i rarely take part in threads during the week; if anything i recently, drunkenly, made a couple of statements in other threads that require further clarification and apologies before i write in this one. Nonetheless, i feel compelled to take part in this particular thread. Before i respond, however, i have to ask where you have quoted the text below from, since i haven't been able to find it online all evening.
existential potential, allegedly from the NAACP wrote:
Each individual is who they are their whole existences. From birth to death, we are who we are our whole lives. So, therefore we are each our OWN infinity's. Everything we know for the time we're alive is ALL we'll ever know, we each have our own worlds at out fingertips each moment we're alive. We are each our own infinity's. Now I don't know how much simpler I can make this to you, but something tells me you're still not going to get it. Whatever, it's just as well.
First, assuming that a representative of the NAACP stated the above, and based upon the role that organization normally plays, it should be obvious that the statement above is meant to have social significance and not ontological import. Second, excepting extreme philosophical naivete, the difference between social and ontological meanings should be equally obvious here.
I think that the above statement acknowledges that social status is at least partially determined by racial markers. That is to say, that racism plays a role in our current social situation. To the degree that race limits one's social access, it partially determines our experience (knowledge) and our opportunities (personal future) within our lifetimes.
My god , man, the question presented by the quote is not an ontological conundrum, but a social one. The issue at hand is neither psychological nor biological. The differences, whatever they are, between the speaker and the commentator are minimal. What is at issue is the social status of the speaker. Each individual's unique "being" may be changeable, fluid within certain channels and in certain conditions, but the "facts" that determine their social status may be rather stable. What then? It is not a question of changing their
minds or altering their
ontological status via a logical or an epistemic revelation of categorical identity. The quoted statement is meant as a spur to social change via sympathetic adjustment. Your attempt to analyze it in the abstract fails to grasp the salient facts necessary to analyze it accurately.