.

Birth of Tragedy

So, to me, there is no particle in the entire metaverse that does not partake of this same math, this same model, choice. Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. We make far too much of some things. But it is true that evolution drives the formation, the integration, of entities with more and more moral agency.

That moral agency though is an absolute value +- the effect number. It means the great moral possibility ONLY comes with the risk of equal evil. — Chet Hawkins

Nietzsche might be a good fit. And I recommend reading his books in the order in which they were published. There is a consistency in the development of his thought from the first book to the last.

Even being in the world, physically present, can be a tragic thing, because you can be a corpse. If you then say, that is not you, then you lose. Because that is what being-in-the-world must mean right? Alive? Or does it? With my model all particles are alive. — Chet Hawkins

For Heidegger, a corpse cannot be "in" the world. The only entity that can be "in" the world is Dasein. Any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein (such as a corpse) are "within" the world that Dasein is "in".

K. seem to have had close connection to Christianity and God in many of his writings. How does his concept of God fit into existentialism? — Corvus

Though Kierkegaard was the first existential philosopher I read seriously, it has been many years But I will do the best I can from memory.

For Kierkegaard, an existentialist scorn for philosophical system building is accompanied by an existentialist scorn for theological system building. (including and maybe especially the hierarchically organized Christian religion throughout Europe.).

And just as philosophy should focus upon how to live an authentic life, so too should Christian theology focus upon how to live an authentic Christian life. He considered as absurd the philosophical and theological attempts to prove/disprove the existence/nonexistence of God. Instead, the commitment to live an authentic Christian life must be rooted in a "leap of faith." And so one who lives an authentic Christian life is the Knight of Faith.

I hope that helps.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states. — RogueAI

Are they? And does it matter to your argument? You seem to be suggesting that the Ancient Greeks did not have brain states because they did not talk about them. And if they did have them but not talk about them, why would the "identical" relationship between brain states and mental states be any different for Ancient Greeks than for others?

Identical" is a strange wording that's prone to confusion due to different people's understanding of what that exactly entails. That's why most philosophers talk in terms of supervenience instead. — flannel jesus

I agree.

1. Mental states are identical to brain states.
2. From (1), talk of mental states is the same as talk of brain states.
3. Ancient peoples coherently talked about their mental states.
4. Ancient peoples did not coherently talk about their brain states.
5. Therefore, mental states are not identical to brain states. — RogueAI

Is the logic what you wish to discuss or do you wish to discuss whether brain states are "identical" to mental states.?

The logic is at least flawed prima facie. And if brain states are not "identical" to mental states for all (including the Ancient Greeks), then brain states are not "identical" to mental states.

Please advise.

What you will mostly find are over-long posts filled with too much information. — Joshs

I can vouch for that. :smile:

I was joking.

All of the comments you direct towards me are respectful and on point.

Remember that you are a nobody online. You are part of "the stupid people" that most everyone thinks everyone else is. :) — Philosophim

I love that line. And there is no end to the disrespect some feel entitled to heap upon a member of "the stupid people." Just like Facebook!

As a philosophy major, I was surrounded by faculty who considered the failure to be theirs' whenever a student failed to grasp the ideas presented. Sadly, that nurturing environment produced some thin-skinned graduates unprepared for the disrespect heaped upon "the stupid people."

Law school was a swift and brutal cure for a thin skin. :smile:

Arne, I'll try to write simple prose. Then blame me if it confuses you. Either way, I'll answer what you asked about God and heavy lifting when I doubt that it'll help me falsify Craig's brand kind of theism. — BillMcEnaney

I appreciate your reply though I was not expecting one at this time.

I will wait here until you are ready to present and argue your notion that Mr. Lane's "theistic personalism causes a vicious infinite regress".

I look forward to it.

He had all the symptoms. His primary concern was on the existence of the individual. Anxiety, dread, authenticity. . . . He was a significant influence on Heidegger.

Perhaps you are. I'm not ... — 180 Proof

Its the same when someone asks me if I believe in God, I generally and sincerely respond "sometimes". I enjoy reading Heidegger and Nietzsche, but I can find no reason to exempt either from the Nietzschean sense that perhaps its all an illusion. . .

I was specifically interested in the necessity of "jobs". This is considered central to social organization: — Vera Mont

Thank you. I was looking for some clarification along those lines. In some way, the generation of the need for jobs is more important to some than is meeting the need for jobs.

The interesting thing is that, despite their not using any modern technology and their scarce use of modern healthcare, they are both wealthier and longer lived than the general public. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Interesting. Does your knowledge extend to the issue of the distribution of wealth among the local Amish? And I wonder if the distribution has any significant affect upon the "social organization?"

if I knew what you were talking about, I might be able to agree or disagree. I might be willing to do some homework (such as read an article or two on each side of the issue) . But coming out of total ignorance regarding either side of the issue is a heavy lift. But I do have Google. . . But until such time as you can tell me what you are talking about or I can get a sense on my own, I can only rely upon my natural disposition and vehemently disagree. . .

and besides, an infinite regress would not be a heavy lift for God?

:wink:

essence becomes and is not 'what is' (e.g. will to power, freedom, or being-in-the-world — 180 Proof

I appreciate the reply, Arne, but I do not read these three philosophers this way — 180 Proof

I do not expect people to read them as I do. And your reading on the existence/essence issue is more dynamic and richer than mine and I adopt it.

But to say that existence precedes essence is to beg the question of what is the existence that precedes essence of the human. For Sartre, the existence that precedes essence of the human is freedom. For Heidegger, the existence that precedes essence of the human is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, the existence that precedes essence of the human is will to power.

And when the context is set by someone "trying to understand all that is existentialism" (Please see OP), putting teeth to the ambiguous notion of "existence precedes essence" is in order.

Similarly, to not say "human" existence and "human" essence when someone is "trying to understand all that is existentialism" is to risk the gravest of all existentialist sins, i.e., writing the "human" out of the equation, literally.

Perhaps I am an existentialist?

All the old references are Interesting of course but maybe - just maybe - existentialism fits better as a state of mind than anything else. — Metaphyzik

I do find it interesting that not a single arguably significant philosopher felt the need to define it. And sadly, defining terms for purposes of which philosophers meet the definition makes it easier to ignore philosophers that are likely worth reading.

"being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof

They are not synonymous and the lack of clarity is on me. For Sartre, human existence is freedom. For Nietzsche, human existence is will to power. For Heidegger, human existence is being-in-the-world. But no, Sartre's freedom is not the same as Nietzsche's will-to-power and neither are the same as Heidegger's being-in-the-world. I apologize for any confusion. .

Reason alone suggests that if human existence is X, then X is human existence. That does not mean that other entities might not exist in the colloquial sense of the term. But they are not using their terms in a colloquial sense and they do not equivocate.

For example, Heidegger identifies three modes of being (ready [or unready] to hand, present to hand, and existence). Heidegger assigns the term existence as the mode of being for entities having the characteristics of Dasein. (“That kind of Being towards which Dasein. . . always does comport itself. . . we call ‘existence’” Being and Time at 32.). By default, the mode of being for all entities not having the characteristics of Dasein is either “ready [or unready] to hand” or “present to hand.”

Existence belongs only and always to Dasein and Dasein is the only being that is and always is being-in-the-world. Existence is being-in-the-world. There is no wiggle room.

Anyone who spends time on YouTube nowadays, as I have come to do, will find there is an extraordinary amount of philosophical dialogue and cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary dialogue going on. — Wayfarer

It is a gold mine.

Is this the best possible social organization? — Vera Mont

I don't think the social organization is an accurate mirror of the employer/employee distinction. Economic status would be more accurate than employer/employee. There are thousands of millionaires who are employed by large corporations and they are not employers. My personal experience is that the same is true among lawyers and it is likely true among doctors. It just seems to me that the "social organization" resulting from the economic system has more to do with what you earn regardless of whether you are an employer or employee.

a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. — Chet Hawkins

That is good.

Only common concept is the supremacy of existence over essence and the existential crisis. — Abhiram

I often see the notion of existence over essence or existence preceding essence. Yet it seems to me that Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence. And even if that is the only common concept, it is a significant concept.

Given what I said before about N and K, I disagree -- existentialism can certainly be an activity or state, but it's also a concept -- and not less than an activity or a state. — Moliere

I agree. For Sartre, individual existence is freedom. For Heidegger, individual existence is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, individual existence is will to power.

he is talking about way more than art. he is talking about the reality of existence. and that is philosophy.

My interpretation is that he is saying that the formative forces of art (which he distinguishes as Apollonian and Dionysian) are the same forces that form the reality of the existence in which each and every one of us lives each and every waking (and dreaming) minute of our lives.

And that is bold and that is unequivocal.

It is my dinner time.

Yes, I have read and heard a lot about N and tried to read several of his works (Kauffman's mainly) - including Zarathustra, Human All to Human, On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil. — Tom Storm

I recently began re-reading Kauffman's book and thought I might as well read Nietzsche's publications in the order in which Kauffman discusses them. So I read for the first time The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and immediately re-read it two more times. It is fascinating and unequivocal. At first you think he is talking about art but then he says to the effect:

"The person of artistic sensibility stands in relation to these formative forces and the reality of art
as does the person of philosophic sensibility to these formative forces and the reality of
existence."

Where does this 28 year old professor of philology get off telling the rest of the world about the reality of art AND the reality of existence? And in such an unequivocal way?

But I could see in the book the kernels of his ideas regarding both the will to power and the eternal recurrence of the same.

A reading of him. Yep, ok. — Tom Storm

And by contemporary standards, he was a prolific writer and not a particularly systematic writer.

What is it intrinsically about making a claim of understanding Nietzsche that you take issue with? Also, are they all necessarily liars? Or are some merely mistaken? — Tom Storm

Experience tells me that ignoring my intuition is bad. As a result, when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. It is my intuition rather than a "claim" that is "intrinsic" to the situation. Though some could be mistaken, my intuition does not rest on the distinction and my experience tells me otherwise.

And of course I am talking about claiming to understand "Nietzsche" rather than claiming to understand what Nietzsche says regarding any particular issue.

There is a significant difference between saying my understanding of Nietzsche is X and saying I understand Nietzsche.

For me, claiming to understand Nietzsche is sufficient evidence that you do not understand Nietzsche.

And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.
— Arne

That's an interesting comment. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

I don't like liars.

You’ll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well. — Joshs

I do not know what a Nietzsche follower is. But you either read him well or you don't. Though I am confident that I know far more about Nietzsche than the average person (not including this forum), I would claim that I am not a Nietzschean but I do not know what that means.

I recently read the Birth of Tragedy for the first time and immediately read it two more times. And it was definitely worth the time.

He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. — AmadeusD

There is much truth to that. He definitely had issues and they came through in his philosophy. And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.

You begin with "On the Values Necessary for Thought" and end with 3 paragraphs on "Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom." And you raise many issues in between. I do not wish to discuss all the issues raised and I do not know which of the many issues raised is the one you wish most to discuss.

I too am concerned about the almost knee-jerk disrespect for those wishing to affirm or entertain the possibility of the existence of God. And my experience is that I receive more disrespect from those who consider themselves enlightened than from believers. Such disrespect is okay on Facebook. It is out of place on this forum.

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313 — Arne

— Joshs

Thank you, Josh My bad. I did not intend to imply that "freedom" is a term Heidegger never uses. But it does not carry the same gravitas for Heidegger as it does for Sartre. Not to mention, I have a deeper interest in Division One of Being and Time than Division Two. I should have taken more care with my answer.

Thanking you again.

.

Heidegger doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom and Being — Corvus

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313.

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

A sense of "evil" is a physiological phenomenon not limited to only those who experience evil. I have never experienced evil yet nonetheless have a sense of what it is. An evil act is repugnant to nature.

I am going to bed now.

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void?

And I concede in advance that natural rights, if they exist, are the rights of beings with minds and that is certainly where they are to be found.

So rather than inferior to or equal to the logical thought which philosophy uses to try to grasp it, it rather precedes it. — Noble Dust

Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that the formative forces of art and the formative forces of philosophy are the same.

I haven't considered him an artist. — Ciceronianus

Your OP is entitled the "Nature of Art." It would be a mistake to presume only artists have meaningful things to say about the "Nature of Art."

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Then you are correct, we have little to talk about.