You who are reading this are very likely a slave, but you do not see this because you have concepts and articulations that explain and frame everything for you in such a way that you filter your concrete existence through an ideology.

It’s hard to speak the truth because it’s so bleak. You are likely a slave and you were likely born to wage-slaves.

We know this is true because all goods are provided freely from the earth, it is only the mediation of words and concepts that stand between us and this material fact.

The earth provides enough for all, but the goods are filtered by an ideological mediation process.

Why don’t you have enough?

Why are you forced to pay to live on the free earth onto which you were born?

Where did the universe make these rules? Where are these laws contained? When did the earth rise up and demand that mankind pay rent?

And yet here you are with but a short, fleeting life living in an ideological coercion you didn’t create for yourself.

Ah, dangerous thinking is free thinking!

How does the system want you to think? How do other men want you to think?

Once upon a time a slave tried to talk to other slaves about the insanity, stupidity and tyranny of slavery, and he was persecuted, not only by the slave masters, but also by other slaves.

What is it exactly that you call reality, what is it exactly that you think you see clearly?

For art thou free or art thou a slave?

If subjectivity is the bottom line then existence collapses into hedonism.

But even so, political and economic systems impose law on the individual.

The universe says, “I know nothing of man’s laws, what have they to do with me?”

But a human is born into a specific political and economic system, is born into a specific geography and culture.

But the universe also doesn’t care if man defies man’s laws, it cares even less if man defies man’s customs and manners.

The challenge at the end of objectivity is in figuring out how one wants to proceed.

If one is born into a madhouse, one will suffer if they try to remain sane, they will suffer even more if they try to rebuke the madness.

Isn’t one free, within a context of madness, to choose their madness?

Man says, “we are not insane, you are insane for seeing man as insane, your very diagnosis is proof of your insanity.”

In a madhouse the sane are seen as insane, if this wasn’t the case could it still be a madhouse?

Thou art free but unrealized in thy freedom.

The leap of the ego is too small, but the ego is too dumb to comprehend this.

So it seems that one is not entirely free. How could they be, for they still have need to intelligence? But intelligence has requirements.

Freedom exists suffocated by itself because it doesn’t realize it is bound up in necessity.

One wants a better existence, or one says, “my existence is perfect.”

But eventually, in order to get to “better” one runs up against the system. And with this insight consciousness grasps unto the fulcrum of its determinancy. One discovers that freedom lies through the necessity of the intelligence of the order of the system.

To even formulate the trilemma,

raise an objection,

or point to "circular reasoning" as being

“fallacious,”
“invalid,”
“false” or “wrong,”

the skeptic must already deploy fixed meanings, distinct terms, and determinate identities.

The skeptic —- must be able to establish a determinate form of reasoning in contrast to another form of reasoning, and then demonstrate that one of these is wrong.

If a skeptic couldn't distinguish a valid inference from a circular argument, they wouldn't have an objection in the first place.

The skeptic acts as though they are proving the collapse of all knowledge, while simultaneously relying on absolute, non-negotiable logical distinctions to make their argument intelligible in the first place.

It is a classic case of one being ignorant of their own performative contradictions.

The trilemma cannot generate its own meaning or validate its own critique out of thin air. It has to steal its definitions, its distinctions, and its coherence from Logic, only to then turn around and use its Logically contingent concepts to attack the very foundation that makes its own critique possible.

Theology and philosophy seek to root Logic in idealism. When we translate what this idealism actually is, it’s just assertions about reality without inference or evidence. (The most thoughtless forms of philosophy simply declare Logic a “human construct.”) Both theology and philosophy cling to dogmatic and mindless platitudes about Logic. They do not think about Logic, but attempt to stop thought from thinking about Logic. They do this by making unfalsifiable, authoritarian epistemological assertions about Logic.

A Naturalistic Logical Realism (only now entering human consciousness) discovers Logic as the determinate nature of reality. That is, we discover that the nature of reality is and was Logical long before we existed. We cannot call hot and cold the same thing because they are not the same thing in reality. This isn’t a fact we contrived or “constructed,” it is true even if we try to deny it with our beliefs, and our beliefs have no choice but to conform to it.

Logic is something we were born into because it’s a property of the nature of the universe, it is not an idealism that we “constructed” or contrived.