What about this post made it especially important to register that it didn't apply to you? — csalisbury
Maybe, probably, this isn't exactly what you are looking for, but I think Nietzsche, if you can look past his elitism and self-mythologizing, is technically a very good philosopher. In fact he does exactly what you are getting at, shaving off the things that don't matter. That's what the (tuning)hammer was all about, to sound out idea's, so he could do away with the bad ones.
You decide on a measure (life-affirmation in Nietzsches case), evaluate different ideas by that measure, and discard the ones that don't stand the test. Seems to me you allready get this. — ChatteringMonkey
It is not just the strangeness, but the different strangeness. I have seen religious posts, and I can't identify, but I see perfectly where they are coming from and where they are headed to.
AHA! I got it. I can comment on ANY post. There is something in every post that touches me, even if tangentially, and lightly, but touches me.
None of that in your post. I am not saying the writing is foreign or nonsensical. Nonsensical, I can deal with. But yours has sense, and yet I can't deal with it. — god must be atheist
This is what I am talking about, Salisbury. ChatteringMonkey hammered the ideas into a recongnizable shape. "good philosopher", "do away with the bad ones", "decide", "evaluate", "discard". These are actions and judgments and solid, concrete things, even if conceptual. Your writing, Salisbury, did not hammer anything into anything; your perception and your reperesentation what you got out of ideas, how you see ideals, ideas, is not touched by hammering souls.
You see, I am already hammering your style or outlook into shape. That's what you don't do. This is at least one difference.
Another difference I can hammer out, is that you don't seem to NEED to hammer things into shape. That's even stranger than not hammering them into shape. — god must be atheist
What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do? It feels like the only thing to do is shave off everything that isn't touching on that, and find what works. But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible.
I guess the thrust of the OP is - does anyone else feel this, or have some suggestions? I feel like I'm at least in the airlock, but definitely not ready for outer space. — csalisbury
Like probably >80 percent of people on here, I was drawn to existential literature as a teenager. It can be a way of social branding, but still, before that, there's some draw to smart people who thought Wait, But This Isn't Enough, Are We Really All Ok With This? This can shade into pessmism (Schopenhauer especially) or shade the other way into heroic self-assertion (Nietzsche, especially) & both of those things make sense, for a time.
But they also butt against reality.
I don't think there's anything wrong with looking at biographical detail. Schopenhaeur was a sour son of a bitch & Nietzsche was locked-in hard to his own self-mythologizing. He was essentially alone. That doesn't negate their literary and philosophical genius, but it does (or should) make you think twice about taking life advice from them. (Joyces' A Painful Case does a better job of this than anything I can do)
It seems like Big, Magisterial Ideas often function like a smokescreen. The throbbing pain at the center of addiction asks that you do anything but feel it. The marquee addictions, like heroin, strut their function openly and unabashedly - the experiential Everything of them seems, for users, to speak for itself. And the idea of heroin addiction can always function, for those who haven't used them (like myself) as an 'at least I didn't go that far.'
But big philosophical ideas can also blur the lines. They elevate and leave the central wound down below. The world gets smeary, 30s' softglow. Plus, it offers control. If you can do arguments, that's a kind of power.
Still, the whole time you have to live. And, if you're hooked on ideas, the world is degraded in favor of those ideas (or good literary recaps) and you get more and more zoned-out. That's me in my 20s anyway.
What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do? It feels like the only thing to do is shave off everything that isn't touching on that, and find what works. But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible.
I guess the thrust of the OP is - does anyone else feel this, or have some suggestions? I feel like I'm at least in the airlock, but definitely not ready for outer space. — csalisbury
What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. That's hard - some inner instinct bucks and shies from that - but what else to do? It feels like the only thing to do is shave off everything that isn't touching on that, and find what works. But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible.
I guess the thrust of the OP is - does anyone else feel this, or have some suggestions? I feel like I'm at least in the airlock, but definitely not ready for outer space. — csalisbury
But the addiction is still there, trying to make things as abstract as possible. — csalisbury
Martial arts? They emphasize "no mind." — frank
Schop was a grandiose writer. That was the habit of philosophers in the 19th century. They forgot how to write with self-referential wit. That is what we do all day nowadays. You can probably capture the man's real daily life philosophy better in his personal letters. However, if anything, DESPITE Schop's grandiosity of theory, his theory well conforms to the naive psychology of everyday living- the textured one you are writing about here (or I believe you are getting at). His reality is the one of constant restless change, but change of mental states between really very basic things (what I further label as survival, comfort/maintenance-seeking, entertainment-to-avoid-boredom-seeking). That is it. Other than that we deal with contingencies that we face. I see the airy clouds of philosophy touching reality right there in his description of human nature, and the contingency of the universal cause-effect that we experience. What else do you want in a philosophy?
Nietzsche is a blowhard pompous ass. He wants you to embrace the suffering. Camus wants you to embrace the absurd. Schopenhauer isn't so forgiving. He complains and laments and says there's no real way out. He does dabble in ideas of Enlightenment through asceticism, but he probably knows that only a few can even get to that very rarified mental state (if it exists at all). Thus we are left in his schema with compassion and complaint-of-situation. That is what we have. — schopenhauer1
For those who see particles, the world seems more solid and easy to navigate - except that they can be battered or blindsided by change. For those who perceive the wave, it’s more blurry and uncertain, marked by indecision and too many options - except that they’re less surprised by the world when it changes, because for them this change is pervasive. The former despairs at a world that refuses to behave as expected, while the latter despairs at the amorphous uncertainty of how to live in a world without expectations. — Possibility
I think how we approach life will always be relative to where we are in our journey, so any techniques should be considered in that context. It helps to have a tether of some kind - at least at the outset. A concept that inspires your imagination as much as it informs your life, regardless of how the world changes. Then, like Descartes, you can question or dismantle everything else and rebuild a conceptualisation of reality from scratch.
My own tether began as a ‘spiritual’ connection to the world, but has since been distilled many times over. I am now absolutely certain only that something exists, and that something relates to that existence. That’s enough for me, now. Even god must be atheist’s expression that he cannot relate to your post is a relation in itself, and informs a more accurate understanding of reality that transcends your subjective position within it: that it’s inclusive of both particles and waves, as it were.
I guess what I’m saying is, your inner instinct to buck any established techniques on how to live is a recognition of this pervasiveness of change, but it needn’t stop you from structuring how you approach your life and then continually restructuring as new information comes to light. The idea that we have to be consistent in life is bollocks - we are a work in progress, after all.
If it helps, my own technique for how to approach life is to strive to increase awareness, connection and collaboration, despite the risks, recognising that the majority of the universe (including myself) will act instead to ignore, isolate and exclude. — Possibility
I very much agree with all that (I too am certain of something, and think it best to leave in abeyance what that is, as it seems you do). I'm definitely looking to slowly build a structure. Regarding the last paragraph: what you describe as a technique strikes me as something closer to a goal (or a guiding value, or a theme etc). I share these values, but how to realize them? — csalisbury
It’s quite common for people to view this technique as an end goal, or as something imposed on our actions from without. My view is that it’s an underlying impetus for all existence, and that we unlock its potential in the rest of the universe insofar as we realise it in ourselves. In other words, we reduce ignorant and exclusive behaviour such as racism by our capacity to increase our own awareness of why they act this way, increase our connection to them through this understanding, and increase our collaboration with them in ways that then increase their awareness, connection and collaboration with diversity. It takes longer and is risky, but it contributes far less to suffering than isolating or excluding racism, in my view. — Possibility
My first principle is: don’t be too hard on yourself.
Principle #2: don’t be too hard on the people you love.
Principle #3: Try to forgive those who have done you harm in life. (This one’s the hardest, but if you can’t do it yet, then first principle.) — Noah Te Stroete
A better way to say what I mean is: I'm searching for techniques to cultivate the 'underlying impetus'. That can look like removing blocks, or also ways of attending more attentively to our own awareness. The difficulty I've run into is: It's very easy to get separated from this underlying impetus, or to naturally decrease in awareness. Certain methods of trying to undo this can exacerbate the problem. My feeling, these days, is the more concrete you get, the closer you get to the spiritual. — csalisbury
A better way to say what I mean is: I'm searching for techniques to cultivate the 'underlying impetus'. That can look like removing blocks, or also ways of attending more attentively to our own awareness. The difficulty I've run into is: It's very easy to get separated from this underlying impetus, or to naturally decrease in awareness. Certain methods of trying to undo this can exacerbate the problem. My feeling, these days, is the more concrete you get, the closer you get to the spiritual.
— csalisbury
I’m not sure what you mean by that last sentence. — Possibility
I assume she's a woman — god must be atheist
Like probably >80 percent of people on here, I was drawn to existential literature as a teenager..... What I really want is techniques for how to live, and techniques for how to approach life as it is. — csalisbury
I think you may be building me up into an ideal and it may have something to do with
I assume she's a woman
— god must be atheist — csalisbury
I guess the closest thing to finding a home in words is Google's empty search bar. — fdrake
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.