• Overview, Irritation Alert!

in the blind spot

~ Philosophy in the Dystopian Context

in the blind spot

Tag Archives: Fichte

The Intuition of Apex Existence

16 Sunday Aug 2026

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

apex existence, caring-ideality, culture, drama, fearful unknowing, Fichte, History, hive-mind, inquisitive innocence, knowledge, Luther, Nietzsche, philosophy, science, spirituality, teleology, time, vast externality

Sunday, August 16, 2026

Fragment 227, word count: 2,091.

Tags: philosophy, history, fearful unknowing, apex existence, caring-ideality, inquisitive innocence, vast externality, teleology, time, hive-mind, knowledge, drama, Luther, Fichte, Nietzsche.

An interest in philosophy is inseparable from an interest in history because philosophy exists first within the fabric of drama in which people live and that we feel ourselves playing out day to day. ‘Philosophy’ here denotes a configuration of orientation, a culturally shared set of features that structure the subjective interiority of individually embodied future-opening caring personalities. This is ‘wallpaper’ philosophy, uncritically familiar as casual background encompassing ways of understanding what is foundational, primordial, and ultimate within the personal experience of human existence. There is also artisanal and ‘fine art’ philosophy, original questioning of orientation from inquisitive innocence, resulting in texts or utterances, personal voices expressing that questioning. Whereas there is a reliable market for normal fine art as investment grade items of luxury decor, the audience for artisanal philosophy is typically non-commercial and almost entirely scholarly. Artisanal philosophers mostly form academic guilds, clusters and streams of influence, homage, and conceptual cohesion, each stream with school-defining celebrities, methods, questions, and pre-approved conclusions. The thing to watch for is that philosophical conceptions sometimes burst beyond their niche of origin and change the cultural taste in wallpaper.

From this context, it is clear that the work and ideas of any inquisitively innocent writer must be considered in relation to the wallpaper ideology-of-reality at their cultural time and place, the ancient Greeks in relation to Greek mythology, or Enlightenment-era rationalists in relation to post-Reformation Christianity, aristocracy, and monarchy, for example. Greek philosophers often conflicted with their ambient culture of Olympian gods. Socrates was executed on the charge of introducing new gods. Again, during the Euro-American Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, there was a politically radical philosophical movement that was officially persecuted. However, usually the philosophical ‘fine art’ tradition has accepted much of the ‘wallpaper’ embraced by politically powerful factions who benefit from and defend the dystopian culture of their violently stratified societies.

Existence as Caring-Ideality

The most common philosophical conceptions of specifically human existence, existence as embodied caring-ideality, have been diminishingly oversimplified, reflecting the requirements of ambient culture. In the context of Christendom, for example, it was mortally dangerous to propose a concept of human spirituality with anything but a minimum of creative freedom, for fear of seeming to rival deity. The shocking degree of this problematic self-denial or self-effacing in the legacy of human reflections on what is ultimate and primordial in our existence defines the core of philosophy.

Fragment 121, January 12, 2018, Welcome to Metaphysics (word count: 1,312)

Metaphysically Apex Existence

The only direct acquaintance anyone has of ideality is their own experience of living as a dramatically caring person embodied in the world, supplemented by expressions of bonding over shared caring by familiar people and other animals. It is clear from cultural constructs all around this that caring-and-creative-ideality is often enough intuited as an anomalous metaphysically apex existence. The materials of our surroundings overwhelmingly lack evidence of a complicated and peculiarly individual interiority of caring out of which they express well-being or ill-being, urgent intent, or discretionary attachments. They do not question, remember, or foresee their future. They present a specifically material nature that is already everything it can be. In relation to that material nature, the desperate vulnerability and power of foresight and effective agency in personal experience is taken to qualify as anomalous, with a different order of purposive outward reach, sensitivity, apprehension, conception, and ideation, a metaphysically apex existence. However, because of the vastness of fearful unknowing in human experience, and our genius for forming imitative attachments, there has been a collective unwillingness to accept the exclusiveness of this apex existence. The specific fear often preventing this recognition has been fear that accepting the status of metaphysical apex would enrage some other more powerful metaphysical apex and result in retribution in the form of punishment and destruction. In the common discourse of communities, the freedom and creativity of ideality has been conceptually and culturally alienated from humanity, exported to suppositional other beings, and replaced in ourselves by diminishing versions of determinism.

Fragment 216, October 2, 2025, Self Portrait as Spirit (Word count: 311) deity

Two additional reasons that have made it variably dangerous to acknowledge the full creative freedom of embodied ideality are coercive hierarchical politics and deterministic materialism. First it was politically dangerous to recognize too much inherent dignity and power in individuals universally because that would undermine justifications for the coercive top-down social control and human-on-human parasitism that hierarchical power arrangements manifest. When the demands of apex social factions began to be contested, there was a cultural turn to materialist explanations for everything, banishing all spontaneous personally discretionary teleology and insisting that the brute physicality of nature required everything to exists exactly as it was, is, and has to be, completely determined by mathematical cosmic laws. There is no room anywhere in this strictly scientific view for the dignity and discretionary power of individual creative freedom.

Even with conceptions of ideality distorted by these manifestations of fear, it still must be attributed in some form to ordinary individuals because we obviously care and impose our dramas of caring in arcs of teleology vectoring future-ward, but ordinary ideality is culturally required to be restricted to include only enough creative freedom to justify individuals being punished for certain actions, and otherwise overwhelmingly determined by forces beyond ourselves. In the process of being exported and alienated from individuals in the conceptual construction of communal cultures, the personal ecosystem of ideality as lived has been disassembled and reduced to subsets of its existence in versions of idealism. In Plato’s idealism, for example, there is an eternally unchanging primordial mind, the One, contemplating the complete set of Ideal Forms of objective existence. Personal discretion in the face of a risky and only partly predictable future has been removed along with the whole lived complexity of agency-in-time. An even more common form of exported apex idealism retains the creative improvisational spontaneity of ordinary ideality but completely removes the limitations of embodiment by conceiving the apex ideality as omnipotent, omniscient, and disembodied, resulting in the terrifying concept of deity.

Determinism

Determinism in various forms has been the official version of human behaviour and mental activity. The determining forces mainly fall into the categories of deity or brute nature, so either an external primordially apex teleology or a world of utterly unreflective materiality in which any identification of teleology is false, deceptive, a mirage. (Note that mistakes and illusions are exclusively features of ideality.) A third category of determining force sometimes separated off from the others is a universal human nature which imposes, from within every individual, urges, impulses, drives, and pre-conceptions which remove any profound freedom or spontaneous creativity from individuals even if their occurrence is so random or chaotic that predictability is difficult. The Freudian model of subjectivity represents the scientific requirement by attributing an individual’s self-sourced motivation (id) to animal biology, in a remodelling of the conception of human nature from feudal Christendom featuring enslavement by the inherited taint from the sin of Adam. Vicious motivation from inherent vice is taken to be easy to reduce to mechanisms, and so suited to scientific explanation.

Knowledge of the Vast Externality

Both Rationalists and Empiricists were focused on understanding knowledge. Mathematical science was showing great power and promise. In this niche intellectual culture there was considerable optimism about finally achieving an empowering certainty about the non-teleological vast externality that envelopes the human body, not ephemeral or localized but plausibly constitutive of eternal and universal Nature, a presence that earns some recognition as perhaps the actual apex existence, especially with recognition of the power of human ideality repressed and conceptually alienated. Rationalists and Empiricists each had a core conception of that ultimate object of knowledge, the vast externality to be grasped. Both accepted that their object of knowledge was elementally prior to and more important by far than knowers. For Rationalists it was their version of Logos, the underlying principle of math, language, intelligence, and material reality, at once interior and exterior to knowing individuals. For Empiricists it was the world of brute actuality, measurable and map-able nature comprising the whole cosmic setting of human lives, distinctly exterior to the knowing of individuals, and revealed only by objective perception.

Martin Luther as Philosopher:

The Metaphysics of Eternal Necessities vs 

The Metaphysics of Creative Caring-Ideality

Luther merits considerable credit as a philosopher. So much of modernity derives from his assertion of “Justification by faith alone”, which translates directly into Descartes’ “I think, therefore I exist.” (Descartes’ dualism, featuring extended substance and thinking substance, was his inevitably awkward effort to combine all-determining mathematical ‘Logos’ partly revealed in clear and distinct perceptions, with the Lutheran subjective power to overcome the most profound doubt in a creative act of self-definition, all in the context of an ambient culture of an all-determining Catholic Deity.) “Justification by faith alone” also translates directly into Kant’s vision of the self-legislating moral agent, also into Fichte’s self-positing “I”, and into Kierkegaard’s self-sufficient inwardness. Fichte’s vision is completely congruent with Sartre’s existentialism featuring “existence before essence” as the heart of human existence. Luther’s assertion of an individual’s power of faith in the context of unanswerable uncertainty is pure metaphysics, a recognition of the anomalous creative power of individual caring ideality. As such, his intervention was crucial in the historic shift of influence between two great adversarial systems of reality, first, the metaphysics of eternal necessities, asserted by Plato, Christianity, and science, for example, here contested at last by the metaphysics of creative caring-ideality in embodied individuals.

Luther and those inspired by him were not focused on knowledge. Luther experienced profound uncertainty about what he considered most important in existence, the presence of God, creative and discretionary teleological caring-ideality as apex existence. That vast externality for Luther was a cloud of unknowing, unanswerable doubt, instead of knowledge. In the face of that uncertainty Luther turned to the creative power of caring ideality interior to each individual, the power to create and impose structure within the drama of living. To choose faith is to set the future shape of the personal drama of caring. What matters in the future-facing life of a person is not determined by any vast externality, since no externality includes or creates a person’s caring or the future opened by that caring.

Luther, Nietzsche, and Hive-Mind

“Justification by faith …” cashes out as: you can’t live in the world as a spiritual power of agency if you are expressing a culturally imposed hive-mind, doing conventional things such as ‘good works’ assigned conventional values. Instead, to own your apex existence (or in Luther’s case your likeness to apex existence) you have to go profoundly alone, to a personal interiority which no one else can surveil, judge, police, or stipulate. This rejection of immersion in the orientation of a human herd was something Nietzsche got directly from Luther.

Fragment 181, October 8, 2021, The Loneliest Un-Loneliness (word count: 913)

The Philosophical Turn From Knowledge to Drama

Nietzsche has been identified as a pioneer existentialist and as a Romantic (recall Wagner), expressing both of these conflicting but closely related visions of specifically human existence, each inspired by Fichte’s philosophical voice. Romantics and existentialists are not so interested in knowledge or any grand and ultimate objects of knowledge (remarkably, since Fichte’s big project was constructing a science of knowledge). Instead, they are focused on the dramas of living as a person embodied in the world, on the dramatic quality of personal experience. Drama was the new focus because drama is the temporal shape of any person’s caring, improvised among stakes and risks in the ephemerality of living, and as such caring-in-time is metaphysically anomalous as apex existence. Here is the epochal turn in western philosophy away from the metaphysics of eternal necessities and toward the metaphysics of subjective caring-ideality. The former is the foundation of everything politically conservative, whereas the latter leans into a profoundly different political future which is yet to be worked out, a post-hive-mind collective bonding. The looming of this unfinished business is the root of the current malaise of the polarized and aimless Euro-American cultural system.

Cultures of the past preserved ways of facing a fearful unknowing. It is perverse to cling to that condition. The very common impulse to preserve at all costs a legacy language, religion, or the charming trophies of a wealth class or other niche culture always leads to a repetitive dead end of violent exceptionalism, cruel repression, and disabling isolation. No communal bonding can ultimately negate the metaphysically anomalous creativity of every individual caring-ideality.

Copyright © 2026 Sandy MacDonald.

Spirituality and The Ecosystem of Caring

28 Tuesday Apr 2026

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

aristocracy, caring, creativity, Fichte, History, hive-minds, Martin Luther, metaphysics, Nietzsche, philosophy, religion, Spinoza, spirituality, wealth

Fragment 222, Word count: 997.

Tags: spirituality, hive-minds, aristocracy, wealth, history, caring, metaphysics, creativity, Spinoza, Luther, Fichte, Nietzsche.

In the contemporary culture of capitalism there is only wealth as the measure of a good life. However, it is profoundly not true that a life without wealth is a diminished or lesser one. The measure of life is a spiritual matter, of which wealth is no indicator, or possibly even a negative indicator, as suggested by the proliferation of fascist billionaires. No amount of arts-and-culture-washing, patronage, fandom, or aristocratic Romanticism can reconcile wealth with spirituality. It does have to be admitted that the idea of spirituality was gradually made unserious and distasteful by the long-established father-god religions which teach that spirituality requires ownership of inherent guilt, inescapable debt, and vast personal insufficiency under the all-determining Gaze of a cosmic caring super-power who might provide miraculous relief and rescue if properly appeased. An obsession with accountable assets provides at least some appearance of relief from that old nightmare. However, it just sets up a vicious duality, both sides of which still manifest the legacy of cultural delusions at the core of hive-minds that have shaped human history. Unburdened from that weight of revered but perverse tradition, spirituality is a matter of the metaphysical anomaly of caring inherent in any temporal ideality, the metaphysical anomaly that some things matter because someone cares, and the course of existence is decisively bent away from any simple fall-line, from any aspect of eternity (looking at you, Spinoza), by this quirky way in which things matter.

The Ecosystem of Caring

Subjectivity, temporal ideality, is an ecosystem of caring, a cloud of inter-related dramas shaped as curiosity, questioning, and desperately felt needs, specific emotionally-crucial self-declarations as well as a constructed orientation toward energy and gratification, all within a complex of attachments that subjective ideality-clouds feel and nurture with each other. There is a fundamental pattern of building up latent energy followed by pre-conceived projections of that energy beyond personal subjectivity in the effort to print personal intuitions of what is right morally and aesthetically onto an entirely suppositional, non-actual, future. It is entirely a construct of time, of suppositional expectations, intentions, vectors away from no-longer and tilting into not-yet, always probing the texture of unknowing in ever-present surroundings. Full innocent ownership of this metaphysical power has proven itself sufficient to eclipse the value of trophies, applause, imitations of lifestyle models, and symbols of competitive exceptionalism.

Luther through Fichte

This simple spirituality, which enables identification of the confining effects of culturally imposed hive-mind binding structures, was already implicit in the two key claims advanced by Martin Luther: first, justification by faith alone; but also, unmediated access of the individual to primordial existence, which Luther conceived as the primordial caring of God, but strictly, in the existence of ideality the primordial caring is every caring. Luther was asserting that individual caring-idealities have the inherent power to posit conceptions of reality (there is nothing to limit this power to acts of faith), as well as to encounter reality without any need for the intercession of culturally imposed collective ideologies such as that of Roman Christendom. Spirituality is not submission to authoritative doctrine, or to anything, but rather it is agency at the level of the embodied individual, self-declaration in the full awareness of an autonomous personal creativity.

Fragment 93, April 20, 2016, The Misconception of Spirituality in Platonism (word count: 2,528)

The conception of spirituality fundamental to the Lutheran line of philosophical development has always been profoundly subversive of the dystopian actuality of hierarchical hive-mind societies that grew from the combination of aristocratic and father-god religious dominance in Christendom and the Old-Regime. As such, it has been unwelcome and shunted to the margins of culture, even of scholarly academic culture, which of course increasingly depends on gifted funding. Aristocracy has been the model culture-pool focused on the value of wealth as ultimately taken and protected by violence. By the end of the eighteenth century those historical foundations of European civilization had been seriously contested by upstart materialist science and by the effects of Protestantism including the French Revolution (without “justification by faith alone” there would be no “Cogito, ergo sum.”), but the old foundations always fought to maintain supremacy and were even given a fresh boost by nineteenth century Romanticism. The play of these cultural forces eventually produced our current extractive investor-supremacist bourgeois capitalism in which wealth is the universal aspiration driving consumption that is laying waste to our finite planet.

Existentialism

The accomplishment of Fichte’s work in the Lutheran tradition has been decisively misconstrued by interpreting it through the distorting glass of what Hegel and the Romantics did after. Fichte’s absolute “I” was not relocating personal ideality from the individual to the cosmos at large, to a world-scale teleology nudging human history according to an intentional caring plan. Rather, Fichte was uncovering the foundations of the self-positing existence-before-essence of existentialism. Fichte, standing on the shoulders of Kant’s development of Luther’s foundations, removed (if so awkwardly) some literary clutter to face the absolute self-positing, caring, “I”.

Nietzsche and the Human Herd

A main theme of Romanticism in the aftermath of Fichte’s work was, again, the glorification and sanctification of aristocracy, dedicated to unaccountable self-indulgence and ever-ready for violence, and that theme of Romanticism was embraced by Nietzsche, who enjoyed thinking of himself as a descendent of aristocracy. That regrettable Romanticism in Nietzsche’s thought shows itself in his uncritical acceptance that a kind of natural aristocracy results because only exceptional individuals can be creative. However, nothing supports that claim other than the culturally encouraged wishful thinking of a certain privileged social faction. Creativity and caring are inseparable in the existence of ideality. Nietzsche was sustained in his poverty and un-lonely isolation by the joy of his personal creativity. In the light of that experience of creativity Nietzsche declared the supreme importance of a Lutheran individualism, the necessity for individuals to cut themselves free of the cult mentality of any human herd (hive-mind) to liberate an innate agency, the power to self-declare in creative acts of re-shaping reality.

Copyright © 2026 Sandy MacDonald.

Self Portrait as Spirit

02 Thursday Oct 2025

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

embodiment, existence, Fichte, freedom, god, humanity, philosophy, religion, spirit, time, transcendence

Fragment 216, Word count: 311.

Tags: God, existence, humanity, spirit, transcendence, embodiment, Fichte.

God is a loving human self-portrait, laboriously crafted as an idea, but made so comprehensively superlative, so simplified by being disembodied, so necessarily the best, so elevated beyond comparison, that it stands distant from normal humanity. The idea of God is the idea of spirit, a drama-cloud of consequential caring-power, knowing, supposing, an improvising intentional will-to-act for initially non-actual but specific results. Caring exists in the context of a malleably open future, in that receptivity for creative expression. Spirits matter because they care and have cares and their caring makes things matter. Nothing else does that. Spirit is what human persons feel a need to assert as our mode of existence in the face of an overwhelming appearance of materiality as our primary existence. Gazing outward at objects we notice things with outlines and boundaries, separate and distinct manifest beings, stable and determinate object categories and structures. This overwhelming appearance of materiality, perhaps, dissuades us from embracing spiritual existence as truly and entirely our own, since we also love the pleasures of materiality, and we rarely want to abandon our embodied animal experience. An individual’s sensorium is structured as a personal animal body, experienced as a grounded object among others. As experienced, embodiment is an arrangement within ideality. Structurally stable objective reality is a main organizing principle of spirituality, just as the shaped body is. But that experience is also knowledge, empathy and attachment, sensitivity, felt needs, creative power, fore-planning futurity and a personally chosen particular future, actively reconfigured from moment to moment. There is the will and power to shape the future in specific personally pleasing ways, inseparable from a sense of moral rightness and sometimes aesthetic beauty. In other words, the idea of god is a portrait of the kind of existence lived-in by individual human persons. The indistinguishability of divine and human spirituality is clearly portrayed in Fichte.

Some relevant fragments:

Fragment 91, February 20, 2016, Romantic Idealism and the Mind of God (word count: 3,287)

Fragment 100, December 6, 2016, What’s Spiritual about Thinking? (word count: 1,562)

Fragment 178, June 28, 2021, The Edge of Existence (word count: 1,044)

Copyright © 2025 Sandy MacDonald.

Asymmetrical Dualism

Featured

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Class War, Culture, Embodiment, Freedom, Gender culture, Hierarchy, Nature, Political Power, Strategic thinking, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

dystopia, Fichte, hive-mind, ideality, metaphysics, nature, patriarchy, politics, property, self-possession, sovereignty

Fragment 199, word count: 534.

Tags: nature, metaphysics, ideality, Fichte, dystopia, patriarchy, property, hive-mind, sovereignty, self-possession, politics.

The Primacy of Ideality

The physical world does not care, respond, or prepare. It does not question or answer. Not only does the cosmos not revolve around us, as Copernicus observed, but it also has no other accommodations for our sensitivity, desperate caring, freedom, or wishes and plans. Subjective ideality, which is to say, willful spirituality, does not determine objective actuality as a whole or on the grand scale. However, in a crucial sense ideality comes first because of its crucial evidentiary or experiential primacy.

When Fichte observed that the existence of the objective world occurs in a spirit’s positing (supposing) such a world, he has to be referring to the physical world as a conception of what is being received by a spirit, a conception created by a spirit in its quest for effective agency based in a sense of orientation. No matter what we receive via sensory stimulus we still individually have to make something of it in ideality, come up with a way of conceptualizing something as other than the excitation of a personal sensitivity. Reality is mutable because the structure of reality is crucially suppositional.

Even though ideality senses its condition as a receiver of a world it does not plan into existence on the grand scale, and finds itself placed within and dependent on the world of not-self so received, the primacy of ideality means that however anomalous and superfluous it might seem in relation to the vastness of not-self brute actuality, ideality does exist undeniably and exists in an asymmetrical duality of mutual influence and determination with uncaring actuality. The existence of ideality changes everything by adding a metaphysical principle to existence. It means that a certain sort of incompleteness and uncertain-anticipation is native to existence, to reality. Nature otherwise lacks any trace of anticipation. It’s just physics. With ideality, reality is no longer just fields of force occurring as they must, at rest in nature even when unfixed or unbalanced. Ideality, as metaphysics, is the world now making something of itself, planning out, searching out, and building a multitude of personal ways into the non-actual not-yet. Now the world is at risk and not at rest. It is restless, curious, and living.

The Dystopian Predicament

The human predicament is not metaphysical but rather cultural and political in that we find ourselves surrounded by ubiquitous and pervasive dystopian societies. Historically, dystopia forms as misogynist patriarchy, in which privileges have been seized and claimed along with property through violence and the threat of violence. Competitions for dominance create stacked layers of social stratification, a hierarchy of dominance in which each stratum prides itself on being a superior beings club with a cultured contempt toward the less wealthy and powerful. What often keeps the layers together as a functioning hive-mind, in addition to the core dedication to the language of competition and to accumulating trophies, is a universal orientation up toward a top layer asserting ultimate sovereignty. Deity (or Nature) serves as a cultural paradigm of sovereignty as all-powerful commander and judge with absolute ownership over the less powerful. The metaphysical situation means that this actuality is mutable and that self-possession is viable against hive-mind.

Embedded links:

Fragment 99, November 2, 2016, What is Patriarchy? (word count: 3,700)

Fragment 193, August 25, 2022, Spiritual Self-Possession (word count: 1,093)

Copyright © 2023 Sandy MacDonald.

Consciousness is a Time-Wave

Featured

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Embodiment, Freedom, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

actuality, aspiration, been-and-gone, context, Fichte, freedom, knowledge, not-yet, phenomenology, sensibility

Fragment 170, word count: 377.

Consciousness can’t be adequately described by even a complete catalogue of its objects. Objects have only a passing and tentative almost-presence unless they are made to matter by a rich personal context of ideality. Consciousness is formed of anticipatory intentions of agency and the reasons for agency within a personal life-drama. There is an emotionally committed questioning, a desperately caring gaze from an ever-learning knowledge-poise of orientation with its bearing onward, defining a point and arc of creative agency improvising the personal drama which is an individual embodied life.

We individually create a supposition of not-yet and been-and-gone defining a newness and incompleteness as the primordial context in which we exist as dramatic free agents, leaping future-ward in our drama, aware that everything in our envelopment of entropic actuality is falling away continuously. The supposed content of not-yet and been-and-gone is changing constantly. Knowledge and expectation are forms of supposition that constitute a drifting context-content slipping into proximity and then into an increasingly remote separation, a sense of things slipping by and falling away in the ephemerality of objects. Such is the context of personal agency as it leaps into anticipated openings of not-yet. That everything actual is slipping away is essential to the drama of individual human existence, to the willful creative leap open-ward which answers it as a moment-by-moment affirmation of a power of living to open reality and make it unexpectedly more than it was. Ideality moves to make actual a specific not-yet, to realize a new non-actuality, and that is the creativity for which freedom is possible.

The medium (non-actual past and future) in which time-waves exist is not independent of the knowing, curious, questioning, dramatically desperate agents who propagate ourselves in ceaseless ephemerality. Consciousness thinks itself as a time-wave, a formation of ephemerality through which freedom is possible in the genius of ideality as not-a-thing but a self-propelling continuity of creative expression across time. It is a fountain of future possibilities from which is enacted, having learned and conceived aspirations in been-and-gone, an original arc of developmental continuity that is the personal drama of life-creation.

Embedded links:

Fragment 124, February 19, 2018, The World that Doesn’t Matter (word count: 750)

Fragment 118, November 8, 2017, A Point of Dispute with Post-Modernist Theory (word count: 1,656)

Copyright © 2020 Sandy MacDonald.

Existentialism is an Idealism

08 Saturday Feb 2020

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Culture, Embodiment, Freedom, Nature, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Americana, Fichte, Franz Brentano, Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, Kierkegaard, Leibniz, modern idealism, Nietzsche, Sartre

Fragment 160, word count: 728.

Existentialism is an expression of modern idealism as sketched in Fragment 158, The Arc of the Monad. This will be clear from a quick review of the main points of modern idealism worked out mainly in Germany in the wake of the Protestant Reformation. It features the claim that the ideality of experience is fundamental in human reality, so that the existence of certain special characteristics of ideality is undeniable. Central to those special characteristics is that ideality is always personality, all forms of ideality occur together in clusters that have the dramatic structure of a living personal “I”, subject of a personal drama which is an individual’s embodied life in the world. The existence of ideas is the existence of ordinary thinking agents. The only reality we can possibly experience is completely structured as and by ideas constituting the interiority of personal experience (Leibniz, Fichte). Ideality is willful becoming, always questioning, learning, and creating, the exact opposite of being. What this amounts to is that personality is not a thing of nature, but, as point and arc of spontaneous creation (Sartre’s existence without essence), it stands outside nature and transcends nature. The supra-actual creative power of ideality is not in Platonic heaven or in gods and demons, but in ordinary personalities. How things matter in the world does not depend on eternal ideas in the mind of a deity nor in a Platonic heaven where ideas are master molds for material beings. It depends only and entirely on the occurrence of ideas in the living of individually embodied persons. Individuals cannot claim to be creative masters of nature at large, but each person creates a personal orientation and future-directed bearing, a life of possibilities, impossibilities, and probabilities in an interiority of non-actuality, which is then actually imposed on brute nature with variable success, and shared by building interconnections with other ordinary persons.

Existentialism inhabits experience as lived by a fully elaborated personality, what Fichte called an “I”. Heidegger’s dasein is a phenomenology of the interiority of an “I”, the monad from Leibniz/ Kant/ Fichte. The focus on freedom, decision, (Kierkegaard, Sartre) at the level of the living individual expresses the central theme of modern idealism that ideality is a transcendence, a transcendence with the drama of life-being-created moment by moment between misery and ecstasy, that is, with caring, at its core. Existentialists expanded on the drama of the life of the “I”, the everydayness of being in the world, but also the profound drama of freedom: dread, anxiety, sense of absurdity, despair, fear and trembling, and ecstasy (Nietzsche). This is a portrait of the interiority of the life of the “I” contributing to modern idealism. Modern idealism provides the conceptual cluster that encompasses freedom by conceiving personality/ humanity as ideality, something not of nature. The established conceptual cluster for nature, from scientific materialism, is antithetical to freedom, a failure of science that is crucially detrimental for politics. Existentialism and phenomenology (a technique of de-culturing) lie in the developmental arc of essentially Protestant idealism, notwithstanding that Edmund Husserl was Jewish and Franz Brentano, Heidegger, and Sartre were variably Catholic.

Nobody was Ready for Modern Idealism

As a distinctly European cultural development, modern idealism (including existentialism) was feared and loather by bearers of the ascendent culture of the USA after World War II, an ideology of national exceptionalism grown from a fresh cultural memory of cowboy-style frontier freedom and colonization, expressed now in patriotic militarism in support of the capitalist assertion of the divine rights of property. Already in the nineteenth century, with the world-shaking adventurism of Napoleon following the upheavals of the French Revolution (1789-99), combined with fervour for the explaining power of empirical observation, it pleased people to generalize from their historical moment to the idea that it is exceptional great men such as Napoleon, romantic heroes above all laws, who create history, art, culture, and civilization (eventually), with regrettable but unavoidable death, destruction, and romantic mayhem along the way. Such people had to be admired, it was thought by the cognoscenti, and given a chance to work their will. This romanticism became fundamental to the American myth-system. Such a cultural environment was lethally inhospitable to modern idealism focused as it was on the unexceptional universal individual, and so the idealism was academically marginalized and left unnamed.

Embedded Links in order of appearance:

Fragment 158, January 9, 2020, The Arc of the Monad (word count: 803)

Fragment 124, February 19, 2018, The World that Doesn’t Matter (word count: 750)

Fragment 153, September 28, 2019, De-Culturing (word count: 458)

Fragment 123, February 8, 2018, Brentano’s Gift (word count: 999)

Fragment 143, March 21, 2019, Frontier Freedom (word count: 447)

Copyright © 2020 Sandy MacDonald.

Dystopia, Metaphysics, and Modern Idealism

22 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Culture, Nature, Political Power, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Augustine, dystopia, Fichte, Freud, hive mind, Hobbes, ideas, Leibniz, modern idealism, nature, Plato, Sartre, social contract, social control

Fragment 159, word count: 1,010.

“The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.” (Karl Marx)

What makes a dystopia is a cultural regime, structured as a human hive-mind, which fails to recognize the creative transcendence of individual ideality. It is hive-minds that make war. A crucial feature of dystopia is that it hides and denies that it is dystopia. It campaigns, mainly successfully, to have everyone accept that, although imperfect and beset with intractable problems, it is the best of all possible worlds. Every personality is strongly influenced by social controls, the ambient society as authority, from a very early age. That makes dystopia a problem of perception, knowledge, and reality: a philosophical problem. Philosophy has a history of seeking to understand how collective illusions and delusions can separate ordinary consciousness from knowledge of the elemental structure of reality. Dystopia conceals itself with just such illusions, making it the philosophical problem.

Institutions of military-backed states survive by keeping as many as possible dependent, and the crucial dimension of hive-mind dependence is (drumroll) metaphysics. For example, if you accept anything like the Freudian conception of human nature then you loath and fear your own individuality and feel allegiance to externally imposed authority symbols against yourself, siding with the normalized practices of ambient society no matter how bizarre. There is a strong tendency to normalize whatever bizarre power inequalities happen to exist. Although Freud presented his work as scientific, the overall model of personality he offered followed a pre-existing and pre-scientific set of speculations and superstitions with contributions from Plato, Augustine, and Hobbes. The Freudian model of human nature places inherent personality (id: biologically generated drives with a tinge of the demonic) in urgent need of social control by an internalization of authority symbols (superego); recall philosopher kings, divinely established religious authority, and a social contract for absolute sovereignty. That conception of human nature is a longstanding piece of metaphysics which misidentifies what is fundamental to humanity or personality by conceiving it as something of nature: a determinate set of attributes, fixed, unalterable, and universal. That bit of metaphysics, a conception of individual personality as a bit of nature tilting demonic, serves to legitimize patriarchal power and control. Freud’s model dovetails with social contract theory, upholding the ancient and traditional view that human beings can’t thrive without strict social control. What’s wrong with that is that personality is not a thing of nature, but, as existence without essence (thank you Sartre) transcends nature.

Instead of defining metaphysics as commentary on ‘being’ (strictly impossible to define *) it is more effectively understood as commentary on the occurrence of ideas, of ideality. Being is defined as universal and eternal, which, by fiat, makes ideas as ordinarily experienced inadmissible. Ideality doesn’t have being. The fact that you are conscious as you read this is proof in a general way of the truth of idealism, the most obvious thing there could be. Consciousness is ideas. The only reality we can possibly experience is completely structured as and by ideas constituting the interiority of personal experience (thank you Fichte and Leibniz). Nature is adequately comprehended by physics, since there is no intrinsic drama to brute actuality, no structure of what matters to make sense of or explain. Ideality is the only home of drama, of things that matter, of purposes and reasons. Neither physics nor biology is helpful in understanding ideality. The question of human nature brings us into metaphysics immediately because any individual person exists as ideality, and ideality is necessarily the stuff of metaphysics. In the modern idealism worked out in the wake of the Protestant Reformation it is recognized that ideality is always personality, all forms of ideality occur together in clusters that have the dramatic structure of a living personal “I”, subject of a personal drama which is an individual’s embodied life in the world. The existence of ideas is the existence of thinkers. This idealism retains a sense of the transcendent creative freedom of ideality (personality transcends nature) but relocates it from a patriarchal Christian deity to ordinary individual human personalities. The supra-actual creative power (again transcendence) is removed from Platonic heaven or gods and demons to ordinary personalities. After all, how things matter in the world does not depend on ideas in the mind of some deity nor in a Platonic heaven where ideas are master molds for material beings. It depends only and entirely on the occurrence of ideas in the living of individually embodied persons. We know ideas from personal caring and our engagement with others who express caring. Living personality is known by a creatively expressive voice and purposive activity. Personalities produce coherent utterances and acts which express ideation: caring, sensitivity, knowledge, and the preconception of intentions, the drama of inventing, moment by moment, a particular life in the world. Ideas are openings of newness, created outside actuality, interventions of an instance of supra-actuality, non-being, which is a living consciousness. Ideality is willful becoming by always questioning, learning, and creating, the exact opposite of being. Individuals cannot claim to be creative masters of nature, but each person creates a time-system (a life) of possibilities and probabilities in a universe of interiority, a personal orientation within non-actuality, which is then actually imposed on brute nature with variable success, and shared by building interconnections with other ordinary persons.

Dystopia hides behind false conceptions of fundamental reality, distorting every individual’s self-conception so the old systems of top-down human-on-human macro-parasitism can be maintained and wars can be fought. Every individual is still a fountain of original re-conceptions of a future, of self-creation, with an inherent capacity to be free of hive-mind influences, starting with hive-mind patriarchal metaphysics. That is a bit of cultural conditioning that can be controlled at the level of every individual. Any aspiration for cultural, social, and political change must be founded on an appreciation of creativity, recognition that reality is mutable because ideas make up so much of the structure of reality. To change the world, it is first necessary to go beyond the colonization of patriarchal metaphysics.

Notes

  • Medieval Philosophy, Volume 4 of: A History of Philosophy Without any Gaps, written by Peter Adamson, published by Oxford University Press (2019), ISBN 978-0-19-884240-8. (Chapter 25: It’s All Good – The Transcendentals, especially pp.179-80.)

Doubting dystopia? Think about these articles in other publications.

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2020/01/06/615483/A-message-from-Black-America-to-the-People-of-Iran-

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/chile-rapist-path-chant-hits-200-cities-map-191220200017666.html

Internal links:

Fragment 106, May 10, 2017, Social Contract as Hive Mind (1) (word count: 520)

Fragment 158, January 9, 2020, The Arc of the Monad (word count: 803)

Copyright © 2020 Sandy MacDonald.

