order to avoid that you have to trust something, you have to commit to some idea. perhaps not easy to do, but its something you simply have to do.
taste? i think i cant recognize my taste that well. i like the nietzsches idea though, as you are aware. Dunno about rhetoric, you talk about it lot lately, rhetoric is about persuasion first and foremost, so not wanting to be understood perfectly but wanting to be agreed with. So why are you thinking about it lot lately? i recognize that it creates power and so on, you can see it clearly on everyday life. Perhaps, you think we should pay more attention and think about it more? Do you want to learn rhetorical skills or do you want to learn to understand it more? we all understand rhetoric a bit, because otherwise we couldnt understand anything, but its a really deep rabbit hole, and some rhetorical devices are very subtle and easy to misinterpret.
No. 284217 [PM]
>>284215If you are Nizschean then do you agree that there are no unquestioned premises and you yourself should question your own premises and not take it for granted? And if so, could you then commit truly to living the way you believe in your own ideas? Do you really believe that we live in a world that is degenerating, well, any way, I hate Nizsche for this point, that he created a totalizing narrative out of nothing and while preaching about recalibration of all values, it is actually unclear to me wat he really meant (at least for now, I abandoned reading about him)
Why rhetoric? Well, it is not really about persuasiveness. Most persuasive tactic is just violence, there is no discussion about it, rhetoric is about performance and in some limited instance, a magic. So, it is not about agreeing, it is about the form which we happen to agree in, it is speech if rhetoric is spoken and it is writing if the rhetoric is written. So, wat I wanted to say, is that rhetoric is essential to living, as human. I dont like it, but if we for a second say dat you can be in human body and be not human, then reason for dat would be is dat you cant defend yourself rhetorically
So, rhetoric is more than just persuasive argument, it is in an application of our creativity. And in creativity lies the purpose of continuing living. So then rhetoric and life are directly related and they from this relation create power. Well, so, I guess you can learn a rhetoric or a form of it, but no rhetoric is really complete. So, I only believe in metis and I dont believe in arete, and it is not easy to explain then wat I want to say… So, lets just say, is dat we cant really have rhetoric with people who are not Friends to us. Because then we could never agree, you see…
No. 284221 [PM]
>>284217i wouldnt describe myself as such, but yea, i would say you should question your own premises healthy amount, because you cannot just question forever on infinite loop. When im talking about commiting to idea, im not talking just inventing some random stuff and then starting to believe in it. I think you should rely more on instincts and what instinctively feels right and true. you should try to avoid believing in things for comfort though, because its deceiving. I think thats the best we can do. nietzsches ideas are not out of nothing though, they are based on observation and historical knowledge. I think ultimately what he says is about facing the reality.
in creativity lies a purpose to human life, but not all life. rhetorics are about speech and written text, which are not essential to life. So i perfectly agree its essential to human life as we know it, but its not essential to life itself. i think the magic of it lies simply on the fact how much you can influence by mere rhetoric, but im open to idea that there is more to it.
No. 284225 [PM]
>>284199crazy the best deal rn @ macdonald is actually dat world cup chicken nuggets
funny how dey be no making nobody member dem burgers no more
No. 284226 [PM]
>>284221Well, but is it true that relying on instict is very similar if not equal to being in comfort? I mean, you cant really question your own premises, your premises only can get questioned by someone or just reality. So, well, Im very unconvinced about Nietzsche's claim to reality or observation or historical knowledge, he had his own historical context but that is really all he had. He was a cool dude, but I dunno, he was vague with many thing and ultimately it is impossible to act on his beliefs, I feel like. So, yeah, there is no historical knowledge to Nietzsche, he does have a historicity to his aphorism and thought, but no more than that. The history is not the point, but transcending it I guess, and observation and experimentation is just implementation of own beliefs in practice, the science. That does not deny the form of science, even in Nietzschean thought, so science is not mere experiment
And wat does this mean? No thing… It is not heuristic to any thing, yes, there is other life than human but for this point Ill say that we can omit this. So, then, writing and speaking are essential to life and it is unimaginable to live a life without it
Well, wat I meant by magic is not easy to explain, it is some thing that moves people to do things. It is like persuasion, but not quite. Well, basically, wat I mean is the way Greeks thought about music was magical, this magical
