This de-mystiquefying of reality I take to imply a transformation of the unconscious. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Well noted and well expressed. To become a rational secular blah blah blah is like emerging from a long process of the training of the unconscious, until it's hard to be afraid of the dark again or excited by ghost stories. Man becomes lord of this world, in his feeling if in no other way, by exterminating all the demons and fairies.

Excellent! Autopilot vs. Manual override. The point then is to become an automaton - we need to stop trying to wrest control of our minds + bodies from the unconscious.

Frued posited dream content to be a surfacing of unconscious material. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I see! There's hope then!

At times I miss the spring fairies - but the demons had to go.

Mystique provides inspiration - chanting Trumpsters at the heart of hystery [sic] decapitating the tyrant Pence, for instance.

Over the last decade I've discovered a healthier path to inspiration - Maslow called it the peak experience - via various kinds of meditation and pseudo-hebephrenia.

Now I see it's accurate to call it a healthier aura of world-mystique. One not so infused with the dark hazards of the archetypes - possibly. Unformulatable for the moment.

Well noted and well expressed — igjugarjuk

Thanks. :cool: It's been good getting to know you. Welcome to the forums!

The point then is to become an automaton - we need to stop trying to wrest control of our minds + bodies from the unconscious. — Agent Smith

Or a God who experiences everything brought to him by magic, as he desires, not realizing his body is hard at work making everything happen.

Or a God who experiences everything brought to him by magic, as he desires, not realizing his body is hard at work making everything happen. — igjugarjuk

Deus ex machina (automatons).

At times I miss the spring fairies - but the demons had to go. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Exactly. I was about 18 when Freud and other writers put the final nail in my sense of the otherworldly. I embraced the myth/theory of the world as an amoral or apathetic machine subject to law (manifesting a blind regularity, for reasons unknown and perhaps unknowable.)

Deus ex machina (automatons). — Agent Smith

OK, but I thought the gods just rode down on the machines, to save the day and help the author with a jammed up plot.

Thanks. :cool: It's been good getting to know you. Welcome to the forums! — ZzzoneiroCosm

Thanks for the welcome and the inspiring posts. You pick a nice variety of themes and authors.

OK, but I thought the gods just rode down on the machines, to save the day and help the author with a jammed up plot. — igjugarjuk

Trying hard to be rational vs. Effortlessly being rational. Wu wei! I'm getting mixed up...or not. Practice, practice, practice...makes perfect. We must develop good habits.

Trying hard to be rational vs. Effortlessly being rational. Wu wei! I'm getting mixed up...or not. Practice, practice, practice...makes perfect. We must develop good habits. — Agent Smith

Yes indeed! Good advice. I've only ever got good at things I liked doing. Yes, it required practice, but I only practiced enough because it was fun. So maybe the good advice is superfluous in some sense. Or could be replaced by "find something you like to do!"

find something you like to do! — igjugarjuk

:snicker:

Anyway, there is the famous phrase of a branch line from Kant to Auschwitz - about the connection between enlightenment and industrial genocide. I guess there is a connection, mostly chronological and geographical. But in that sense there is a 12 lane super-Autobahn from Nietzsche to the Nazis. Yes, they vulgarly misread and misinterpreted him. Or misreconstructed him - but can you misreconstruct, how would that be defined?

He did provide so much material for that particular misreading with his choice target of comfortable bourgeous liberalism and egalitarianism and that style of burning, fanatical, take no hostages style of preach..., sorry, writing. His railings against the fascist and stalinist hypocracies and sanctities would have been more refreshing and more useful, historically. But still, Mad Friedrich is truly a giant, a fundament of our confused Western modernity.

Good points on Nietzsche. Presumably many others had similar political thoughts, fantasies of the macho heroic Fight Club good ol' days. If Nietzsche wrote only this kind of thing, he wouldn't be remembered. It's because he was otherwise a genius that reactionary moments get attention. You may recall Ezra Pound's treasonous activity. There's an archetype even of the especially contentious intellectual who must take on their relatively enlightened peers (who can themselves be left to take on easier targets.) I recall that Nietzsche hated David Strauss, but it's hard to see why, or hard rather to approve his distaste, since Strauss was transforming crude unworldly Christianity into a secularized religion of progress (oh let them keep their little symbols, his Jesus was Satan.) And he was doing it successfully, patiently, from within the system, being read and reacted to (not without some risk).

Since Strauss is largely forgotten, I'll provide a substantial quote.

Though I may conceive that the divine spirit in a state of renunciation and abasement becomes the human, and that the human nature in its return into and above itself becomes the divine; this does not help me to conceive more easily, how the divine and human natures can have constituted the distinct and yet united portions of an historical person. Though I may see the human mind in its unity with the divine, in the course of the world’s history, more and more completely establish itself as the power which subdues nature; this is quite another thing, than to conceive a single man endowed with such power, for individual, voluntary acts. Lastly, from the truth, that the suppression of the natural existence is the resurrection of the spirit, can never be deduced the bodily resurrection of an individual.

...But do we then deprive the idea of all reality? By no means: we reject only that which does not follow from the premises. If reality is ascribed to the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures, is this equivalent to the admission that this unity must actually have been once manifested, as it never had been, and never more will be, in one individual? This is indeed not the mode in which Idea realizes itself; it is not wont to lavish all its fulness on one exemplar, and be niggardly towards all others—to express itself perfectly in that one individual, and imperfectly in all the rest: it rather loves to distribute its riches among a multiplicity of exemplars which reciprocally complete each other—in the alternate appearance and suppression of a series of individuals. And is this no true realization of the idea? is not the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures a real one in a far higher sense, when I regard the whole race of mankind as its realization, than when I single out one man as such a realization? is not an incarnation of God from eternity, a truer one than an incarnation limited to a particular point of time.

This is the key to the whole of Christology, that, as subject of the predicate which the church assigns to Christ, we place, instead of an individual, an idea; but an idea which has an existence in reality, not in the mind only, like that of Kant. In an individual, a God-man, the properties and functions which the church ascribes to Christ contradict themselves; in the idea of the race, they perfectly agree. Humanity is the union of the two natures—God become man, the infinite manifesting itself in the finite, and the finite spirit remembering its infinitude; it is the child of the visible Mother and the invisible Father, Nature and Spirit; it is the worker of miracles, in so far as in the course of human history the spirit more and more completely subjugates nature, both within and around man, until it lies before him as the inert matter on which he exercises his active power; it is the sinless existence, for the course of its development is a blameless one, pollution cleaves to the individual only, and does not touch the race or its history. It is Humanity that dies, rises, and ascends to heaven, for from the negation of its phenomenal life there ever proceeds a higher spiritual life; from the suppression of its mortality as a personal, national, and terrestrial spirit, arises its union with the infinite spirit of the heavens. By faith in this Christ, especially in his death and resurrection, man is justified before God; that is, by the kindling within him of the idea of Humanity, the individual man participates in the divinely human life of the species. Now the main element of that idea is, that the negation of the merely natural and sensual life, which is itself the negation of the spirit (the negation of negation, therefore), is the sole way to true spiritual life.

This alone is the absolute sense of Christology: that it is annexed to the person and history of one individual, is a necessary result of the historical form which Christology has taken. Schleiermacher was quite right when he foreboded, that the speculative view would not leave much more of the historical person of the Saviour than was retained by the Ebionites. The phenomenal history of the individual, says Hegel, is only a starting point for the mind. Faith, in her early stages, is governed by the senses, and therefore contemplates a temporal history; what she holds to be true is the external, ordinary event, the evidence for which is of the historical, forensic kind—a fact to be proved by the testimony of the senses, and the moral confidence inspired by the witnesses. But mind having once taken occasion by this external fact, to bring under its consciousness the idea of humanity as one with God, sees in the history only the presentation of that idea; the object of faith is completely changed; instead of a sensible, empirical fact, it has become a spiritual and divine idea, which has its confirmation no longer in history but in philosophy.

When the mind has thus gone beyond the sensible history, and entered into the domain of the absolute, the former ceases to be essential; it takes a subordinate place, above which the spiritual truths suggested by the history stand self-supported; it becomes as the faint image of a dream which belongs only to the past, and does not, like the idea, share the permanence of the spirit which is absolutely present to itself.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/64037/64037-h/64037-h.htm

If you know Feuerbach's work, this may sound familiar. His Essence was published in 1841, while Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil was out in 1886. Nietzsche is overall a more impressive thinker, but Feuerbach's character is unambiguously good (he's tonally more trustworthy, less of a creep and genius at the same time.) It's likely enough that Nietzsche famous as much for his faults as his virtues. That Fight Club shit is exciting. To some. For awhile.

What you say is true. On the other hand, can you cite legions of family, friends and acquaintances who frequent this website, ready to spout alternatives to the cultural conventions that guide our everyday lives? — ucarr

Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities.

Most of most people's time is consumed in more fruitful activities. — baker

Both of course and of convention, you're right. How many, for example, spend quality time pondering what it means, logically speaking, to ask a question? "Oh, gee, darling. You're such a peach you are. Might I have your name?" Trying to examine this, the Merlins of philosophy advise us, leads to a dead end word game of circular reasoning. Paradox. Questioning questioning is impossible, received wisdom assures us. The circle cannot be broken.

What level-headed bloke pursues this path when, instead, he could be sipping a cold beer and making time at the local bar? What right-thinking acer fancies word puzzles over collecting a few bucks at the race track? Even the puttering gardener who raises a few championship blooms has a leg up on would-be pundits entangled in thought puzzles.

No astute person can ignore the curse extending from Socrates to Nietzsche and, presumably, beyond.

I won't quibble with the obvious. The hardest thing for us to do, albeit the most natural thing for us to do, is be ourselves. Personal integrity - Darn it! - entails thinking your own thoughts and pursuing them into action as far as time and circumstances allow. But that's adventure. Well! Who's up for that? I ask, why strike out on personal adventure when, living in civil society, the only popular wisdom is that of the conventional variety?

