Object-Oriented Ontology (2) - Reality / Aesthetics

[@absurdbeing2219]

*Contents* 01:34 REALITY 09:35 ART 13:16 DETOUR - HUME AND HUSSERL 18:31 METAPHOR 27:29 Five features of metaphor 31:06 How metaphor works (a specific example) 36:49 Summary

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

I love greatly, Triple O. Your rendition and exposition is second to none.

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks! We'll see what you think when you get to vids 3 and 4. I do get a bit more critical there...

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

@@absurdbeing2219 I am already getting some hints of original critical appraisal, which are relevant and true.

[@kehindeonakunle7404]

Pls let us know your real name and autobiography.

[@absurdbeing2219]

@@kehindeonakunle7404 I have a website (absurdbeing.com) with some of that info, but mostly just more philosophy.

[@AyalaChampagne]

Does Hume say that THERE ARE NO OBJECTS? I think he allows for scepticism, but will not walk over a precipice. And thanks for these great videos!

[@absurdbeing2219]

Thanks for the interesting comment. There is some nuance maybe to be found here. If you mean Hume wasn't a full-blown (metaphysical) sceptic in the sense of _denying_ the actual, concrete existence of objects, I think I can agree with that. However, it seems underselling Hume to say he only "allows for scepticism". His philosophy, I think, does call for a sceptical attitude towards the self, objects, causality, etc. on the grounds that, according to him, we never have direct evidence for any of these things. Objects (the self, causality) are things we _infer_ from basic empirical facts (sensations), which are the only things we can know with any certitude. Any postulate beyond these will never rise above the level of speculation. He does say somewhere that these are his thoughts _as a philosopher,_ but when he lives his life; i.e. _as a human being,_ he must, like the rest of us, put these doubts aside and act as if he has a self, objects are real, and cause-effect is a real physical law.

[@azeeznasser]

any object could not be an I, because I is an entity of multiple dimensionality. I is the totality of every component that makes me including awareness and knowledge.

[@projectmalus]

So you agree with Harman in other words?

[@walterramirezt]

I want to be the object of your ontology

[@marioocana7529]

simp oriented