So, nah. Rhetoric is not just influence, it is the form. The whole point of rhetoric is in some way style, in some way skill, in some way craft(art). It is some thing that is spontaneous and yet planned, rhetoric is a structure of living that can be thought as a overhang structure, so in some sense we are all engaging in rhetoric at all times but at the same time that would be to stretch the logic and concept too far
Well, you might be unconvinced by me just saying that in this context human life is all that is necessary. Well, but rhetoric I talk about is not limited to humans, indeed, animals can be rhetorically powerful. So, it is not some thing that is limited to being human, or to being, it is a way of being, sure… So, yeah, rhetoric is then not some thing that is about to persuade someone to do some thing, rhetoric then is discover if dat some thing is really as persuasive as it sounds. It is a radical form of questioning, not really a Sophistic skill or demagogery. It is similar to how Socrates operated, his rhetoric was one of the best in the game, so you could think that Socrates was indeed one of the very good rhetoricians and he famously propagaded quite chill ideas, about morality and stuff like dat, so yeah rhetoric cannot be one way it is always about agreement and if there is exercise in rhetoric that is malicious, well, then it is our duty to show it in that light. For that it is only our Friendship that truly matters
No. 284234 [PM]
>>284225im more of a hesburger kinda person (in reality, i almost never buy fastfood)
>>284226no, not at all. many people doubt their own beliefs, but are slaves to them anyway for emotional reason or otherwise. of course you can question your own premises. you just think about something and then you track back how you came to some conclusion. surely, you cant do it perfectly, but its not question of whether you are doing it to yourself or someone else. well, everyone has own historical context. how can you say anything about anything if thats a valid criticism? are you automatically wrong for thinking and making conclusion within your expertise? well, that doesnt make any sense, or it makes sense if you say that nothing anybody says has validity.
well you cant say what is meant by magic because magic is defined commonly as supernatural ability. So you have to use some different definition from past and make best guess how they thought about it. its not easy i get it, but we generally understand how can something be magical, so it doesnt require explanation.
okay thats a interesting and good start, but you need to do better job than dat to convince me of what it truly is. you say its some sort of form and so on, but then you dont tell me how. its too mystifying if you just say "in a way it like that". How can animal be rhetorically powerful if rhetorics has to just do speech and text? you can say they communicate, but isnt that then just communicating? im not really disagreeing im just not sure what you really mean.
No. 284237 [PM]
>>2842341) It is impossible to exist in own self as meaning is not created but only manupulated by us and external to us. So, we are able to absorb meanings but we are no creators of it. In this way, you are unable to question yourself in any meaningful capacity and all you can do is ask questions about own being and do the Decartes trick. Any way, you are incorrect. I do not deny Nietzsche his historical context, and doubless he himself understood his context only so well. But that is really all. Does he have a supreme bearing to truth, that in some future people will appear that think exactly like he wanted them to? No, call it self fulfilling prophecy or very persuasive, it is not historical in any sense, his aphorism and thought that is. His thought transcends history and the only way it can be done is by ignoring it. So, yeah, there can be historicity to Niezsche, but no history. You forget about myth, and I dont blame you, well, you are very contrarian after all
2) You cant tell me wat I cant say and wat I can. In fact, I clariied to you the meaning. You can agree or disagree, thats all Im gonna say. Lets not be pedantic for no reason wat so ever
3) There is no thing that I want to convince you of. There is, but not at a current time. So, yeah, you are on right track because mythos is very important. Any way, how can animals be rhetorically powerful? Well, no, rhetoric is not just about the speech and text, thats just one example of of the form it can take. So, simplest example is that animals can be rhetorically powerful by their nature, for example, a dog has good smell and can be a better rhetorician in matters of smell. (Like police dog which sniff drug). You focus on communication, but that is not really it, communication is about information, rhetoric is different, rhetoric is about why some thing is persuasive as it makes it self to be persuasive. So, yeah, I guess you gotta think out side the box on this one…
No. 284464 [PM]
>>284237I) yes i think he beared some truth. he saw future events and were already more influential than you might think. But remember he was a german professor and not very likeable as person. lets not judge him as if he was some gypsy with crystal ball. When nietzsche became as professor he was basically youngest person in his university to ever do so, and even today he is among the yougest ever. I dont think we should argue whether he was talented or not, he is clearly among the most talented philosophers of modern time. Whether you like his philosophy or not, well, like i said before its taste.
