Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: Metaphysics

A Rationalistic Conception of Mysticism

(1) We were not supposed to be born like beasts.

Particularization on (1)

(2) I was not supposed to be born like a beast.

Dante + Logic + Me

Introduction – Rational Mysticism and Theory of Eternal Truth

Since I formulated the first conception of the theory of the free creation of eternal truths,[1] I immediately realized that I was opening the door to a peculiar form of mysticism. This was not an appreciated opening, to be fair. Any rationalist is, by very nature, against any principle that gives up the capacity of reason to formulate its principles and derive its theorems. However, the theory appeared to be compatible with a specific version of mysticism when it comes to how the truths are, in fact, generated.

Already the name of the theory seems to be against the tastes of analytic philosophy. Moreover, it has a specific universal afflatus, which is usually lost in the current philosophical production. To be more precise, it is left to the continental philosophers, who are well known to be as general as vague. Digging into a topic such as mysticism will bury the theory under all the tastes of current analytic philosophers, among which I still place myself – though I am open to any form of deep thinking. The eternal truth theory wants to be what philosophy used to be: a universal view of the world from nowhere, a vision, an inspiration, but also a consistent conception of the world. This is not welcomed anymore, and I, myself, see why. Philosophy exhausted these kinds of approaches between Greek and modern philosophy when the archetypical visions of the world were formulated. From that moment on, after Nietzsche, let’s say what can be done is to refine the portion of those visions better and better. It is a process of continuous refinement and improvement, not of invention, so to speak.

Sorites goes to war – For an ontology of war

Metropolitan Museum of Art / CC0

Pili G., (2020), “The wild bunch is enrolled to the army – Sorites paradox and the problems for the ontology of war”, Areté – International Journal of Philosophy, Human & Social Sciences, VOL. 5, 231-249.

It is with my great pleasure to announce the publication of my last peer-review paper! You can find it here! Don’t wait to download and quote it!

Table of contents: 1. Introduction; 2. The wild bunch is enrolled into the army; 3. Toward an
ontology of war thinking through the Sorites paradox; 4. Conclusions

Abstract1 gunshot is not a war, 2 gunshots are not a war… are 1 million gunshots a war? There is no such thing so investigated as war and, at the same time, still so outcasted theoretically. Ambiguity, vagueness and logical conundrums lay unsolved in the very hardcore of the several theories that considered war from a general perspective and, then, philosophically committed explicitly or implicitly. It is not the experience and observational data we lack but the general
ability to generalize and expand our knowledge beyond what we can directly observe empirically and historically. Sorites arguments are everywhere in war theories: vagueness and ambiguities of many shapes inform the literature. Only a philosophical account of war can solve some of those issues: an ontology of war is needed to bring light into the heart of darkness.