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself": all this is easy. Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy.

Coming up with alternatives to mainstream views, philosophizing, questioning, doubting, "being yourself...all this is easy... — baker

Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? I ask because you say being yourself is easy.

...Developing a perspective on life and a course of action that will actually result in a life well lived: this is not so easy. — baker

Let me modify the above quote.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual. For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

The second part of your statement is good because it recognizes the limitations of individuality while valuing the collective wisdom of cultures and societies.

Have you encountered mountain ranges of new ideas for good living that aren't pro forma reiterations of proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries? — ucarr

Yet this is what some people are.

...Developing a perspective on your own life and pursuing a tailored course of action that closely fits your individuality will not be easy.

The modified quote is what I think.

You seem to think that only that which is _not_ somehow related to proverbs, aphorisms, biblical quotes, folklore, folk wisdom, urban myths, bawdy limericks, slang and the occasional citation from published luminaries gets to pass for "individuality".

I think that's an absurd standard.

To amplify, I believe nothing is harder than developing as an individual.

Sure, when the goal is set so high.

For starters, finding oneself is terribly difficult. This is so because, paradoxically, as selves we are almost nothing. Without the daily reenforcement of society, we quickly begin to forget our most basic attributes.

What do you think the self consists of?

What do you think the self consists of? — baker

For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12322/felice-by-180-proof

Is the OP's argument/pronouncement bases on Nietzsche's übermenschen concept? If it is, I'd say Nietzsche's "defense of slavery" rests on whether übermenschen refer to a certain race/people/tribe/group or to all of humanity. I have a feeling he was making a case for domination by the rich and powerful over the poor and weak. Isn't this how it always was, is, and will be (if we don't do something about it)? That is to say Nietzsche merely restated an already well-known fact. Why all the hullabaloo then? Perhaps where Friedrich Nietzsche differs from his predecessors is that he took a good look at humanity and while others saw illness and maladies he gave a clean bill of health. I dunno!

For a strong example of individuality (& its gnarly complications), please click the link below. It connects to a short story on this website by 180 Proof. — ucarr

It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out?

It's not clear what in this story sets a "strong example of individuality". Could you sketch it out? — baker

The guy's in love with the woman, but he thinks she had a fling with him on the rebound from her broken relationship with the father of Felice. Should he press his case for a love relationship between them? Should he respect her independence? Should he continue to protect his own self-respecting independence, rejecting his impulse to plea for her company? Who can answer these questions?

The intensity of the woman's rejection of the man's sympathy for her loss of Felice is telling. It suggests that much of what happened stemming from the one-night stand (?) that produced Felice is unresolved within the woman, including her feelings for the man.

We don't know if the woman is the type who could abort a child, but it might be the case that she bore Felice in part due to emotional attachment to her father.

This is a whirlpool of complicated emotions rubbing against each other intra-personally, inter-personally & also, the tectonic plates of emotion rubbing against those of underlying values & beliefs, again both intra & inter personally. Whew!

As per the above, I make my case, through this fictional story, to the effect that human individuals oftentimes are animated morasses of complications of complications.

As you can see from this argument, human individuality isn't simply about singularity, but also about the personal, the inter-personal, the social and even the cosmic.

By social convention, western philosophy is a punching bag for wits, with the public following suit. However, when philosophy is good, and written in the plain language of the common people, everybody listens because, underneath all of the pragmatical posturing, everybody holds interest in the big questions.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. How I, the individual, fit into the cosmos swirling around me is a lifelong journey without easy, formulaic answers.

These are reasons why it's not absurd to hold ALL humans to highest standards of individuality, seeing that's what they are. — ucarr

It's still not clear what those standards are.

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

What I've learned in our conversation - I go on at length when a brief statement will do; I indulge whimsy to the detriment of my position; I grossly exaggerate the cogency of my arguments; I sometimes promote language arts above logic; my imaginative sallies sometimes break contact with common sense. — ucarr

Not sure where this is going ...
I don't have much time for the forums. I don't even turn on the computer every day. I keep up via smart phone, but posting from that is too tedious. I think about the topics while washing the dishes or working in the garden, and think of the most concise way to address a point.

Alas, I have no didactic bullet list of individuality markers.

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word.

Well, you must mean something by "individuality" when you use the word. — baker

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation

First, to set the tone for discussing "individuality".

I want you to share your thoughts on the following three enemies of individuality.

Peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation — ucarr

I don't consider them to be "enemies of individuality" at all. One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation.

I exist, you exist, others exist, that's not a problem.

One's understanding of "individuality" must be very superficial, and one must think of "individuality" as something quite weak, if one considers it assailable by peer pressure; ad copy; disinformation. — baker

As I understand you, you're claiming a, b, & c cannot make concerted attacks upon the individual's power to choose freely unless individuality is understood superficially & characterized as weak.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c.

Please elaborate your program for nullifying a, b & c. — ucarr

By not regarding as self that which is subject to change.