Satisfaction is death. Get that, you get Schopenhauer.

But I reject him as being somewhat right about the premise and quite wrong about the conclusion.

He falls into the silliness of treating the mind as something substantively fundamental rather than a semiotic modelling relation.

Peirce fixes this ... by making even the substantive being of the cosmos a "pansemiotic" modelling relation. A dissipative structure in other words.

Don't waste your life on second raters. Go straight to the head honcho of modern metaphysics.

He falls into the silliness of treating the mind as something substantively fundamental — apokrisis

No, he really doesn't. I get it. You poo poo Schopenhauer. I think Deleuze was mentally retarded. We probably neither understand our scapegoats. I know you don't. :love:

A pretty pessimistic conclusion where the only alternative is to be ... a poet and philosopher. — apokrisis

Or not give a shit - this is always an option, surely? The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step (Casals), We are free to forge our own (perhaps limited) values and narratives in as much as this is possible (notwithstanding some inherited frameworks & untheorized howlers).

Roll on the PoMo revolution. — apokrisis

Can you, in simple dot points, articulate why such a revolution (do you mean transformation?) will help?

I know you don't. — Tate

But you still haven't done anything but assert you are right. You have failed to show me that you are right.

I agree I just by-pass Schopenhauer on the whole. Life is too short not to focus on the best ideas.

But your gloating is premature. You have done nothing to rebut my analysis.

Why would I bother?

Or not give a shit - this is always an option, surely? The situation is hopeless, we must take the next step (Casals), We are free to forge our own (perhaps limited) values and narratives in as much as this is possible (notwithstanding some inherited frameworks untheorized howlers). — Tom Storm

I agree that is hard to decide what to do with one's life given a clear-eyed view of its reality.

But personally, I reasoned that I just happen to have been born at what must be the very hinge of human history. We have the science to have a pretty damn comprehensive understanding of why anything even exists. And if you hang around to 2050, one can also see how the whole human adventure does, or doesn't, end.

It is the biggest show on earth, and maybe the cosmos. So there's a rather obvious project. Organise your life so as not to miss any part of this ultimate story.

Can you, in simple dot points, articulate why such a revolution (do you mean transformation?) will help? — Tom Storm

I meant the opposite. It is the compounding of the confusion dressed up as continental cleverness.

Between AP and PoMo, I choose pragmatism. :wink:

Why would I bother? — Tate

The question is what are you afraid of?

The question is what are you afraid of? — apokrisis

Nothing

Your bluff has been called. Time to deliver.

It is the biggest show on earth, and maybe the cosmos. So there's a rather obvious project. Organise your life so as not to miss any part of this ultimate story. — apokrisis

That's a genuinely interesting response. 'Ultimate story' sounds suspiciously like a grand narrative. But I have to say none of that matters to me. I am much more interested in making a cup of tea and sitting in the winter sun, listening to music.

I meant the opposite. It is the compounding of the confusion dressed up as continental cleverness. — apokrisis

Fair point. Sorry, don't know why but I thought you were a PoMo spear carrier.

Sorry, don't know why but I thought you were a PoMo spear carrier. — Tom Storm

:lol:

I reject him [Schopenhauer] as being somewhat right about the premise and quite wrong about the conclusion. — apokrisis

:clap: :100:

One of the main reasons morality sometimes wins out over economic flourishing is that the quest for more money eventually becomes hollow. Prosperity for its own sake isn't enough to sustain a culture's soul.

What is a man profited should he gain the whole world and lose his soul?

What about random violence against random people? Do you think we should feel free to be randomly violent and brutal with random people? And if you think we should avoid it, isn't it a moral principle you are advocating?

Do you think we should feel free to be randomly violent and brutal with random people? — Babbeus

No

And if you think we should avoid it, isn't it a moral principle you are advocating? — Babbeus

Yes

Why do you advocate moral principles if you think that morality is "only a encumbrance to life"?

Why do you advocate moral principles if you think that morality is "only a encumbrance to life"? — Babbeus

Some aspects of life need squashing.