Truth is of course person-independent, what's wrong with that? Man is not the measure of all things, that would be ridiculously anthropocentric, not to mention based on pure self-aggrandisement and selfishness. As harsh as it is, man is in this sense not the centre of the Universe.This is truth as an alien object. This truth is an asteroid in the dark of pre-human time. What can "faith" mean if religion is an obsession with this person-independent object? — t0m
No, it wouldn't follow that he who understands or knows the Truth thereby gets to call the shots. Calling the shots is a practical and political affair, which has little correspondence with what is True, but rather with persuasion and influence. Truth cannot compel.How does this not reduce religion to metaphysical arrogance? He who sees the Thing in its Truth gets to call the shots, right? — t0m
Paradoxically, it was Jesus and Socrates who believed in absolute truth, and those who killed them who didn't.He who questions the objectivity of this object is a blasphemer, a revolutionary. For him the hemlock or the cross? — t0m
Philosophical pessimism is a consequence of depression/anhedonia, and not the other way around. People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist
People don't get depressed because the world is bad, the world is seen as bad because people are depressed. — antinatalautist
return to the capitalistic death train — darthbarracuda
This may be the case for some, but in terms of philosophical pessimism, this gets the cart before the horse. If the world is seen as bad because people are depressed, we have to ask why people are depressed. Sometimes they have philosophical reasons that entail a depressive outlook, and pumping them with SSRIs and attempting to negotiate their return to the capitalistic death train doesn't address these reasons. It just ignores them. — darthbarracuda
Truth is of course person-independent, what's wrong with that? Man is not the measure of all things, that would be ridiculously anthropocentric, not to mention based on pure self-aggrandisement and selfishness. As harsh as it is, man is in this sense not the centre of the Universe. — Agustino
Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. Of course this isn't true in the physical model, but that model is one more tool for human purposes. And even your appeal to it manifests, in my view, human centrality. You use it defend a spiritual/metaphysical view that you are invested in. And I respond to defend my own spiritual/metaphysical position. It's a token in a dialogue about virtue. — t0m
I think you and I have had this conversation before. As envisioned by Lao Tzu et. al., It is we humans who bring the universe into being out of non-being. In my view, that makes the universe half human. — T Clark
Yes, in the sense that the nature of Justice does not depend on what X or Y think about it (only sophists would say otherwise). That's exactly what Plato, Jesus, Socrates, etc. argued for and proved. But obviously, there can be no sense of justice in a lifeless universe (if such a thing as a lifeless universe can even be conceived :s ) - but that's simply because there would be no people for justice to apply to.Is there a person-independent truth about justice? Or about truth itself? Is there a person-independent truth about virtue? Do justice, truth, and virtue exist in a lifeless universe? — t0m
So if man does the measuring, how does it follow that man would be the measure of all things? It's entirely unrelated. I can do the measurement with reference to an external standard - in that case, I wouldn't be the measure of all things, even though I am the measurer.How do you know that man is not the measure of all things? Do you not 'measure' our situation yourself here? — t0m
No, we don't, I'd say we find that some things are virtues and others vices. Even if everyone considers X to be a vice, for example, they could be wrong. This fact alone shows us that what people think doesn't determine what is a virtue or a vice, for if it did, then it would be inconceivable that they are wrong.It's we humans who make it a virtue or a vice, who use it as a token in our dialogues. — t0m
So this image of the ideal human is just given? Or how is it established?I agree with Blake and Feuerbach that our conceptions of virtue and the transcendent must be founded on an image of the ideal human. — t0m
There's a big gap from God being limited to the human form, and God making no sense to us. It's not a black and white issue.A lovable, loving God only makes sense as a disembodied human, the "Human Form Divine." Or can we sincerely worship a being that makes no sense to us? — t0m
I think that's an absolutely wrong understanding of the situation. After Kant there were two continuations of the Kantian project. Schopenhauer and Hegel. I think that Hegel placed man back at the center of the Universe, while Schopenhauer placed the Will there, which is a meta-human principle.Along those lines, I suggest that man is still the center of the Universe. — t0m
We are all trapped in depression for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their depression. — Agustino
There are also healthy people, but they are not here. — Agustino
We probably never met a healthy person, because Western society has become very corrupt. We look around, and there are only blind men leading the blind. It is our historical era. — Agustino
t is like looking at a red vase, and suddenly seeing it yellow. This is the radical cognitive change the whole Western world is looking for, scrambling for, and unable to find it. It is not a different experience, but a different way of experiencing. — Agustino
It is kind of like t0m's philosophy if you look at his responses. He is trying to out Schopenhauer Schopenhauer by embracing the instrumental nature of things. Pain is good because it is challenging, so the line of thinking goes. If you were to Eternally Return to life over and over and over, you would say a resounding YES. These themes of embracing pain as it makes you better, and the Eternal Recurrence are Nietzsche's ideas essentially. He is trying to meta the meta, if you will. As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get any (metaphysical) rest. Also, to say that the challenges of life makes one better, seems a coping mechanism. Why do people need to be born to face challenges in the first place?
So Nietzscheans go on trying toincorporate challenges, set-backs, and suffering into the hope-cycle. Nietzsche was the ultimate in doing this, thus his wide appeal. A philosophy for the manically life-affirming- like someone who had a lot of cocaine and wanders the mountainous Swiss countryside for a half day and then goes back to the realities that are life and lives out what is really going on- the instrumentality of doing to do to do- surviving, discomfort, boredom, hope-cycle repeat. — schopenhauer1
Again, the instrumental nature of things makes this line of thinking suspect. It is post facto rationalizing of a situation that is already set from circumstances of birth. It is the only thing to say in the face of this, even it is just a thing to say, as there is no alternative except seeing it in its truly negative light — schopenhauer1
That is not going to be an option for most people. — schopenhauer1
I also want to be delicate about this issue because I don't know your state of mind. — schopenhauer1
I'd say there is some comfort in understanding the aesthetics in what is going on. t0m does have a point in terms that there is a dark sense of consolation in the knowledge of the instrumentality. The hard part is maintaining the vision without backing down, without letting the burn force you into a Nietzchean mania, or trying to ignore it and anchor yourself firmly in the goals. — schopenhauer1
Asia.Where are they? :-| (you mean they don't post on this forum?) — Noble Dust
Most of those are weak mentally too. They just never face up to the issues in question. Not fighting and running away isn't the same as being strong.Nah, I've met people who seem to have a good amount of mental health. — Noble Dust
Why?That metaphor is unconvincing; you'd need to try something else. — Noble Dust
Except that broken legs are a physical condition, and depression is mental (some is physical too, but not in all cases).If someone said to you "my leg is broken! Help!" would you then say, "We all have broken legs for one reason or another - some are just less aware of their broken legs." — Noble Dust
Asia. — Agustino
Most of those are weak mentally too. They just never face up to the issues in question. Not fighting and running away isn't the same as being strong. — Agustino
Why? — Agustino
Except that broken legs are a physical condition, and depression is mental — Agustino
What is metaphysical rest? — Noble Dust
How does saying "the challenges of life make one better" equate to a coping mechanism? What is a coping mechanism? — Noble Dust
Why do people need to be born to face challenges? They aren't. People are born. Challenges crop up. There's no epistemology as of yet, given those two circumstances. — Noble Dust
What? — Noble Dust
Why champion nihilism and then say this? — Noble Dust
So what's the point for you? The telos? — Noble Dust
Yes, but it's not always something physically wrong with the brain. And even if there is, the brain has neuroplasticity, it can physically change itself with mental exertion in some circumstances.Mental illness is of the brain. — Noble Dust
It's not unrealistic at all. Snapping out of depression is like hitting a switch. I know, because I've experienced it. The same thing looks different after.Because it's unrealistic and phantastical. — Noble Dust
Death. Non-existence. — schopenhauer1
death.As I responded to t0m, this philosophy seems abhorrent to me. That conception would mean we would live an Ever Vigilant Existence where we never get — schopenhauer1
A coping mechanism is a way that humans deal with negative emotions, negative experiences, negative situations. — schopenhauer1
No No. This is from the parent's point of view. — schopenhauer1
(or whatever interpretation of that loaded word you are using)? Suicide is not an option becaus — schopenhauer1
uicide is not an option because most people have a strong impulse to live despite pain or negative view of life. — schopenhauer1
I'll have to explain that later. Too much gathering of my thoughts for that right now. — schopenhauer1
Yes, but it's not always something physically wrong with the brain. And even if there is, the brain has neuroplasticity, it can physically change itself with mental exertion in some circumstances. — Agustino
It's not unrealistic at all. Snapping out of depression is like hitting a switch. I know, because I've experienced it. The same thing looks different after. — Agustino
Okay, I don't care if I'm wrong. So be it.I've never experienced that, so by your own logic, you're wrong. — Noble Dust
I agree, but I wanted to highlight that depression is not always traceable to one specific cause. My depression, after long, detailed analysis done by yours truly, does not avail itself to one simple cause. I was trying to highlight that point with my comments. That probably wasn't clear. That's a trait of depression, it seems; we try to highlight our own experience at the expense of the experience of others. See my harsh comment bellow... — Noble Dust
Okay, I don't care if I'm wrong. So be it. — Agustino
I recently listened to it, and I found it interesting. He's in many ways right that having someone who unconditionally believes in you is really good - if you don't have that someone, then you must believe in yourself, unconditionally.I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I was trying to highlight the subjectivity of depression.
What's the point of posting the Shkreli video? Especially since he says he doesn't have major depression? — Noble Dust
Yeah, I never really thought about it, but it's true when I do think about it based on my experience.It took that guy to make you realize that? (seriously). :s — Noble Dust
In my experience, it works.Will this be successful? — Noble Dust
Yeah, I never really thought about it, but it's true when I do think about it based on my experience. — Agustino
In my experience, it works. — Agustino
I never really had someone who believes in me - that's how I ended up believing in myself in the first place. No one else would, and I needed it. It does help if you have a self-belief, like Schopenhauer did, in your own genius - that can pull you through many things.I didn't mean to be condescending there, but that theme of lacking someone who believes in you has been a major theme in my life, so I made the assumption it was obvious. Learning about that constantly... — Noble Dust
In that it keeps you going. It keeps you hoping for a great future even when your present isn't so great.In what ways? — Noble Dust
I never really had someone who believes in me - that's how I ended up believing in myself in the first place. No one else would, and I needed it. It does help if you have a self-belief, like Schopenhauer did, in your own genius - that can pull you through many things. — Agustino
In that it keeps you going. It keeps you hoping for a great future even when your present isn't so great. — Agustino
Yeah of course. The point of self-belief is that it doesn't matter what others think.But I do still believe in my own genius; I just don't much care if others think of me as such. — Noble Dust
Not yet at least. It is necessary but not also sufficient. To get far you have to find a way that works. How can your music reach a wide enough audience? Who would recognise your music as great? How can you make people love it? A lot of this is marketing, and not really making music. Without the right marketing, even the greatest music will remain unknown.Interesting; I had a really great percussion teacher, but other than that, not much. But I did develop a belief in my own musical genius. But it hasn't gotten me far. — Noble Dust
Not yet at least. It is necessary but not also sufficient. To get far you have to find a way that works. How can your music reach a wide enough audience? Who would recognise your music as great? How can you make people love it? A lot of this is marketing, and not really making music. Without the right marketing, even the greatest music will remain unknown. — Agustino
death. — Noble Dust
I know. I intuited that you meant something negative by saying "coping mechanism". But that's not always the case; sometimes experience presents us with unimaginable shock; PTSD, for instance, or sexual trauma as a minor. In these instances where the offense is incalculable, a coping mechanism isn't a balm to unwilling eyes; it's a balm to an uncomprehending mind. The balm, here, is categorically good. — Noble Dust
Since when?? — Noble Dust
I'm using it via my interpretation of what you're saying specifically in this thread. — Noble Dust
Why? — Noble Dust
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.