pseudo (obligatoire)

email

texte (obligatoire)
[quote=vérité*]I propose another version of this text [b]Difference between reality in common thought and reality in modern teleology[/b] [justify]Nowadays, reality is something that no one thinks that they understand, and therefore are unable–or even interested in–to define it. In a world without a proper referent, reality also has overstayed its old welcome in the majority of consciousnesses. Whereas in modern teleology, reality is what is fundamentally debatable, nay, even the very origin of the debate itself, in its common meaning, reality no longer presents itself as a positive object, smoothly cut out. In spite of the fact that reality has ceased to cover any object, whether a fact, a thing or a judgment, it appears as an incomprehensible ghost on which nothing can rely; reality, at least in current thought, behaves like the fog that appeared towards the end of Waterloo: vague and uncertain, divisible and devoid of foundation, fallible and endowed with potential defeat. And it is not possible to say that, on these specific points, the same goes for reality as seen by modern teleology. Our contemporaries’ reality is confused, through a dereliction of rationality and logic, about the object it is supposed to seize, but doesn’t really care to comprehend. Thus, a historical event or a de facto situation will be considered “reality”; or a table, a flower, a tool, or an algorithm or fantasy; or furthermore, an absence of choice, a indecision. They have been told repeatedly that space and time are the terms or conditions of the reality of objects, be they what may. As a result, in today’s imagination, reality consists in anything at all. Of course, all objects, not only visible but all hypothetical, imaginary, fantastical objects, remain, real independently from our imagination and our conception. In this manner, contemporary non-thought gives a body to reality. Once this body is accepted, reality can come be forgotten, taken for granted, believed. It is the truth. And the critique against this reality, or more precisely the complaint against this reality, is to show that it is irrational, purely <imaginary>, fantastic, made up or whatever: a dream within any dream. This new state of affairs is contemporaneous with the rise of the digital society. The difference between reality as it is usually understood today and reality as it is theorized in modern teleology is clearly visible in relation to the category of truth. Only for teleology reality has a truth value. In the current, dominant view, this truth is completely unimportant: reality is there, indisputable, and so its truth is indisputable. What is subsumed under reality is true by definition, so to speak. This truth is practical, but in its ghostly vagueness it validates any sets of theoretical truths, and particularly categories of thought which, in teleology, are only working hypotheses. In modern teleology, reality is not the truth, but only its hypotheses, which bifurcates in theoretical and practical verification. In the current fogged up view, thought verifies any type of reality, and so the truth carried by reality is a proposition of inconsistency with the hypothetical constructions, a truth that could be theoretically true, or not, it doesn't really matter. In modern teleology, the hypothesis of reality verifies the hypotheses of thought, asserts firmly that it makes thought true by ending it, by destroying it, by accomplishing it. The hypothesis of Truth is the result of a hypothesis of practical verification. For modern teleology, the hypothesis of reality yields a hypothetical result, which goes like this: Reality occurs at the moment a thought ends, is destroyed (nothing is said as to how this happens), but in the hypothesis this end, this destruction itself has no contour or content, and that is why it is ungraspable–this explains why you do not and cannot understand this phenomenon. But if we continue developing the hypothesis, we reach other conclusions: Reality forces thought to reconstitute, to interpret, to load the end of a thought with a content that it generally does not have. In this way of seeing reality, there are not real things or real facts–things and facts are only categories by which thought divides itself. In the end, reality is what ends, what destroys thought, and as a result we cannot see, touch or rely on it–reality has all the makings of unreality. Thus, we cannot say that a fact, a thing or a judgment are real, we should say that there is reality in a fact, in a thing, in a judgment. This means that there is an actual destruction, which modifies fact, thing and judgment, and which is irreversible, and as such indisputable. When reality is only what signals such a break, breach or accomplishment, but is itself ungraspable because it has no content (we can only grasp that which has content, even if it is empty), it cannot be the positive basis of the totality. That is why, in the teleological hypothesis, reality is an original reference only in the old dialectical idea of progression towards the origin. The hypothesis of reality is the end of things, and the end of things reveals their hypothetical meaning to us. Modern teleology continued this reflection through to this conclusion: reality is a break, the limit of thought. Thought is the contradiction to reality. The phenomenon of thought (the phenomenology of spirit is important because it is very precisely the indecisive, vague and ungraspable movement of totality) is the negation of reality. But this negation itself has, as object and aim, that which it negates, reality. Thought is only unrealized, unaccomplished reality. And there is nothing else but thought, unrealized, unaccomplished reality. There is no reality. Whether it is in acting or in what is “realized,” as is mistakenly said, thus in what is done, as should rather be said, reality manifests itself at the same time as what ends and destroys it: all and nothing; but also its negation is manifested, that which is neither ended nor destroyed, and so attempts to negate this end and this destruction. Thought is what builds and rebuilds on the basis of the fragmentary–ungraspable–character of reality, which doesn’t exist. As long as reality is not the totality (which can also be phrased: as long as the totality is not realized), thought is its precursory alienation, which can also be expressed like this: as long as the totality is not realized, the totality is the thought whose movement is determined by the breaks, the breaches and the partial accomplishments of reality. The preliminary question to the end of humanity is: will the thought of thought and the thought of reality split? Can a break or a breach defeat thought? In this case, the end of humanity will be what we call a catastrophe. Or can humans control the thought of thought to the point of accomplishing it, to find the thought of the reality of the totality–which cannot be grasped–by making the content of every thought coincide with the end of every thought? In that case, the debate of humanity on itself may begin: it is about the content of the accomplishment and the forms of its realization, and that is the end recommended by modern teleology. In other terms, we do not know what end teleology “recommends.” It is also ungraspable.[/justify][/quote]

• BBCode : activé
• balise [url] : activé
• balise [img] : activé
• émoticônes : activé