If that was all you said - making that pragmatic point - then of course I agree. But I don't see where you have argued that society is a natural phenomenon, or that nature - and so the cosmos - might have a proper non-contingent purpose. — apokrisis
But I justified that in detail. You are simply asserting that I'm wrong without countering my actual argument. — apokrisis
So what I have objected to is the reductionist simplicity of your ethical conclusions and I have opposed them with the irreducible complexity of a holistic or systems view of existence. — apokrisis
My little joke. You exaggerate by calling life a burden. I say hey no, its a gift. But clearly - in saying that I am opposed to any transcendental framing of the human condition - I think the whole notion of life being "given" as either a burden or a gift is nonsensical in its invocation of some external telos. — apokrisis
So do you understand the fallacy? It applies just as much to taking the undesirable in terms of feelings to be "the bad". — apokrisis
At this point of birth into a particular society, are the individuals truly their own person, or are the simply perpetuators of the social relations?
So you already dismiss the alternative that the social relations are the source of the personal individuation? The capable individual is what society in fact has in mind?
So your claim was either/or. Either we are truly our own person, or we are simply helpless perpetuators. No middle ground. No interaction. Just a dualism cashed out in the familiar way - a mechanical and mindless world vs the Romantic "other" of the transcendent self. — apokrisis
These naturalistic philosophies irk me for partly the same reason Stoicism irks me. It's the idea that the stance we take must be one of bear and grin it. — schopenhauer1
Rather, the rebellious stance is not rejecting the intertwined nature of society and the individual, but sees the situation for the raw deal it can be....It is a difference on perspective of the system, not a difference of metaphysical position. — schopenhauer1
We do not have to be willing vessels of the system even though we must be a part of it while alive. — schopenhauer1
As Thorongil and I pointed out, the will-denying hero in this conception will probably never accomplish his goal, but his stance here is what matters. — schopenhauer1
One of the nice things about being a pessimist is that you have nothing to lose if you're wrong. — darthbarracuda
It is a difference at the basic level. It relies on the claim that there is this mythical "we" who "exist" in ontically separate fashion. Whereas I am saying that "we" is a social and biological construction. Romanticism literally was an idea whose history can be traced through modern culture. You can see people constructing the image and then trying to live the part. — apokrisis
And it wasn't a wrong response in itself. It was quite natural in that it was the social construction of individuals stripped down to devote themselves creatively to abstractions - like being heroes on a battlefield or economic self-starters. This notion of the outsider, the rebel, the uncompliant, the one who resists out of personal dignity - its all a bunch of social imagery dedicated to the furtherance of the cause that is modern society. Everything you so "celebrate" is the script being handed out to today's maintenance crew. That's the irony. — apokrisis
And there you go. The transcendent bit that completes your dualistic metaphysics. They can do everything to you ... but break your will. You can have the ultimate revenge ... of not believing the bastards. The self is ultimately not part of the world. It can stand outside and pass its (admittedly impotent) judgement. And for the Romantic, that is what counts. The inalienability of the subjective. The helpless martyrdom becomes the very proof of the metaphysics. They could do everything to control your being ... but they couldn't force you not to suffer! :) — apokrisis
But it is bad metaphysics even if cathartic as light entertainment. Whereas naturalism supports a culture of self actualisation and positive psychology - the cultivation of the habits of potency, the ability to engage with the world in socially fruitful fashion. — apokrisis
This is kind of full of shit.. You are not above the fray.. You betray your own Romanticism- it's just of a different kind, "the reasonableness of the system". It's as if you drank the Kool-Aid Bateson et al was passing out and you went off the deep end.. turning the circularity in on itself.. Romanticizing Peirce.. You don't even know what you mean anymore except you don't like the sound of pessimism because its dark and scary to you. — schopenhauer1
I don't see how the scrip of the "uncompliant" who does not further the position would be of much benefit.. If anything, it gunks up the works. — schopenhauer1
It's not a problem if its just a phase. Toddlers can be very uncompliant. But we expect them to grow up. Same with teenagers. And on the whole, noncompliance is superficial - a hairstyle, a dress code, a collection of slogans.
There is nothing as restrictive on your freedom as being a punk, emo, hacktivist, gender fluid, or whatever. Genres are particularly intolerance of true difference. Again a familiar irony of modern life. — apokrisis
To assume what we tend to do as a culture is what is right because it is what the culture expects us to do, is a circularity. — schopenhauer1
Unfortunately, since you can't really think outside the little box you made for yourself, you don't realize "rebelling" is not simply doing the "opposite" but rather the idea of not even considering it as the assumed position in the first place. — schopenhauer1
You're Brady (the bald guy) here.. Instead of the Bible, it is Systems theory.. — schopenhauer1
You want to divide the world up into opposing absolutes. The world being completely "the bad" is how you can - tragically/heroically - imagine yourself as the entrapped "good". The basic Romantic trope. Liberate me from this constraining world. — apokrisis
But I make the other case. There is no good and bad. There are instead only the complementary limits on being that seek their equilibrium. So at the level of human social being, those complementary limits on free action are the instincts towards competition and co-operation. Living well is doing both in the right way. Hit the balance and life feels great. — apokrisis
"Human existence is a penal colony; a sexually transmitted disease; a disappointment; nothing but suffering; “a sky-dive: out of a cunt into the grave”; a one-way ticket to the crematorium. “Nobody gets out of here alive”. Every day is a grim passage, a struggle through moments and hours of loneliness, boredom, emptiness, and self-loathing." — Colin Feltham
You keep trying to nudge these phenomenal experiences out of the picture as if they're not important or relevant to the discussion. — darthbarracuda
Blah, blah. Etc, etc. — darthbarracuda
So pessimism is based on the completely faulty notion of ending the pain inherent in living. But you can see how naturalism only wants to remove the accidental pain - so as to maximise the scope for purposive pain. And likewise, naturalism would want to remove accidental pleasures, to make pleasure properly purposive. — apokrisis
I instead understand my nature because I can see why pleasure and pain are psychically joined at the hip. Perfection in the real world lies not in one reigning absolute, the other banished from the kingdom. Instead to flourish is to live with that exquisite balance where you thrash yourself up mountains (both literal and metaphoric) as living hard is living best. — apokrisis
It's just as I've been saying from the beginning - affirmative morality is inherently aggressive and hypocritical, especially in regards to the edges of its domain. — darthbarracuda
So why don't we stop beating around the bush and admit and agree on this: life was never meant to be enjoyable and it's childishly absurd to believe the universe was meant to make us happy or comfortable. — darthbarracuda
I mean, I am a consequentialist. I'm not exactly going to endorse paradoxical agent-centered restrictions — darthbarracuda
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.