A friend of mine is probably the closest artist I know to channeling some Nick Drake currently. This isn't his Drake-est song, but really needed to listen to this tune, and didn't even realize it:

https://willstratton.bandcamp.com/track/yeah-ill-requite-your-love

Possibly my fav Nick Drake recording:



Those are some gnarly chords, and in 5/4 time.

remain you and be proud of being sensitive! Be proud to care about others and how we all work to get along! — ArguingWAristotleTiff

:heart:

The extremes are always logical extensions of 'normality'. This is what we have made; these are the values we live. — unenlightened

. It's more about not having a reasonable opportunity to gain self-respect. It's about lack of work, or bad work. It's about being devalued and not being treated as a worthwhile person. It's being discarded. — Bitter Crank

These are a few aspects of the issue that I was drunkenly trying to illustrate last night. Apologies to @StreetlightX and @Akanthinos, although I still find your disparaging comments about these people reprehensible.

Delete

That's what I'm saying...although less nuanced... *hoot*

Wow, such a quick change from fake concern to disdain. As I expected, from reading your posts.

*cries river*

My sensibilities for scumbags are the same as my sensibilities for fundamentalist lunies as yourself. You're beautiful human beings. I mean that sincerely.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is what I quoted. You don't see essential worth in human life, per your own admission. So of course you don't see essential worth in the human life of perpetrators of moral wrongs. So you see them as less than human. That is profoundly, tragically, unbearably wrong.

So yeah, I'm not ok.

You see essential worth in human life. I dont, and Im honest about it, at least. — Akanthinos

Still profoundly disagree here.

Oh right, I forgot you're a mod (why would I forget that anyway?); You can just ignore litigate questions. :rofl: Power is truly beautiful.

I have no qualms about stating the fact that, once someone has moved past far enough the (admittedly hazy) moral frontier, then I stop caring entirely about their continued existence. — Akanthinos

That is a truly dehumanizing and tragically immoral position.

Why? Really, why.

Fuck all of them. — StreetlightX

No. Fuck no one.

None of which is say, by the way, that this absolves society from taking a good, long, hard look at itself and the way in which it narrativizes sex and sexuality. Incels are as much symptom as they are gangrenous disease, which is main point that the article in the OP rightly presses upon. But yeah, no sympathy for those shitcunts. — StreetlightX

So if incels are as much symptom as disease, then why are they shitcunts? Poor form, mod. Again and again.

:preach hands emoji:

I felt similarly sick reading this thread, so thanks for giving voice to that; I wouldn't have otherwise responded because I don't think I have the philosophical background to make an informed comment. But the only thing that really bothered me was this:

pathetic non-beings — Akanthinos

Akanthinos, you're relegating actual human beings to the dubious state of pathetic non-beings based on...what?

Your glib scorn makes me sick. — T Clark

Agreed.

I would say pessimism might be a middle stage that begins with romanticism. That's all I've got so far...

In my own experience, the dreamworld of sex, drugs, and shoegaze is pretty miserable, and the glimpses of reality I've had have been nothing other than complete peace. Reality seems illusive and not inherently tied to "life", like the rose garden in the first stanza of Burnt Norton in T.S. Elliot's Four Quartets. Probably not the answer you were looking for, but whatever.

But also, isn't comfort ultimately miserable?

God, why is this song so perfect? I recently finally figured out what it is after hearing it now and again for years. It's too good. Utter pop perfection. Why??? Ughh

Now I'm hungry

*unsheaths sword*

Nonsense @Posty McPostface, I'll protect us both with my sword.

Wisdom is basically knowledge. — TheMadFool

That seems a very unwise position.

does the whole exist for the benefit of the parts or do the parts exist for the benefit of the whole, — Cavacava

I don't have an answer, necessarily, in regards to the artisan. I suppose the "whole" of a loaf of ["whole-wheat"] bread is the nutrition and sustenance. Some parts of that are the flavor and texture, and the aesthetic of what the loaf looks like. Is it a cheap mass-produced loaf from the supermarket? Is it a fancy, expensive artisan loaf with perfect little crevices and colors? Was it an imperfectly shaped loaf made at home by someone who loves you? These are all aesthetic considerations of the loaf. Is that what you're getting at? If so, I'd say the parts serve the whole, when it comes to the utilitarian artisan. The parts still have value in themselves, though.

But it's not clear to me when it comes to a painting, or a piece of music. What is the "whole" here? I don't know. The artwork doesn't have a clear utility (nutrition). Nutrition of the spirit, maybe? An attempt to create "actual being" that fails?

By the way, I don't think I responded to your response to me, sorry. I'm too lazy to drag up the Berdyaev quote, but my understanding is that by actual being (that was a paraphrase), he meant Being, capital B, in a philosophical sense. I interpret it as the creative urge as a literal urge to create Being in the way the divine ("God") created being (thats the worldview Berdyaev is working from). And that urge is always a failure. I should drag up the quote because it's hard to wrangle with.

Edit: I'm currently searching through my unorganized stacks of books which are in front of my organized bookshelf for the Berdyaev text...

Isn’t the aesthetic of an artwork something different? It serves no utility, unlike the work of the other artisans you mention, Cava.

thus intuition is only a beginning and not an end. — Mayor of Simpleton

I'm getting a little frustrated here. Nowhere did I say intuition was an end. You seem to read into my argument a lot. So do you consider reasoning a beginning, an end, or what?

Sure it might not seem so inspired or magical, but I'm more concerned with outcomes than appearance. — Mayor of Simpleton

Again, "inspired or magical" is a pretty uncharitable response here, simply based on the tone. Do you really think that that's why I'm placing importance on intuition? Do you think that's why @Janus is making an argument in regards to intuition? You seem to have a charicature in your mind, probably based on those days in which you placed importance on intuition, of what people who place value on intuition are like. And furthermore, a feeling of "inspiration" (not sure what "magical" means) is natural when the intuition is used. I openly take that feeling for what it is and listen to it; I don't disparage it.

This is all fine and good, but how exactly is intuition not a conclusion? — Mayor of Simpleton

Ugh...again, where did I say intuition is a conclusion? What does that even mean? It doesn't even make grammatical sense.

Also, since it is intuition and not a process of critical reasoning, how is this not a conclusion founded upon a very small sample size of information; thus a hasty (aka forced) answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

Intuition deals with the immanently personal; sample size isn't important. You're using the rules of the game of reason to try to eliminate intuition (which doesn't play by reason's rules in the first place), from whatever game it is you're playing here. Essentially, intuition can never have a place in that game if the rules of intuition aren't allowed into the ring. If intuition has to play by reason's rules, then intuition is indeed worthless, which is basically what you're trying to set up here. But again, that's an uncharitable charicature of what intuition is, and it reveals your own lack of intuition.

Wisdom moves from the past into the future. But the future is not like the past except in the mundane sense of things always falling to Earth (gravity). What I mean is wisdom gets outdated so fast that it becomes pointless to acquire it. — TheMadFool

Can you make an argument for the idea that wisdom moves from the past into the future? To say that wisdom gets outdated fast is to basically say that wisdom doesn't exist, which is fine if you want to make that argument. Otherwise though, I can't see how that idea makes any sense; it's essentially a non sequitur.

Woof!

J — Janus

:rofl:

In any event, I still cannot help but believe that intuition alone is hasty.

Bad reasoning is still a form of "exhaustive steps" in reasoning; thus the errors can be exposed and the reasoning refined. Without the "work" of these steps how is a lack of steps really better other than it having the ability to speed up a process, by skipping steps? — Mayor of Simpleton

I never tried to argue that intuition should be used "alone", or that it was better; I've already stressed that. Or, if something I said led you to believe that I think that about intuition, then I didn't word it right. The whole point I was making is that both intuition and reason are valuable. I'm making that argument because you don't seem to consider intuition valuable.

I feel no need to be charitable here. I feel more a need to be accurate as to the nature of intuition no matter how brutal it might appear. — Mayor of Simpleton

I said your interpretation of intuition as "forcing an answer" was uncharitable, because it's inaccurate. Maybe uncharitable isn't the right word; it was just an inaccurate interpretation of what I mean by intuition; it seems like you haven't given much consideration to what I'm saying intuition is, and what it's function is within the larger scheme of thinking. Or maybe I just haven't given a good enough picture of what I think about that.

Basically that's where I landed in my investigation and I'm still curious I what direction and where the next bits of info will lead me. — Mayor of Simpleton

I'm more interested in Charles Ives than Carl Sagan, so maybe that's where we have an issue here? Indeed, music, especially the music of someone like Ives, is pretty much the supreme fusion of reason and intuition.

Real philosophy is...wait...

I was thinking more in terms of the therapy I've had myself, but sure, it could be prophylactic.

Yes, reason can't change a person's life, qualitatively. If you're addicted, depressed, emotionally paralyzed, then reason won't help you. Philosophy as a whole, if you're of sound enough mind to interface with the concepts, can, at best, give you a deeper understanding of thinking, and maybe the human condition as well.

I don't treat philosophy as therapy, though. I treat it as a way to sharpen the sword-brain, if you will. Or at least, that's how I treat it now-adays.

It's interesting, because that makes total sense; get stuck in pessimistic thoughts = gravitate to the pessimists. But for myself (and I'm sure for others) it's been the opposite; I get stuck in pessimism and nihilistic thoughts, and it just makes me crave the sort of "sacred" optimism of certain thinkers. But this is obviously because of my religious background; I'm craving the certainty of a religious truth. But philosophers like Berdyaev and Maritain, and the Christian mystics, who have ultimately optimistic views, are actually the thinkers I turn to when I'm in the worst depression. But I can't see how either approach might be better; it can be equally unhealthy to turn to pessimism or optimism in those circumstances... again, the issue seems to come down to action. If neither approach can lead to real action in the real world, then?...But what can catapult action in the real world, when depression is preventing action? Again, not just ideas, not even optimistic ideas.

I believe that one ought not to jump too deep into the pessimism, nihilism, and absurdism rampant in philosophy. It seems like every other day we get a thread about the need for therapy instead of dwelling on the sad and negative emotions. — Posty McPostface

I just re-read through, as I tend to do (because I tend to respond too quickly), and I think you edited this, right? It's interesting you bring up nihilism and absurdism, things that I don't think I would say are rampant on the forum, but definitely present. As far as I can tell, these perspectives are a cocktail of inner anguish, simple ignorance, and the blotation of academic philosophy into a masturbation contest, like you hinted at. Nothing about those views has anything to do with real life...until academia inevitably bleeds down into real life...

I don't know that I would characterize the corpus of Western philosophy as a whole as pessimistic. For myself, I've found that inner anguish lead me to philosophy, which lead to a sharpening of my ability to reason and intuit, and think. My life hasn't gotten better since getting into philosophy, but that's because of my own poor choices and character deficiencies. Maybe that's the limit of philosophy, per academia. Academic philosophy, as much as I've tasted, has helped me think. Thinking as is doesn't help one live life. Thinking needs to have a motivation which prompts action. Philosophy itself is never enough to prompt action.

See, and this is in my opinion the problem with philosophy or continental philosophy. Namely, that that inner anguish serves as a volition to create a world view (through intellectualization and emotive reasoning) via philosophy. Not all philosophers fall into that trap, as Wittgenstein did not; but, some never recover (Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, nihilism, pessimism, and so on etc.) — Posty McPostface

Can you blame anyone who experiences inner anguish to want to formalize a worldview? What's another way to respond to inner anguish in which a worldview isn't subsequently formed?

Well, this runs deep into what I fundamentally believe philosophy is to many (not all!) people. A coping mechanism meshed with a large amount of the defence mechanism of reality manifest in intellectualization. Some call it mental masturbation; but, I digress. — Posty McPostface

There's certainly plenty of mental masturbators around these parts. That's not the same as real inner anguish, though; quite the opposite...

I just want to read something inspiring from Wittgenstein instead of the constant deepness present in all his remarks about language, reality, and the world. — Posty McPostface

Surely there's other folks to turn to for inspiring quotes other than Witty.

Why is that too bad?

The "goal" depends. The conscious goal of the artist? Sometime's there isn't one. The metaphysical telos of art in general? Big shoes to fill, no? I like what Berdyaev said about art, paraphrasing: "art wants to create actual being, but fails." Art has the divine creative urge, to create being itself. Laughable or controversial, maybe, but real.

Even for myself, my motives for making art depend. I will say, in leu of the Witty quote I just posted to the TPF Quote Cabinet, that the music I've made that I found to be the most personally satisfying and cathartic was the work that was the most personal and honest, as cliche as that is. The personal goal, for me, of making music is to go deeper and deeper, both into myself as I evolve (or devolve), and also into the medium that I have available to me. To explore my own being concurrently with exploring the medium, and to explore how the two interact, and how they interact with the world. All of this is a product of the world around me; the world and the life I find myself in dictate how I respond to the medium, and to what extent I can go into myself to pull a piece of myself out and transform it into something.

Rediscovered this recently. File under "what is wisdom?"...

“If anyone is unwilling to descend into himself, because this is too painful, he will remain superficial in his writing...If I perform to myself, then it’s this that the style expresses. And then the style cannot be my own. If you are unwilling to know what you are, your writing is a form of deceit.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein

I can't really agree with the conclusion, as with intuition that there is a potential (and probable) set of mistakes and false assumptions waiting to happen that lead to a further continuation of mistakes and false assumptions that intuition can subsequently deny that the mistakes and false assumptions are to it's credit by lack of reasoning as there no point in reasoning why intuition might have flaws. — Mayor of Simpleton

That may be the weakness of intuition. Consequently, the weakness in reason is that every step of the reasoning process has to be correct for the conclusion to be correct. Reason has the benefit of exhaustivity and finality when the steps can be reasonably shown to be correct (and how often does that happen? Just read a reasoned debate on this forum for the answer. Or just read a bunch of different philosophers who disagree with each other); intuition, on the other hand, has the benefit of knowing the conclusion without taking exhaustive steps that need to be perfect; Intuition has the potential to avoid the mistakes in reasoning which lead to badly reasoned conclusions. Hence, one is not better than the other.

Indeed intuition can mean what one cannot know by reasoning, but how is that any differenct than forcing an answer to a question prematurely (a hasty generalization) for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

I think you missed the poetic license I used (sorry, was being intuitive for a sec...) I'll translate: "reason doesn't know what intuition means when it says something (Reason: "Hey intuition, what do you mean by that?"). But intuition means (poetic dictionary definition): "that which reason doesn't know". It was an example of something poetic expressing a truth in a way that reason can't.

OK... perhaps intution means this well with it's intentions, but is it really prudent to force an answer for the sake of having an answer? — Mayor of Simpleton

You misunderstand intuition if you think it means forcing an answer. That's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of what I've been trying to express.

Is there (in your notion) some sort of (metaphysical) the truth that is intrinsic to the universe or our experience of the universe? — Mayor of Simpleton

My intuition says "yes"; my reason says "???"

btw... I do need to make clear that this is not a game or a competition. I view this as an exchange of ideas. There are no trophies or medals to win in such a dialog. If you do view this as a game or competition then let me know and I'll end this now. — Mayor of Simpleton

If it came across that way, then I was probably either agitated by feeling misunderstood, or slightly tipsy. Either one is very possible. Apologies.