Anti-foundationalism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. As per Munchhausen’s trilemma, there seems no sound foundation for certainty of any sort about any sort of thing, leaving only the ‘three owned truths’ on which have written (verity of self, view of real reality, vision of the good life), so it seems my thinking belongs here.
Feel very perplexed about personal positions am passing through as read various philosophies, philosophers, and philosophical positions. There seem good enough reasons for trying to think clearly about real reality in relation to our experiences of existence, our existential experience and experiential existence: some practical, like promoting heal(th) and weal(th) while avoiding developmental and distributional inconsistencies, so devising principles by which to evaluate experienced ecological and economic expedients; some philosophical, like clarifying inconsistent reasoning while avoiding dogmatism, so deriving principles by which to evaluate expressed epistemological expedients; some political, like supporting equality of access to various resources and recourses, so developing principles by which to evaluate evoked empathy in terms of ethos and ethics (thinking of fi ethical problems with disaster-aid agencies).
I do see that objects as entities exist in themselves equally. I do see that their emergence to experienced existence and existential experience constitute existence, with time being both internal to existential experience of/in the object, and external in experienced existence of the object by others. I do see that the relations between experience and existence want exploring and explicating, so philosophers do this. I do see that this requires thorough knowledge of what has already been explored, so as not to reinvent the wheel. It’s just that I want to see it done in absolutely accessible ways so that people like me can understand it on a first reading. When there’s so much that I can’t hope to understand ever I start to wonder about how useful philosophy is for anyone but philosophers themselves, or even for them sometimes. Graham Harman posts on the difficulties for philosophers of different persuasions agreeing on a philosophical canon, remarking that if 90% of all the scientists who ever lived are alive today, probably the same is true for philosophers, from which I draw the implication that plain proliferation is the main problem regarding any feasibly accessible canon. This doesn’t obviate the need to say something straight and simple about existence as experience and experience as existence, about emergence to experience and extinction from experience, about principles of equalitarianism rather than elitism, and about the epistemological basis for ethics.