Chapter28 Truth, Desire, Getting to be Close Part1

If we think of why human-beings get to be closed together, unexpectedly even if we learned language, using it, thinking all things, but there’s a moment to feel language isn’t panacea, and we sympathize its opinion together, we want to have a closed friend. Because our language is setting a word “world”, but we can’t prove there’s so called world, we’ve named it world and to any individual things, to any phenomena, we name them all each moment and mean them. Namely positioning all things as to be in category or paradigm is language power. Then we point out anything with words’ power before knowing world aspect. Namely we try to understand world as one character or traits. In this step we try to know anything in signified and meant order already. However we are aware of all those aren’t out of fitting to real matter ( we suppose if there’s so existing there) intuitively. For instance to be enchanted by different sex person is at one meaning egoistic doxa to her or him, at the matter of fact misunderstanding. But sometime he or she protrudes the attitude we’ve never anticipated as talking or anything action betraying our discretionarily set ideal. At that moment we get to be sure that our naming and meaning self is broken. Namely shared setback experience facts we hold to others is sympathetic action trigger, it’s to be closed together. At the meaning that love affair losers get to be close each other, friends understand each other, its phenomenon can be positioned. At this point in philosophy truth is universal, in comparison to it, desire is unstable, changeable,
we try to deal with truth as ideal, on the contrary desire can be dealt with so cheap matter, we can say. But after consideration we can conclude that just because of the fact that we’ve toyed by changeable reality, we’ve needed truth. Then for us truth is what to need. Namely truth is one of the desire, it cased from desire, we could say so. Adding also even if there aren’t desire as real entity in mind, we set truth as it exists. Namely truth and desire is familiar with each other, we can see.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part3

Behind it we can be in a mind of others easily but otherwise at the matter pf fact if we are asked what self-identity is, we absolutely have a trouble to answer. It is shown in next Sydney Shoemaker’s description ( Self-knowledge and self-identity).
　
( abbreviated in fore part) Suppose that I have an uninterrupted memory of the interval between a certain time yesterday and the present moment. Suppose that now I remember a certain “idea,” say an image, that occured yesterday, remember also the substance or subject that had that idea, and can therefore be sure that nothing has been substituted for it, and that it is identical with substance that perceives my present ideas. If I could remember this then surely I could remember that at some point another substance was substituted for it, and know that it was not the same as the substance was substituted for it, and know that it was not the same as the substance that perceives my present ideas. Given that I can perceive a thing of a certain sort, if my memory of what observed ( perceived, was aware of, was conscious of) between yesterday and the present could inform me that a thing of that sort I observe now it the same as one that I remember existing yesterday, then it could inform me that a thing of that sort that I observe now is not the same as one that I remember existing yesterday. As I said in Chapter Two, by appealing to the fact that
we consistently “lose sight” od our past selves as grounds for doubt as to whether we always remain the same substance, Locke implies that one substance could be replaced by another, and that if our consciousness were not interrupted we would detect such changes were they to occur. For it is only because our consciousness is interrupted that he thinks that such substitution, surely it is conceivable that someday we might detect one. Suppose, however, that were to remember that the substance which had the idea (saw the image) yesterday had been replaced by another substance and was not the same as the substance that has my present ideas. If the identity of a person consists in, or essentially involves, the identity of a substance, then in this case I would have to say that the remembered idea belonged to someone other than myself. And this, as Locke saw, is absurd; if I remember the image the it must have been I say that the identity of a person does not involve the identity of a substance( a view that I have argued to be unintelligible one can observe, and remember, that a material object, or another person, has or has not remained the same( has or has not been replaced by something else) during a certain interval of time, one cannot observe or remember that a mental substance, or oneself, has or has not remained the same. ( Four Self-identity and the Contents of Memory, p.146～p.147)

