Friday, October 19, 2012

Argument Against Time

This may not be as involved as my argument against war, afterall time in the negative sense might be seen as a type of war; In this sense many classifications which are negative suffer from specific arguments when the category is broad; Otherwise, they may be relegated to semantics, under the view that 'time' or some other concept (such as metaphysics, or illusion) is not negative;

So, in one flange of the argument, we are assuming that time is a negative concept; We have defined it as 'death' personified, or the 'cosmic editor'; In some sense these definitions may be embracing an artificial reality in which 'man is only flesh and blood'; If this is the case, the argument against time is against the hypothetical failure of human frailty, or any blameworthiness (as in the Christian tradition) that the flesh embodies our weakness;

Yet, so far as that seems to go, a practical nagging question emerges that perhaps flesh and blood is not the only definition of man, or if it is, it may afterall be a flexible concept; What is the difference to immortal time if the individual lives to fifty versus five-hundred? In this sense, I am indulging the sense of an artificial difference which relegates the problem to one of an assumed scale or assumption of the finite significance of human (or post-human) life;

What then if the significance of human life is, through some means, actually finite of significance? Here what is being assumed is that human life is optimized---that it fits some 'characteristic irony' or 'human dimension' which can be analyzed and understood; However, I see no such necessity to lean on the idea of human dimension as an understanding that is inherently finite; In my view we are only limited by health (that is, we are limited by the limitation of health, or the way in which health IS the human dimension);

So if humans are not characteristically finite, perhaps we are still characteristically optimized; But that is not my belief either; Indeed, the open dimensionism of the human dimension is also the open dimension of optimization; In some sense, we are highly contingent beings; In this sense I don't mean merely that we have mortal toil upon the earth, but preferably instead that the high variability of potential outcomes is informative about an additional variety of potential meanings; When meaning may be variable, the only denying of human existence is the denying of human significance;

What then stands in the way of longer human life in a debate?; Perhaps an inability to produce technical information---! And I can sense that many minds return to this one idea, perhaps if not a lack of process then a lack of intelligence, if not a lack of intelligence then a lack of intuition; And I find this arguing pathetic; Easily some implied group of authorities or representations, such as citizens or government, could set forth one of these ideas: process, intelligence, or intuition if not another; And in fact the breadth of significance for any one of these categories may be nebulous and vague, in the context of the idea that an aphorism may be drawn from a broad array of social contexts and influences;

Who is to say that the influences of the aphorism must be positive? But the causality of human significance is deeper than mere positives and negatives; Health itself is a dimension beyond information, within the scope of human potential; Again it may be seen that someone thinks that we are optimized, or else that we cannot produce technical information; And if not, it is as though to believe that health is not legitimately an extension of human significance, when clearly it could not meaningfully be otherwise; So either aphorisms are dimensional in the capacity of human health and wellness, or aphorisms may be seen as a lack of information, or a manifestation of the "optimum human dimension" under the view that humanity is already perfected;

I am not a supporter of the view that humanity has been perfected, and some would say this is the flaw in my argument; But who would deny that it would be an advantage to extend human life? Those that oppose this view are believers in an already-existing optimum, the view that death is beneficial; When death is not beneficial, arguing for "mere history" is a support of a failure of meaning, or worse, the inconsequence of pessimism;

I hope my readers support some of this argument, and I encourage comments of the philosophical variety::

No comments: