The tradition of modern thought: The Soul. 

Here is a good essay of early Christian thought of Plotinus.
One of the oddities of modern thought comes from the precipitate which notices that aspect which would attach to history of ideas along a continuous thread of thought. What happens when modernity gives birth to post modernity is we find a complete set, The set that allows for every human being who was potentially or actually de facto not included in the discourse of Modernity to be heard. The set is complete because it opens a pathway to every human being to be included; at least, in the idealized sense, which is to say in the modern intrinsic mythological sense. Potential must be there at least through the discourse of postmodernity or what is progressive and enlightened of modernity cannot endure. Yet what is ironic about this situation is that it also indicates a decline of a particular paradigm. 

We find that human consciousness is more adaptable than we like to believe. The blessing that everyone felt of postmodernity and basically all these “post” things, post structuralism post colonialism, which really are just names of discourses that critique their origins, was is that everyone gets included in the potential to be free.The problem that we are finding, though, is that not even these tenants that we thought were essential or basic or foundational or grounding to being human actually are not so singular. The curse of postmodernity is it gives everyone an equal voice and yet also supplies and ideological route to discern which voices are credible, valid and which are not; in short, postmodernity cannot escape it’s modern foundations. 

Nevertheless, as we said, the ability of human consciousness is greater than the confines of its ideological want. We find that though we have found the set that includes itself which thereby includes or proposes to include logically every human being in potential, it hasleft something out, and because of its basis in modern thought, as it’s apology, such an ideological situation will not allow anything to fall outside of it. Ironically, as it was proposed originally as a sort of discourse of freedom and reconciliation, it has been really found out that it is justAnother mechanism for confinement. 

I suggest that this confinement reaches back to Plotinus. And so really the oddity that I spoke about a few paragraphs before is that what he is saying and indeed the assumption of these early Christian fathers is that everyone has this kind of rationality and logic going on with them as an not only essential feature of the human species but as a particular and singular attribute, that such foundations and grounding essences function along common lines and within each human being such that each human being has the potential to grasp not only the meaning of what they’re saying, but the actual operation that they imply if not out right tell us. 

The divergent proposal, on the other hand, the proposal that is outside the modern set, is that such historical and traditional logic of the common human being does not apply to all human beings but only to a certain sort. Such progress of logic and rationality that we might localize in early Christian thought to dismiss our modern thought from it perhaps, is itself involved in the same type of logic and reasoning upon the common human being; this is why modernity has to distance itself and say for example “early Christian thought”, because this is to say that they may have thought this particular way and then maybe true or correct in certain aspects but now that we are modern we apply our modern contingency to that particular idea with an amendment. 

The point I’m making is that the idea of the common human being itself as described, inscribed, and implied in these kinds of discourses is a tenant of faith, and move through religious motions of ideological concentration. Logic is a common mode of universal objects, and rationality likewsie, but the relation that is founded of the objects themselves toward other objects (ideology) is not necessary accross the universe. This means that we merely identify logic and rationality (and our orientation upon technological objects) as inseparable from real progress, that access to such trinity must be allowed for every human being because of this mythological identity which behave for humans as an essential cohort: Modern. 

What this means is that the process prescribed does not occur for everyone, But in some cases only applies partially or momentarily to them. Most probably if we were to go to everyone on the planet and tell them of that early Christian process or our modern process of how consciousness might work or our place in the universe or whatever it is, we would most likely find that whatever original concept for probably most of the people we encounter, we would have to compromise the meaning that we intend in order for them to understand it, or rather for us both to come upon agreement that we both are finally understanding the same thing. The problem is that even the person with the original concept sees that he indeed has not compromised his original idea; this is the aggregating problem of modern faith. But keep in mind that this is not the problem of science per se but only a problem of a particular type of assertion made by conventional philosophy. 

Evidence of this kind of situation can be found in the mere fact that when I describe something that seems quite factual, and attempt to communicate it to someone else, inevitably we continue to talk about it in different ways. The plain and simple truth is that if indeed there was some sort of fact in front of us we could just point at it and go yes and we would have nothing more to say about that fact except in as much as we play it to another fact; it is possible that this is a scientific method.

What is not scientific, and indeed is philosophical par excellence, is that it will never admit to facts but will continue discussing things as if they’re discussing something that’s true about the nature of the situation; yet likewise they will never be able to pinpoint from where their “non-factual“ facts have arisen, and that’s what perpetually suspend them selves in a transcendental nothingness from where they draw inspiration (God/contradiction ). Indeed, this is a fact. There’s nothing more that needs to be discussed about the fact of the matter and how philosophy proceeds: it proceeds along a real determination of negotiation Where discourse holds the potential to every corner of being human for communication. 

We might even say that the “soul” that the early Christian apologies assume, as talked about in the link, is still assumed in modern philosophical discourse, even as we might call it something else, like ‘the object of psychology’, among other possible terms. I can be significant that psychological theories are based in the assumption of a common, and the approach that sees mental disease or issue indicates the ‘healthy’ as an essential common human feature. 

And thus we return to the beginning of this post. 


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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s