II) okay sorry.
III) Hmmmmm.. im not so sure about that. Im not sure if dog can use rhetoric. You train it to follow the smell by giving him cookies or such for winning. Its not like he can choose to only wanting to smell flowers instead of drugs. He cant really even complain about it. dogs can only kinda like whine a little or act surprised or happy or whatever, if you count that as some sort of body language and say well, they do communicate things. okay maybe, but is there really intention enough to say there is rhetoric? you said it yourself. rhetoric is different than communication, sure, but now im defending the dog, because i dont think rhetoric exists without communication. So if you would think life is programming then rhetoric is class that extends communication. i mean it might exist in text nobody ever reads, but if the text is trying to communicate there is rhetoric on it by default. So here comes my next question: Do you think generated text has rhetoric? i mean it has to, does it not? you cannot really not have text without rhetoric.
No. 284467 [PM]
>>2844641) He didnt like being a professor and he hated proffessors as a job(especially in philosophical matters). Some random Gypsy hatred wont help Nietzsche who would be perhaps repulsed by such sleight of hand. So, if someone is arguing about his talent, it would be you, I however made my own opinion about him without taking into account his authority or respect or watever. He is indeed influential, and was indeed a good philosopher if there is such thing, that however does no thing to wat I say and your apologia is null and void simply because you couldnt defend your position and decided to appeal to authority
2) No problem, thats no biggie
3) It is not about dog using rhetoric. (Dog cannot use rhetoric, they are however, rhetorically powerful on their own right). How can a generated text have rhetoric? It cant. Neither humans can have rhetoric, it is not some thing that some one possesses. It is the way of being, dat means, the way of questioning, perhaps, among other things, that manifests in some form. So, dog, for example, is rhetorically powerful because it can have smell that, compared to human smell, undisputedly prove that, for example, in one box there is a certain item and not in the other purely by smell. Human cannot smell so good, so, rhetorically speaking, it is in the moment that human cannot disprove dog's judgement, (or perhaps dog's intuition), that human has to conceede that dog is indeed more powerful rhetorically because dog proves own nature of having better smelling ability. So, dog is not just persuasive, (dog is not agent, but is persuasive), but is powerful rhetorically because in the moment of dog's choice dog proves own ability beyond doubt and does that reliably. Rhetoric would be asking why is dat, focusing on the smell rather on the dog, and, indeed, conceede that dog is unmatched rhetorically because dog can tell beyond doubt the thing dat you want it to smell (so, it is not a question of training at all, it is a question that at their best, human never could sniff so good and so dog has to take this role)
No. 284470 [PM]
>>284467A) that was not my point at all. what i meant is that it doesnt do him justice if we just look how good of a fortune teller he was. i dont think that is the point of philosophy. authority is valid argument because it raises a question why his philosophy resonates so much, despite not being authoritative character of that scale. also you cant say that i fail to defend my position when there is no position to defend. i said its matter of taste and you didnt really make counter-argument to that.
B)
C) i dont like that explanation that much, because it mystifies rhetoric to some invisible force or unattainable skill that just manifests. if thats truly what rhetoric is, then it cannot be observed even and the whole discussion about what it truly means becomes invalid. im pragmatic person in sense that things need to be properly demonstrated, vague definitions are just not very useful. i think rhetoric is more useful concept if we just think about it via its common definition, as a techniques to convey specific message in speech and writing.
No. 284471 [PM]
>>2844701) No, authority is not a valid argument. It is one reason to trust, not a valid argument on its own. If you dont have any position, then, I dunno wat is it all about… I said many thing too, but I argue for my position (that he is in no way can claim historical wisdom, only historicity). Any way, matter of taste is some remote thing from Nietzsche so I dont know wat to say. If it is related to him, then sorry, but I havent yet arrived to that point. I just think its nihilism and thats it
2)
3) Ok. You cant observe dog chosing right box with I dunno drug in it? You cant observe pig finding truffle? You can. Many book written on this experience. All on real event. Well, you are very contrarian so I forgive you for dat, but you gotta know dat I did say to you that I dont believe in arete and prefer metis so you wouldnt be able to argue with me about reasonableness or explanation of practical skill, because that is obviously a titanic task and not really fair position for you to make. So, nah, if you like your definition, go for it, I mean watever jiggle your bell I guess… Im not against dat
No. 284716 [PM]
>>284471i think you called it self fulfilling prophecy, i would disagree and say its not easy to see trends of future. i think his viewpoints were rather radical in his time, like saying that religion is no longer authentic or wont be and thus is dead. for people, especially like him, coming from strong religious background, its not easy to see. firstly because childhood religious upbringing gives you psychological trauma and so on. What do you mean by nihilism though? nihilism is when you give up and take the position that nothing matters. You cannot be nihilist if you are arguing against it. worrying about nihilism is not nihilism.
i think i understand what you are saying when you say you dont believe in arete but metis. So essentially you say whats more effective is better than what is just. So if you looked at the soldier in battlefield you would think the one with more kills is always best. is that what it means?
No. 285431 [PM]
>>284716In his time. This is not his time right now. You said dat in the end all that truly matters is taste. And dat sound a whole lotta like nihilism, where nihilism mean that there is no objective stuff
No, wat I meant by metis is practical skill. People have theories about stuff that try to explain why and how people came to posses a skill, like for example how people can find where is most oil in a area(there can be analysis but on its own, in this example, finding oil is a (human) skill). But most of the time, the theories only explain and unable to teach it. You can explain martial art, but to be able to use it you have to exercise. So, chess is then pure application of metis, in that that chess is not a mathematical skill, it is a human skill, it is inseparable from being a human. Chess can be analyzed through math, but thats not how people play it, thats not how people learn to play it, chess is just a practical skill that factors in people's strong points on strategy, experience, intuition
Arete is excellence and virtue, which means that if you have it, you have to uphold it. Being a soldier then is exercise in arete, that you are virtuous if you follow all the norms, all the laws, respect your opponent. You can be born from excellence, like aristocracy, then your arete is complete, and you are by birth is expected to posses pretty much every positive attribute. So, if you are from aristocracy for example, then studying is arete, being smart is arete, simply because that is wat virtuous for such class. It is the excellence. So, thats why we have distinction between hoi and aristocracy and other creme de la creme, it is, simply put, a natural state of humanity(exist only in this example) that people with more excellence should be rulers, receive respect more, should bear more responsibility
Metis then is wisdom, in a sense, (in this post, I only focus on practical side of metis), of practical wisdom. That is, living in itself, or a way of living, can be metis. It is, in fact, metis and dat is wat it mean. It is when you come to posses a skill that you have metis, in its continious exercise, and one mark of metis is irreplacement. That is, you can not replace a very competent craftsman(artist). You could, but then, all humanity suffers a loss. So, no, it is not really about effectiveness, actually, a metis is not meant to be optimized or effectivized because by virtue of being a metis it means that it is, perhaps, already optimal or effective enough an probably it couldnt be more(it is not possible I guess to optimized a metis, but wat ever)
No. 285440 [PM]
>>285431No. You misunderstand what i mean here. What i mean by the fact that only taste matters in the end is that objectivity cant be demonstrated in any truly objective way. Nihilism says nothing matters, im not saying that at all, neither im saying that there is no objective truths or that we should invent our beliefs from thin air. I think i made this clear on previous posts. The reason why i brought up taste is because its easily observed, people argue by their taste. We should call it that because it doesnt change easily. It doesnt change by brute force. It can change though.
Interesting. Well, there is nothing for me to disagree here. Practicality is better than theory. Its always better, for instance learning about object such as camera via pure theoretic text is never better than learning about it with having a camera in your hand. For some reason this is a huge theme in Scientology teachings. They call learning without physical object "Absence of mass", and say its really, really bad.
Well, i dont know if that is a great example. Being soldier is not really comparable to something like aristocracy. Imo, being a soldier is much like being martial artist, that is, you learn by repetition of moves and rules. I think you can be inclined to follow the rules and such, but that is just that, and not really about being a soldier.
Sounds a lot just having a good skill then having the cunningness and ability to troll everybody with it.
