Names are not things and neither are a monolithic group of the same kind and subjectivism is basic


The names of such things as affect us, that is, which please and displease us, because all men be not alike affected with the same thing, nor the same man at all times, are in the common discourses of men of inconstant signification. For seeing all names are imposed to signify our conceptions, and all our affections are but conceptions; when we conceive the same things differently, we can hardly avoid different naming of them. For though the nature of that we conceive be the same; yet the diversity of our reception of it, in respect of different constitutions of body and prejudices of opinion, gives everything a tincture of our different passions. And therefore in reasoning, a man must take heed of words; which, besides the signification of what we imagine of their nature, have a signification also of the nature, disposition, and interest of the speaker; such as are the names of virtues and vices: for one man calleth wisdom what another calleth fear; and one cruelty what another justice; one prodigality what another magnanimity; and one gravity what another stupidity, etc. And therefore such names can never be true grounds of any ratiocination. No more can metaphors and tropes of speech: but these are less dangerous because they profess their inconstancy, which the other do not.


Excerpt from: Thomas Hobbes – Leviathan. Chapter 4.

  • Contingency of structuration and partiality of all world views and orderings of „the“ world by declaring it an objective structure (on the contingent basis of a partial nonobjective ideology).
  • Inconstancy for example (as one possible reference to it or essence of it) as openness to/towards life/existence.

An-Denken of openness as checks and balances against our structurational partial ideologies

One can „use“ contingent structurations to escape from the openness and insecurity etc. of being/existence. One can do it subjectively without making an ideological social cause of it. Or one can demand others to follow these contingent and partial fixations and structurations–so making a political-ideological demand for rule and submission out of the will to escape openness. The first one is applied subjectivist existence. The second one is authoritarian ideological social projection of one’s own security ideology into the social realm where other subjective beings live, with their own lives and existence in perspectivity and being subjects, perceiving and interpreting the world. „The“ world which is primarily a subjective world (a multiplicity of worlds and situations etc.). Only secondarily made an ideologically (and still unavoidably subjectively differently) constructed social monolithic block, where social demands for rule/domination and submission/de-subjectivisation (for example in the Kantian sense of objectivisation) are expressed by different subjective ideologies and constructs.

It’s easier to take for granted, most of the narratives that are fixated at the constructed roof over our heads and minds. Still, something might be missing for you. But it’s a leap into insecurity and openness, that only some people do as a „job“/passion – they are (in their ways) philosophers. The others have other hobbies, moving or inert, while the world around them–and it’s a subjective world around us I assume subjectively–is moving or seems to move.

Hello to my first visitor from Japan.

An estimation-perspective: The world doesn’t get better or worse. It changes (in some sense-interpretation of the idea of change). For example interpretable/metaphoric as: We see different parts, areas, levels of a picture. The picture could be basically one whole picture, or the pictures we somehow and somewhat perceive are different subjective pictures — as subjective perception-interpretations. As momentary, situational, narratives etc. We perceive and interprete the (fragments of the whole or of the respective [subjective, situational etc.]) picture from different perspectives. We could be described as different pixels or points within (fragmentary, non-wholly) and without (essence of individuality, with no [directly] relation/interactive connection to any meta-individual essence) the picture.

I don’t want to be understood and I want to be understood. One of the contradictory phenomena of life from my subjective perspective. Maybe (projecting it) applying to all things. To the individuality of all things.

* contradictory, for example structurable as a dialectic–where ‚dialectic‘ is also a structurisation of thoughts into a summarised notion/term.

Causality (narration/re-construction) is an infinite regress. It is thus maybe a (more or less deep, effective etc.) (auxiliary) means and tool/patternising to technically grasp patterns of the world. It is not an ontology.

“They say” that in ‘love’ and ‘war’ everything is allowed.
Maybe that’s true (for example in the logic of these narrational phenomena), maybe not or maybe somewhere else than in this binary.
But maybe it applies to life as such or for humans in concrete situations. Which we acknowledge or gloss over/palliate in the narrations we construct after the single situations and (already somewhat structured) the sequences of moments.