What we read from its Shoemaker’s description, it’s the truth that we don’t remember our actions observing them as the method. Then because of it the method of proof that a thing seen yesterday and it seen now is the same doesn’t be judged as identity of personality, its axiom in mind is talked here. Its self identity isn’t identity that we know with observation to others as objective standard( it caused only a assessment that we can know that apple you see is it I see as the same) ,namely it’s exceptional specific, transcendental, sole thing. This idea can be thought being based on Descartes.(Locke took it over), but Russell also took it over, Shoemaker identified it.
And one who took over Shoemaker’s idea is Hitoshi Nagai.
Then just because of all of it, value originally in judgment purely is individual property, in the truth nobody can trust any other persons except myself to judge value itself, we can close up others’ entity. It’s double characterized meaning only philosophy holds.
Namely the idea that others’ judgment shouldn’t applied to pierce value as claim of individual responsibility truly works as we need solidified value necessarily in self mind disliking unstableness of it. Solidification which works in our self mind aquires the character of us that we can show our value vision to others as we like. It is caused from that we’ve already been aware of value solidification’s sharing in anybody. A awareness of it in individuals just makes anxiety too. Because of it we jump at the gun to authorize value in deleting anxiety. We are apt to have an illusion that any values which include law are apriori outside exisitence. Then we misjudge the thing as we can observe like a question apple you see is it I see or not and the thing as value itself combining together. A description by Shoemaker can lead us to be aware of our doxa.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part2

What we have anxiety in raison d’etre of value as just or not relies on at one meaning that we have judged anything by each selves, but also we want to know others’ judgment as discretion’s agreement or consensus
as our capability in our minds. Then what Kant showed in Criticism of Practical reason or Criticism of Judgment was entity of others. Namely of maxim, judgment to beauty, others are concerned necessarily.
Anxiety doesn’t stop in problem of judgment to justice as value. Namely
Because value itself can be set as shared concern area or domain as public thing, when we talk of value, we can forget each members of world would die someday. Namely unconscious mind care to each fear of absolute solitude is the reason of in-depth mentality in setting performance of public as shared concern or interest area or domain. Then it’s reason to rise kindness (Just because of it, kindness is apt to be changed often indulgence).Namely setting shared concern area or domain has fundamentally getting to be closed. Its work of mind has destined absolute solitude of each person’s death. In what we can reduce any anxiety only when we concentrate on shared concern area or domain, we have a custom or habit to take care of other ones we can be closed.

Chapter27 Solidification of Value and Anxiety Part1

We try to solidify value because we feel idly resetting and reconsidering our self set value. Or to say, we try to select only matter we can think it is able to solidify. But its fact means that we hold always anxiety we wonder if we evading misjudge our self set value. Personality is typical thing in its anxiety. Namely one other person’s personality as the most important one as roll model, we need it, as that we need to solidify our self personality. But we are always with distress, necessarily we hold also skepticism to our self set value, and its emotion never disappears.
At the matter of fact we are the existence to make both ambivalent feelings co-exist. Actions caused from value solidification is description, our language action needs value solidification at each utterance and description. Thought and idea selves are always trial and error. Then we can think with a vision as necessity to overcome our anxiety. But thought and idea are ready for solidifying anything as been thought.
At a part loving emotion at the first time and love affair is like its solidification. Ideal partner or ideal lover, sweetheart is the thing for us to need for another revel of vale to daily comfort. Then necessarily marriage partner is just daylily comfortable partner for our choice to propose, namely it’s rigorously different from ideal notional value. Namely that we can discriminate both different type of intention but can also make them co-exist as love affair partner and marriage partner shows our diversity toward value. Then we experience that more ideal partner evokes our anxiety, diversely even the partner we trust evokes
it. Or a case that ideal itself is so rigorously solidified and unchangeable and another case that ideal is set in unstable position as unreality we can help but gazing at, both cases as value judgment co-exist. Or we have a reason to think smartly stable and solid friend, marriage partner of mine is the best, but at the same time of it another reason to think mind change to it is the best choice as the turning point of life equally a vision to see changing and switching set vale self valuable momentarily. Both of them stand at the point as idea that value itself should be solidified but because of it as being solidified, we should be careful to set value, and both ambivalent feelings as anxiety touch each other and separate in deep in our mind, its state is our mentality or spirit.
Namely value is at a revel so stable then we know the moment to decide so big change as turning point to reset value as finger, at the same time of it value choice itself is always with anxiety of us, and we also don’t admit anything without any anxiety as valuable matter, its standpoint is our solid shared notion.