No. 285442 [PM]
>>285440Im sorry, but I cant see how I misunderstood you. It is clear to me that you mean a kind of nihilism. Well, unless by taste you mean some thing unexpected or some thing
No, soldier is the example of arete, there is no more arete than being a soldier (just imagine Greek soldier in time of Athenian democracy or some thing) (being a truly good soldier, that soldier which is a warrior, you must be educated in this way. So, it starts from education and being a warrior is noble, so, it is arete. Of course, there were higher position than just troop, which mostly was indeed from aristocracy, but overall, soldier is arete and perhaps typical example of it) (war was always a thing of aristocracy and higher castes/classes(because you could steal from the country you invade and get land from the government(for excellence), so posh guys always faught in wars))
No, thats not it. No thing about cuningness, cuningness is a trait of a being not a quality of a metis (I havent imply about which is better, practicality or theory. The implicit subtext was far different, and, perhaps, it is some thing that most of my post are about. But I guess it will be lost on deaf ears, so, watever)
No. 285443 [PM]
>>285442In order for me to mean nihilism i would have to argue that there is no objective meaning or value in life whatsoever, which im not.
I mean maybe back in the day when they were slaying a dragons and saving princesses but today? I wouldnt say so. Soldier today is just being a John Nobody.
You cant just call me stupid for being confused trying to unpack what you mean.
No. 285446 [PM]
>>285443Well then… … thats exactly wat you are saying, Im sorry, Im unable to split hair so thin. (Im saying this because I dont see you making any stance, I dont see you arguing for some thing, not once you simply refused making stance, not once you simply said you dont know wat you believe in or you dat at least you cant say it or some thing, so you are arguing, in my eyes, for a very sophisticated nihilism where the the difference is so thin between wat you mean and nihilism, it is hardly useful to distinguish. You can say, I conflate you as person and your argument, in this case, there is no difference, I geniunely cannot see how wat you say is not a thin nihilism)
Well, but my usage is corrent both in spirit and in meaning. It does not deviate from the theme and Im very coherent in my examples and themes, so no, I dont admit this, you cant just deny my example like dat
I did not call you dum, but, well, I can see why you say dat… I just dont know wat to say more so I just say its not it. Well, I dunno, there is really no correct way of reading all wat I say so I dunno, I cannot expect you to understand watever Im yapping about but I dont want to explain it, in this case, so sorry about it…
No. 285459 [PM]
>>285446What stance do i need to make? I argued that even if you have a belief you cant objectively prove it. Thats what i meant. For instance, the church has tried to make arguments for objective morality for 2000s years, but they are all utter garbage, because they rely on theology and believing in superstition. So you can keep saying that you believe something is objectively true, but there is no way showing that. You can make very sophisticated arguments about existence of logic and so on, but in the end all of that does is just result into circular reasoning. So do you think acknowledging that makes me nihilist? I dont think it does, at all. There is a huge difference in refusing any objectivity vs saying that it cant be proven. If you really want to categorize me by that, then i would think skeptic might be fitting.
Okay, well, if thats what it means then thats that. I dunno about the subject enough to argue more.
No. 285462 [PM]
>>285459Wat is the difference? Wat you mean is nihilism, I really dont get why dont you just say it… (I did not mean that you are nihilistic, but I certainly mean that wat you mean by taste is nihilism. You are not nihilistic, you just dont like talking about strong beliefs for watever reason dat is) (wat you said about objective is an understandable position, but that is just one totalizing narrative. We are all have ground under our feet, so, yeah Ill admit wat you say but dat does not make you nihilist, it does make you, however, misguided at best. I do not admit difference between refusing objectivity vs objectivity cant be proven, in this case, as difference is minimal)
No. 285474 [PM]
>>285471And so? That doesnt really advance any thing… I mean, it is pointless, continuing this dat is… I understand wat you mean, but your position is not entriely rational and perhaps contradictory… I dont understand wat do you mean by our existence being based on our senses, but we cannot be purely rational either because it is impossible. We are just right, dat is, watever we are, in watever way we are imperfect, we are like dat in just the right way. So, yeah, we have our senses and our reason. They go hand in hand(ie our language usage being contradictory is just a given of being a human and contradiction is just "natural" and not a mistake or watever). Our existence is not based entirely on our senses, we are able to reason, and there is simply no denying it… other wise how can we evolve and use more sophisticated tool… (no, I mean you are not fine about taking strong beliefs and then talking about them)