People are probably annoyed I keep getting into Heidegger. I don’t care, his corpus is so extensive, and everything in it is such a contrast to mundane, everyday talk.

Look at how he speaks in fundamentals

This is how he begins one such study. No stone unturned.

What does he mean by this?

Neither Plato nor Aristotle knew of “logic.”

Apparently logic was a Scholastic invention.

Who defines THIS out of all things?

How do you define anything before even knowing what definition is?

And someone who thinks this thoroughly… had the politics that he did.

Anyway, it feels good to address myself only to my best readers.

I’m just eschewing this

the art of rhetoric begins with reputable opinion, attends to the character and limits of the audience being addressed, and attempts to move its audience in the direction of truth

You’re not getting to truth if this is what you do. And 99.9% of people are “rhetoricians”.

Reputable opinion? Who cares? I don’t, whatsoever.

Reputable opinion is your master. Do you think it’s true opinion? People certainly act like it’s true.

Let’s play a game. What’s the first true opinion you can think of that is not a reputable opinion?

How would people react if you said that opinion? Why would they react that way? Would you say you admire them for reacting that way? So what do you get out of talking to people who you don’t admire? Doesn’t that seem empty to you to tell lies to people who you don’t admire? “Well, life is pretty empty!” It seems that way if that’s what you have to do.

Society rests on these things- the inability to define what a definition is, and “defining” things inadequately, constantly. Not knowing the meaning of logic. Pretending rhetoric doesn’t exist and doesn’t permeate everything everyone says. And this role of talking about these things I would not wish even on my enemies. There is a marked hostility to lucidity. Society functions through fuzziness. And it’s questionable whether that’s a contradiction in terms. As I said, there is an emptiness to a lack of lucidity. Lying to people you don’t even like, ultimately. At a certain point you turn into one of those people that you don’t like who needs to be lied to. Thus it’s a mutual admiration for fuzziness and deceptive rhetoric. These people who can’t be liked congratulate each other for their reputable opinions. Society is like walking into a condemned crack-den. That’s the lowness anyone with a hostility to lucidity should be perceived as.

These are the thoughts I have when learning about Aristotle. This is the casual adaptation to 2022. Public opinion does not meet the standards of rigorous scientificity. Fuzziness is something they maintain at all costs. Lucidity is anxiety. It’s reputable to facilitate permanent nap-time.

Rhetoric only ideally guides people to the truth. In practice it’s mostly used to guide people to fuzziness. Nary a soul that isn’t “in on it”. My concern to put in effort to be lucid dwindles in such conditions. Talking mostly to people who I don’t like who are in a permanent state of ressentiment. Empty if you do, empty if you don’t, time to peace out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: