Existential Existence: Praxis Being
Amir Ali Maleki
And it is not possible to understand the context of a text as it should be, regardless of the argument, and perhaps the context alone. This is not the secret of art [1], because art [here the word art is used to rely on the concept of living, which in contrast to everyday philosophy expresses the art of continuity] has no duty to define something for a single whole. Whatever makes sense in art is not in the author’s argument, but in the perception that the reader receives in its own way. This is what should be called the “whole detail,” the understanding and the way in Meaning is formed, and since perceived action is a feature of “objective subjectivism” and accompanies the action from an irrelevant copy in the comprehension apparatus in the position of reaching the path of digestion in one’s social background. In other words, knowledge is not a tool for understanding absolute existence, but for receiving a perception that makes perception absolute, under the influence of one’s voluntary circle and perception, now this “absolute non-existence” of the object as it comes to life, and It should be, it shows, because the object does not have a definite form, but carries a concept whose specificity means in one’s understanding, a concept that has a general dimension and a partial dimension, which can manifest itself in the context of understanding. This object can sometimes be called philosophy. The object that occurs as it is, the position in which its forms can not be changed, but the words, as it should be, manifests itself in an authoritarian way, appealing to circumstances, in the position of understanding of the person who is present in certain circumstances. The whole detail is a real being that is digested in the system of comprehension and can be considered as “rational objects” that show and mean the whole and the part, as if the whole meaning of the word is part and the part is the whole.
[۱] نقدی بر the diary of a writer،excerpt from 1887،translate by Boris Brasol
A man in the bathroom / same / 1884
What is important is to mention that philosophy is not voluntary, but, by virtue of what is inherent in it, has an inter-biological obligation that is aligned with other aspects of human action. In other words, in philosophy, the soul is not a verb, but an agent that puts being into the realm of action. Has been the shape. That absolute existence has always been a single form without the need to go through a “quasi-hierarchy”, as if philosophy has always been and has not been a tool, because nothingness has never existed in philosophy, but is a form that must be Emphasize the rule of “being” and that which is absolute, is mentioned in every word and literary word. This existence of philosophy has always existed, it has never compromised with non-existence, in this way being and non-existence in philosophy has always been “existed” and necessarily non-existence and non-existence in this constrained concept does not exist but is always defined in being. All these concepts were mentioned in order to achieve the important point that philosophy is not extracted from a single and absolute element, but from a committed being around it, which is “being”, as if it were, which always without the need for any complete hierarchy. In his voluntary circle of life, he uses the surroundings and the concepts he uses to describe his “world” to the extent necessary. The so-called arts are used, because art is not a separate and distinct characteristic, but a single whole that must go beyond “arts” and suffice with the word “art” alone. This coherent, non-hierarchical circle, which has elements lower than itself, recognizes art in the same way, always in the same way, from what is important for its expression, and from all the components in the circle of influence and the way it expresses its discourse. To use, to benefit. For example, music can be considered a part of philosophy, the feeling and conflict between the discourses that show the sensibility of the environment in each period, to the person as it should be, is the inevitable commitment of philosophy to those around it that it enjoys. Art has a unique essence, which is manifested in a language, the whole of which is present in every word, now it wants to be the color of the canvas, or the word of the book, because it has always been “has”.
Painter’s house on Hausman Boulevard / same / 1880
But this balance should not be sought out, because the existence of art [not art, which is a very useless word] always digests the environment in a way that is peculiar to time, as if it is digestion that matters, this feeling coming out of art, It does not need to be signified from the outside, it does not need the kind of phenomenology of perception, but it always spontaneously gives birth to its meaning and manner in relation to what it rules in time. In other words, the rose always has meaning, but not in complete abstraction, but the aspect that comes from the “active discourse” to the “active discourse”. “Such a rose is in its full meaning,” he says. Thus, when the artist states: “Such a red color of a flower shines on his blood”, he does not mean the “imaginary of that object”, but expresses the object because it has always been true for him. In other words, the artist should be considered as an object that inserts the verb of the subject as the time wants, and carries it, as if the verb in nature adds the word, enters the meaning of the conditions in the subject, and finally shows the truth in the object. he does. Thus the understanding of the necessity of philosophy is always without the need for a more fundamental conception of truth; For without any presuppositions all encounters with the world around us require for us any foreknowledge of the deeper unity between subject and object; Because in the event of our understanding of that world itself is always fundamental and the truth has no series more fundamental than itself. Thus, the existence of philosophy and its understanding always has a deep unity of truth that has entered its circle in an “objective” way, and it is only the face of truth that has no depth other than what it is. But there is only one solution to how to overcome the contradictions, and if there is a contradiction, it will remain self-evident, and it can remain only in what is called the time of the contradiction. Preconscious metaphysics, then, can not be considered a factor in finding a solution, or as it should be in order to find a problem, but only keeping it in the circle of what is called action.
Here is an issue that we are examining by mentioning its preface with reference to the concept of non-existence and contradiction. The agent cannot divide himself into two parts, I am not the lawgiver [a discourse on Kantian contradiction] and the law is not a reason for its application to the person, but the law of the defect is the cause which is called the “obligatory foundation”. The so-called “other self” borrowed from Plato replaces “we – the self” in the above definition. The subject is not divided into two, and he is not the creator of the law he is supposed to follow. None of the aspects of the subject takes precedence over the other, because it is essentially the memory of the power of the object that its position must be determined by society in relation to the subject, which is not entirely bound by law but by social consciousness. The “I” here does not subject itself to the correct rule which it has established, but in its own way becomes the main function, which has previously represented the circumstances in which I was born, and by paying attention to a definite identity in a social position. It’s located. The object cannot guarantee that the principles are binding; it is essentially the subject that shows what discourse-time identity can enter into what is called “social praxis.” The subject in this position defines the law in relation to what the act of society demands, and then it is the subject who, in the digested context, places the object in the structure according to its “necessary past.”
Paris, a rainy day / same / 1887
In essence, it is the object that receives its guiding principles and content from the subject, and in this way the personal desires digested in the object, which are paid for by the subject and influenced by the verb, play a relatively important role, because the concept of personal desires There are not the things that a person wants of his own free will, but the things that are digested in his conditional will and he seeks action within the scope of his actions. This battle does not end in its natural course, but it is the action itself that is digested in the discourse structure and shows that the recognition of the verb is the manifestation of the repetition in the identity of a community, each time expressing a “temporal language” to express. Uses himself. Basically, this begs the question, who is the legislator who determines the truth? It must be said that in its essence, the legislator is a word that can not be expressed on a person or persons. In principle, natural persons are not legislators in the sense prevalent in law, but “legislators are law-abiding”. The law in its general nature is a discourse of conditions, which is mentioned and by which others define themselves, and it can not be understood that the law in its general nature is something separate from the persons who follow it, but the law Call yourself a practical word “person” refers to those who are subject to it and without it can not be defined. For example, contrary to the belief that in the victory of the parties, the master is enslaved and the other person is enslaved, it is necessary to mention that this action does not occur in the pre-law stage to determine it, but in the position of the law itself and this is the law itself. It is the truth itself, not the victorious person or person who determines the truth of the law according to the subject. In other words, there is no being [according to the first paragraphs], and whatever is, existence is a phenomenon that contains law. This “servant” is not the so-called one who delegates the position of absolute legislator to his master and obliges him to accept his word and his will to the one who assigns the position, but here there is no dependence on anyone, in this case “the power of speech What determines what discourse can have the most power to express its “actual words” according to the law that defines it, and which discourses have less vocabulary in their actual words and more in the “potential discourse” state. [That which has little vocabulary and little vocabulary] or “acceptable discourse” [meaning that discourse is incapable of expressing its own words and must accept only the conditions and remain silent] must remain. In the sense that the recognition of the law, although an inherent and necessary command, is neither from the master himself nor from the servant. Thus the so-called servant [the use of these words to make the intended critique] and the master realize that their destiny depends on a right that defines benefit and power; and whatever is called the binding quality of the norm, it The meaning, which does not exist other than in their temporal social consciousness, is called a necessary thing, which is stated in the law and is simplified in a way. In this definition, the unit of spoken language in terms of social consciousness is the law that determines social consciousness. They have shown it to us, and it shows that we can not be bound by anything other than what is assigned to us by those objects, and those objects are constantly injected and defined to us in the form of norms, and we can not carry out our activities independently of them. Let’s recount [this contradiction with what Jacobi and Hegel say in his critique]. This normative authority mentioned is neither capable of constructing a “master” nor a “servant”, but is in fact something that is defined only for them in relation to the social status of both of them, and except for obedience to what their social identity has been digested in the past. And now it happens in the place of law, they can not. In other words, they are only obedient, not critics of the law.
About Author
