[Perpetually unfinished] The Jackian Theory of Metaphysics, Stated and Defended

07/12/2022

I tried to disprove how I feel with logic but this shit’s true.[1]

— Brakence, Cavern Music

I: The Supposed Logocentric Structure of Reality

The first and foremost supposition when it comes to any theory of anything is something “applies” to it in the sense that “something” regulates. Of course, the regulation could be an absence of regulation or some principle, etc. But there is always some principle (again, the absence of a principle [having “nothing” as the very first “principle” of your philosophy (something I have done in some of my past theories of metaphysics)] is a principle for all of our intents and purposes) regulating. Now, almost everyone who has ever used logic to argue for anything has assumed that existence or Being (if you want to be fancy) is logically structured. In other words, if you have used an argument using logic, you have assumed that the subject of your argument, whatever it may be, is logical. Are we entitled to make such an assumption, however? In other words, is reality logocentric?

II: The Predicament

Just as the logocentric predicament exists within epistemology, it also exists within metaphysics, as well as in ethics (see my work on the problem of alternatives for now, as the subject of the logocentric predicament as it exists in the field of ethics is a subject of discussion for another day, but such a day will eventually come). While the logocentric predicament within epistemology is luckily solvable as we found out over the course of five months together, the logocentric predicament within metaphysics may not be solvable due to circularity.

Just as I have stated the very first problem any epistemologist must solve, the logocentric predicament, countless times, I will, for the first time, state as simply as I can, the logocentric predicament as it exists in metaphysics: how can we prove that reality is structured logically, i.e., is logocentric, without supposing such is the case in constructing such a proof? In other words, if we are going to put forth a logical argument for reality, existence, Being, or whatever else you would like to call it,[2] would we not be assuming that it is already logocentric?

III: Understanding the Predicament

First, let us understand what our predicament entails.

Notes

[1]: “Shit’s,” here, means “shit is.”

[2]: Due to the conceptual baggage that exists with the terms Being and existence, I am opting to use the term reality, but if one does not obfuscate the meaning of the terms Being and existence then reality, existence, and Being can be used interchangeably.