Those kind of things are not for me unless I have read the whole work beforehand. I might look at it further in a month or two because I will be focusing more onTheory of Mind stuff then.

I have noticed I tend to have a similar mindset to Frank so asked him.

My reaction to all of them.

1. I recall someone saying way back that the truer interpretation of Descartes was "I doubt therefore I am". Intention is merely a means of throwing shit at a wall and seeing what sticks. The information gleaned from such actions ripple out dependent upon our temporal attention. A child may have no real intention when throwing a ball other than 'play'. The excess energy/time is basically a kind of freeform 'experimental' moment (play).

Maybe this self is a result of the subject/object, cause/effect structure of thought. To explain a thing is to divide it into parts and then relate the parts. — frank

I think it is more or less a much further reaching aspect than that. I think how we can see chain reactions from a particular instances allows us to delineate some sense of 'self'. If we only think in of and about the moment there is no 'self'.

2.

It's directly known and language is a tool for expressing the (pre-existing) content of this internal realm. — frank

The old issue of what is meant by "language". If you are referring to this kind of here written form rather than something much broader, then no. "Language" is not really about expressing anything much, it is just a vehicle for passing information NOT understanding it.

I think this self might play a role in the emergence of a mechanical, materialistic perspective. The self, once broadcast all over the world as divinities, is now relegated to the nowhere of the psyche. It's either a soul that partakes of holiness, or it's a figment of the imagination, so this is the self of behaviorism. — frank

The preliterate aspects of so-called religious practices are key. It is all about mnemonics and imagination. Literacy helped in many ways and hindered in others.

3. I would just put it that the 'self' is underpinned by the temporal retreat of attention. We drag ourselves around imagined/representational 'landscapes' and when the agent absconds from the 'dragging' we possess self-realisation.

The "self" is then, basically, the experience of the temporally felt gap between loci. Think of memory palaces, flims or novels. They are contained as a whole and understand as a whole rather than as atomised words, sentences, characters, plots or themes. It is felt holistically as much as it is partitioned - yet in relation to - from the whole.

Obviously, a part is a part because we have a relation to the whole. If not we see nothing. Even an absence is a part of the whole because it is perceived as a hole not a whole.

Just read the opening section @frank should I bother continuing? 4 yrs late :D

I will at least read the closing remarks and see if there is anything there.

What translation are you reading? I have just downloaded copy of 2015 Wilder Publications

Presocratics, Philosophy of Religion and Mnemonics.

Several at a time practically always. Some I get through quicker than others though.

My rule is basically to try and read two or three different viewpoints on the same subject at the same time to weigh and value the ideas better, and to guard against instilling biases.

What was your main take away from it other than the style of writing?

Not in every area that really matters. Clearly, as I stated, the weight is on the western side in many degrees. If you are suggesting that Western culture (whatever that may be) is better in EVERY single way that matters I would want to see how you are calculating this?

A combination of elements for other societies around the world could easily be on par or even better.

One such example would be how well other countries around the world have managed to separate religion from state (China and Japan had to create a concept for Religion to talk about monotheistic traditions in the late 19th century). The west is pretty much detached from ancient traditions having had them wiped out by Romans and the Dark Ages. In Australia the culture has survived in spite of the attempts of erasing it during colonization. These are extremely rich and useful traditions that are going to change the face of education in the immediate future.

I am by no means stating that Western culture is anymore destructive or authoritarian than any other. I think it has a lot going for it. I have readily stated that some cultures are better than others. The difficulty is in showing how we can evaluate this in any objective manner.

I created a thread sometime ago regarding the premise of 'better languages' and it was met with equal hostility. Some people are just not willing to talk about such ideas.

I do think European Culture is probably better than US Culture simply because it is not anywhere near as homogenous as US culture. European culture is a patchwork of various traditions and ideas that have rubbed up against each other, and contended with each other (often violently), for millennia.

The biggest issue is defining what is meant by Western Culture and whether or not the term is at all useful.

Is supremacy, nationalism and imperialism necessarily 'bad'. I think not. Empires do good and bad, and possibly the 'good' may simply be a default outcome, rather than a purposeful aim, by constructing infrastructures (physical or abstract) that lead to overall societal goods.

I read it a while ago and only skimmed over it before I did the review. Certain parts I will need to read soon.

@Moliere My (long) rambling review of Byung-Chul Han's The Burnout Society

Bye for now.

I have a rule when someone talks what I consider to be complete nonsense OR is just out to provoke and ignore what is said. You will get no reply from me for 2 months (if you last that long on this forum).

Have fun! Hope you reign in your tone before they kick you out :)

Are western values beyond criticism?
And why is liberalism the arbiter of truth? — Swanty

When and where has this been stated by anyone here?

God prays to me. I just stopped listening ;)

Are you serious?? In terms of writing style schop and Nietzsche both write similarly aphoristically and with a lot of polemic. — Swanty

Deadly. I see what you mean I guess. Just do not agree overall.

Both Kant and Hegel were attempting to be as accurate as possible. It makes their work hard to read. Plus, they were both writing for fellow philosophers they were not writing novels.

Nietzsche and Schopenhauer share a bombastic tone.

I would argue that both Kant and Schopenhauer are far more practical and systematic in their approaches and have a pattern of thought and thinking that can be reasonably well mapped out. Hegel and Nietzsche on the other hand tend to use more obscure approaches, with Hegel offering up complex and highly intricate abstractions where Nietzsche opts for a text laden with metaphors and aphorisms that have repeatedly been misconstrued from one generation to the next due to the contrary and dense nature in which he writes.

If anything they are more different from each other than alike. The relationship between Schopenhauer and Nietzsche is simply due to being interested in a similar area of human life at a similar period in history. Other than bombast I see nothing similar in writing styles.

As for the intended audience or how old the writing,it matters not if it can be read in English. — Swanty

You really should take into account the culture of writing at the time written and who was meant to read it. For example, Plato only a century or two after the Sophists whom were the first to start writing outside of poetry and first started departing from mythological metaphors. Then there is the issue of translation (mistranslation) alongside the bias of appropriating modern cultural norms on those who lived two and a half millennia ago.

Communication is timeless. — Swanty

This is not an argument. This is an empty statement that persuades no one other than yourself or whoever reads into it what they wish to be true - which is part of my point about subjectivity in reading texts.

I would certainly agree that some cultures are better than others. Anyone saying otherwise is delusional. This is simple due to the fact that differences necessarily have different values. The obvious difficulty is measuring differing items against each other and this is why many abstain from commenting.

Whether the "Western" traditions are better than others is open to debate. Overall, I think yes. In many ways other cultural attitudes surpass more Western ideals. Undoubtedly there is an exchange where one set of views benefits another and so they assimilate or replace.

All cultural traditions have certain political prohibitions and taboos. Where the 'better' cultural traditions seem to excel is in how the breaking of these 'regulations' is handled.

Societies that expel or annihilate those speaking out against them generally fall. We need a Diogenes or a some form of courtly jester to humiliate us. I leave you with a poem I wrote some years ago:

Rompa Stompa

Aristotle chortles mimetic
a parody of a witless lick-spittle lampooned
comedy sculpts its laughter crafter
un-mastering the mastery of the masterly majesty.

Jesters gesture to the King
satire dripping they prance and fling
their sullied words in simian farce
un-mastering the mastery of their masterly majesty.

Chaplin clowns around his silent circus
flagellants of foolery slapped with wit sticks
raucously erupting Bacchus takes a bow
un-mastering the mastery of our masterly majesty.

Heads crack open with screams
beams split faces bringing to knees
the lesser man mocked and defrocked
un-mastered the master is regally flogged.

I find it bizarre that you equate Hegel with Kant OR Schopenhauer with Nietzsche.

It would make more sense to compare Kant with Schopenhauer and Hegel with Nietzsche (in terms of writing style).

I'm suspicious of long winded writers,it's like a long list of apologies and overwrought justifications,showing how the writer is unsure of his ideas! — Swanty

You should take into account the time it was written in as well as the intended audience. Kant wrote COPR for fellow philosophers of the time rather than for general public consumption.

Example:

Addendum, Plato can be really clear and poetic,and then really abstract in some dialogues! And I feel that is deliberate. — Swanty

This was written 2500 yrs ago, in a world we cannot really fully comprehend, in an alien culture and in a now dead language.

If it says "foreword by Graham Hancock" it is certainly not a stamp of approval!

You can live what you preach or you can keep preaching. No skin off my nose.

There is 'being alive' and there is 'living'. It is unfortunate you have not seen the difference yet. If you keep digging down you may, perhaps, come to understand things differently.

The ineffable. Does the ineffable have a place in philosophy? Does talk of The Middle Way or The Dao/Tao really constitute a philosophical position we can do much with?

Would your next step be to listen to the music teacher and resort to Aristotle's ethics in passive pursuit of some golden mean?

So you see a difference between a willing will and a striving will? How exactly are you differentiating between "strive" and "will"?

One must learn to work through boredom, as the strivings against boredom aren't going to get rid of the underlying striving Will at work. — schopenhauer1

This could be interpreted as 'will against boredom' yet you use 'striving'. I hope you see the problem here as if we are 'willfully' working against boredom we cannot also 'willfully' embrace boredom.

So ...

One must learn to work through boredom, as the will against boredom isn't going to get rid of the underlying will.

Work through meaning willfully? Can we work through something without willing it?

Ah! It is the Ergot theory one.

I think this is a tad more up to date and not at all speculative:

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World

Review by me here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMXgb2EIi7o&t=2s

Have you?

FWIW here's what artificial intelligence says — Gnomon

It is worth NOTHING.

The paths to heaven and the paths to hell all lead beyond both.

Trust me. He goes on to say that we should strengthen ourselves against boredom rather than end up as lone trumpeters only able to play one note, forever seeking comfort in the company of others to make music. Whereas if we stick to boredom we learn to make music alone and become an orchestra.

Because he also makes this remark:

When men of the better class form a society for promoting some noble or ideal aim, the result almost always is that the innumerable mob of humanity comes crowding in too, as it always does everywhere, like vermin—their object being to try and get rid of boredom, or some other defect of their nature; and anything that will effect that, they seize upon at once, without the slightest discrimination. Some of them will slip into that society, or push themselves in, and then either soon destroy it altogether, or alter it so much that in the end it comes to have a purpose the exact opposite of that which it had at first.

This alongside strengthening oneself against 'boredom'. The 'vermin' are trying to avoid 'boredom'.

Why does he promote 'boredom' as a means to fortify against 'boredom'? So as to better handle the inevitability of 'boredom'?

But here you are saying that boredom is something 'negative'? Schopenhauer said the opposite. I am confused as to what you mean?

Are you saying that our instinctual drives - as conscious existential beings - drive us away from boredom? You are talking about 'boredom' as a lack of 'satiation,' is this in your view taken from Schopenhauer's view or your own?

I understand that Schopenhauer has a somewhat contrary approach to boredom, saying that we should condition ourselves to it, yet also saying things like:

As soon as we are not engaged in one of these two ways, but thrown back on existence itself, we are convinced of the emptiness and worthlessness of it; and this it is we call boredom. That innate and ineradicable craving for what is out of the common proves how glad we are to have the natural and tedious course of things interrupted. Even the pomp and splendour of the rich in their stately castles is at bottom nothing but a futile attempt to escape the very essence of existence, misery. [...] That boredom is immediately followed by fresh needs is a fact which is also true of the cleverer order of animals, because life has no true and genuine value in itself, but is kept in motion merely through the medium of needs and illusion. As soon as there are no needs and illusion we become conscious of the absolute barrenness and emptiness of existence. [...] No man has ever felt perfectly happy in the present; if he had it would have intoxicated him.

It is amusing to see he assumes this last point. Clearly he has not felt this or he would be 'intoxicated'. Maybe he was not 'intoxicated' by boredom enough? Maybe he did not heed his own advice for long enough?

He discusses the Mysteries and also (from memory) their relationship to the ancient proto-Indo-European mystery cults that spread across the ancient world with the original Aryan peoples. — Wayfarer

I do not believe he covers this at all in The Sacred and The Profane. He certainly covers this kind of thing else where. Probably in A History of Religious Ideas?

Read it many MANY times already. I am familiar with Eliade's other work too - especially Shamanism.

What I read recently is a recent scholarly summation: Mystery Cults of the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden. It focuses on Greco-Roman cults.

There were several other mystery cults too. Many mention the Mother of Gods ... am I starting to wonder if this may have been a reference to Mnemosyne in some cases. I am trying to work in my own views of what this was originally all about though.

Just fishing for info really.

It would be unusual for someone to have NOT partaken in the Eleusinian Mysteries as a citizen of Athens. It was common place. I imagine it would likely have been mentioned if Aristotle had not, so I also speculated that he may have taken part but just that it had no real effect on him.

Well, I am not sure there is any clear evidence that Plato did either, but it is obvious enough to me he did (Cave Analogy).

Any hint at this either way is what I am interested in. It will be speculation either way.

Do you think such a mystical worldview is not characteristic of Aristotle's more mundane view? — Gnomon

Possibly. I am curious if anyone knows of any evidence.

It looks very much what you call "Will" is what I framed above as "Self".

The "biases," as you put it, would wrapped up in the "Seeking".

What is one attains 'enlightenment'? Is life bleak then?

In the mean time I think you might find this relevant:

https://substack.com/home/post/p-149797920?source=queue&autoPlay=false

Will do.

"Other" I guess. We demarcate ourselves by how far our sense of authorship extends. We are novelty and pattern seekers. The regular "thing" that steers through sense is "self" I guess?

What do you think?