 

The Arc of the Monad

09 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by Sandy MacDonald in Blind spots in thinking, Culture, Hierarchy, Subjectivity, Transcendence

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

agency, consciousness, creativity, deity, Enlightenment, Fichte, History, human nature, idealism, ideas, Kant, knowledge, Leibniz, politics, questioning, science

Fragment 158, word count: 803.

This is the story of a crucial modern rethinking of human nature. The monad is a conception of the organization of ordinary human consciousness presented by Leibniz in 1714. There is no hardware in Leibniz’ vision of the world formed of monads, only individual instances of ordinary consciousness having coherent experiences composed of images and other impressions of a world that does not exist in any other way. In this conception, the world is the setting of some vast number of these subjects having experiences. This world of monads is entirely a world of ideas, a strictly idealist world. In Leibniz’ vision the monads, even though not anchored to a concrete material world, were not self sufficient because the entire content of their consciousness was supplied by an omnipotent deity who had pre-determined everything, every event and change in exact detail, at the moment of creation. Although the monads are “windowless” with no personal agency in constructing knowledge of anything, experiences are coordinated among the monads by the deity to simulate a coherent unity of shared surroundings, in which they seem to engage with one another. Later in the century (1781), Kant’s idealism was a development and modification of this legacy from Leibniz. It focused on understanding instances of ordinary consciousness, but introduced two structural changes. Kant removed the deity as the single supplier of experiences and added hardware in the form of the external “thing in itself”, a surrounding objective world which was not reducible to ideas. Kant’s monads had something like windows onto the external hardware, but their transparency was far from perfect. The “thing in itself” could never be known directly, but Kant was convinced that it must exist as an influence on, and partial source of, the coherent impressions and images that are the content of experience. Following Kant closely (1795), Fichte also engaged with this legacy of ordinary consciousness idealism. His innovation was to remove Kant’s “thing in itself”, the hardware, from the conception of reality, and he didn’t bring back the deity. So, by the end of the eighteenth century with Fichte, the deity was gone along with the hardware (the thing in itself) leaving only truly self-subsisting monadic subjectivities each structured as a distinct “I”. In Fichte’s work these subjectivities are independent sources of suppositions. Each “I” posits, creating the ideas of itself and its entire world from its own interiority. Fichte’s vision effectively eliminates the fundamental distinction in Christendom and creationist monotheism generally between human and divine personality. This is not a declaration of the death of God, but instead a reconceptualization of the place of creative transcendence in human experience.

These are conceptions of idealism in which ideality is always personality, in which all forms of ideality occur together in the living experience of some personality, structured as an elaborate “I”, the subject of a personal drama which is an individual’s life in the world. In the case of Leibniz, one of those personalities was unique by being divine. This idealism (conception of ideality) is special in the history of philosophy as a sharp contrast to more familiar kinds such as Platonic or Hegelian idealism in which the primary ideas are remote, impersonal, and cosmically scaled drivers of nature and history. Monadic idealism is much more compatible with the spirit of science than is creationist monotheism which includes disembodied angels and demons, and it makes sense of the claim that human nature is inclined and competent to conceive questions that enable discoveries and scientific knowledge, which mechanistic science itself fails to explain. (It isn’t enough to stipulate that knowledge comes from experience without accounting for questions.) Monadic idealism did not permanently imprint popular or intellectual culture because it is politically problematic: it does not denigrate human nature sufficiently to support existing political and other hierarchical institutions of social control. Any aspiration for cultural, social, and political change must be founded on idealism of some non-Platonic and non-Hegelian kind, and so such idealism will be feared and loathed by forces of conservatism.

This developmental arc of the conception of monadic ideality marks out the tendency of post-reformation Lutheran-stream Protestant idealism to retain a sense of transcendence (the creative freedom of ideality) but increasingly to relocate the occurrence of transcendence from a remote central deity to ordinary individual human personalities. The influence of Martin Luther (1483-1546) is behind the whole stream, with his conception of spiritually capable and independent individuals like himself, Bible readers, doubters and questioners, takers of mental leaps. The monadic idealism that emerged from Luther’s influence plays a crucial part in the spirit of protestantism that decisively shaped Euro-American Enlightenment along with the spirit of science, each protesting against authority. Modern people expect to be treated as Kant/Fichte-style monads without grasping the concept.

Note: The following philosophers were brought up in Lutheran households and communities: Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814), George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), Max Stirner (1806-56), Soren Kierkegaard (1813-55), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900).

Copyright © 2020 Sandy MacDonald.

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • June 2026
  • May 2026
  • April 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • December 2025
  • October 2025
  • August 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • November 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • September 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011

Categories

  • Blind spots in thinking
  • Class War
  • Culture
  • disinterestedness
  • Embodiment
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Gender culture
  • Hierarchy
  • Leadership
  • Narrative
  • Nature
  • Political Power
  • Strategic thinking
  • Subjectivity
  • Transcendence
  • Uncategorized
  • University
  • Why thinking?

Meta

  • Create account
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • in the blind spot
    • Join 84 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • in the blind spot
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar