A 'disembodied philosophy' is – has always been – incongruent with embodied agency. Mishima's correct: idealism is full of Scheiße yet lacks an asshole – at least as far back as "Plato's Cave" – the ideology of ruling classes (i.e. dominance hierarchies e.g. capital), conttra self-governing politics.

A 'disembodied philosophy' is – has always been – incongruent with embodied agency. Mishima's correct: idealism is full of Scheiße yet lacks an asshole — 180 Proof

Well said! :up:

I like how Mishima points out German philosophy. Nevertheless, he was quite contradictory because he was influenced by Western/German culture/thought. He made a try on mixing them up with Japanese millennial culture but he discovered that idealism itself could destroy his culture then…

It is difficult to conceive Mishima's point exactly because of the difficulties of translation... I take him to mean that because German philosophy is so metaphysical, it lacks any point of contact or 'ausgleichfunktionsknopf' to connect it with the real world. I assume that the symbolism of the toilet refers to the only outlet of any dissenting world-view

But I would assume, since that time, that this has been more than countered by the influence of the "Scuola di Coca-Cola" of Western culture?

Well, you are right in the fact that understanding Mishima is complex. Nevertheless, I think we all are getting to the same point: German philosophy is pure metaphysical but lacks in a "real" practice. But it is interesting to show that Mishima is so influenced by German/Western philosophy anyway. That's the real paradox and the main point of why I wanted to start this thread.
Probably German philosophy is not practical enough but we cannot get rid of it. I mean it is one of the pillars of Western thought or philosophy.

Probably German philosophy is not practical enough but we cannot get rid of it. I mean it is one of the pillars of Western thought or philosophy. — javi2541997

I suppose, defeasible reasoning and modern sciences notwithstanding, just as we cannot get rid of 'magical thinking' either. :sparkle:

That's right, it is part of our nature and progress. We have two essential aspects: praxis and metaphysics.

We have two essential aspects: praxis and metaphysics. — javi2541997

How we live. How we think.

We have two essential aspects: praxis and metaphysics. — javi2541997

That's a superb summation! :up:

How we live. How we think. — 180 Proof

That's an awesome simplification! :up:

I (only) want to be a vegan. :sad:

How we live. How we think. — 180 Proof

:up: :sparkle:

That's a superb summation! — Agent Smith

:up:

I (only) want to be a vegan — Agent Smith

Ethical motives or just a diet activity?

Ethical motives or just a diet activity? — javi2541997

Mainly ethical.

Understable. Good choice. But please do not forget to take substitutes of meat and animal food such as proteins. Otherwise, you could get sick without those.

Ok. I missed the boat, alas!

:sparkle: :100:

↪180 Proof That's right, it is part of our nature and progress. We have two essential aspects: praxis and metaphysics — javi2541997

Why is metaphysics not also a praxis? What makes something a praxis and why do we value praxis? Is it that we associate praxis with use, with practicality? And what is useful is what is relevant, significant and meaningful to us? What motivates lemons to develop a. metaphysics? Do you think Kant’s ideas were considers useful , relevant and meaningful to him? Is the praxis-metaphysics binary really a spectrum from the more practical to the more abstract , from the particular to the general?

If this is the case, then how do we understand the contrast between how humans and other animals live?
Doesn’t our living language mean that compares to no -linguistic animals, we lack direct and immediate practical engagement with our world? After all, most of our engagements are less and less about using things in a simple perceptual way and more and more about virtual, conceptually-mediated living. Our objects are value objects like chairs and computers and cars, which are abstract concepts. Why do we prefer to live this more abstract , ‘metaphysical’ way than in a simpler, less-concept-mediated style? Is this because concepts being f the site into the present, and integrate and unify what would otherwise appear as dispute and disconnected elements? And isnt this precisely what metaphysics does for us? If we have the choice between knowing an aspect of our lives better, more integratively, rather than more ‘practically’ , do t we always prefer to know things better , more deeply, more richly?

So far I have only been talking about metaphysics as something certain philosophers write about. But there is also metaphysics as the implicit worldviews within which all of us organize our thinking. From this vantage, al even our most ‘practical actions are informed and guided by an implicit metaphysical worldview, and one could say the same for animals.

Why is metaphysics not also a praxis? — Joshs

I didn't say it wasn't a praxis but not practical enough (at least in my own view) and that's why the metaphor of Mishima is excellent: it is a formidable building which lacks of a toliet.

What makes something a praxis and why do we value praxis? — Joshs

When we put it on in practice and then, we can check the results. I am agree in the basic fact that metaphysics starts the "beginning" of everything. I am not doubting that. But, sooner or later, we have to develop a praxis. For example: humans were always been debating about the universe. Centuries ago it was about metaphysics but now is about physics, because you can explain through laws and formulas which were born thanks to experience and praxis.

And what is useful is what is relevant, significant and meaningful to us? — Joshs

This question is object of another OP. But I would say, in my side, that a meaningful stimulus is death.

What motivates lemons to develop a. metaphysics? — Joshs

:sparkle: :eyes:

Do you think Kant’s ideas were considers useful , relevant and meaningful to him? — Joshs

I don't know. I wish we could know more about Kant and his life because we only debate about his works. I would not categorise those as "useful" but original.

then how do we understand the contrast between how humans and other animals live? — Joshs

I think Aristotle already answered this good question: Aristotle believed that animals, like humans, have purpose, and that telos is natural and unchanging. Aristotle’s Ethics and Farm Animal Welfare.

From this vantage, al even our most ‘practical actions are informed and guided by an implicit metaphysical worldview, and one could say the same for animals. — Joshs

:up: :100:

I didn't say it wasn't a praxis but not practical enough (at least in my own view) and that's why the metaphor of Mishima is excellent: it is a formidable building which lacks of a toliet. — javi2541997

I’m not sure you’re understanding the purpose of a metaphysical stance. Do you think that when someone develops a spiritual or religious faith, and proceeds to live their life guided this faith , that this ethical and social guidance isn't considered extremely practical and useful to them, perhaps the most practical of all modes of experiencing life? Do you have overarching principles that guide your life, and do you think they come
into play in practical situations of dealing with others? Do those principles inform your sense of how to approach concepts like honor, loyalty, friendship, fairness and justice?

Do those principles inform your sense of how to approach concepts like honor, loyalty, friendship, fairness and justice? — Joshs

Those are exactly what Mishima is missing about. We all can have deep debates on honour, loyalty, friendship, justice, etc... but are they possible of being applied to? Are the citizens loyal? Do they care about friendship? I think not... that's the point of our criticism. We currently live in an era which is based on materialism and soft praxis. We can give a lot of definitions of fairness but are we ready to apply it?

We can give a lot of definitions of fairness but are we ready to apply it? — javi2541997

I’m not talking about definitions. I’m talking about application. Are you, or Mishima, arguing that people who claim be using their faith or spirituality as a guide to navigating actual day to day situations are lying to themselves or fooling themselves? Is your argument that people are hypocrites and dont practice what they profess?

Are you, or Mishima, arguing that people who claim be using their faith or spirituality as a guide to navigating actual day to day situations are lying to themselves or fooling themselves? Is your argument that people are hypocrites and dont practice what they profess? — Joshs

Exactly. Or at least their lives and claims are contradictory each other.

I am aware that a lof of members enjoy and debate about German philosophy. I want to know your thoughts on Mishima's views. — javi2541997

I haven't read Mishima, so at this point I'd say it's not wrong -- but I'd want to know more, because I don't know really in what way it's right.

I'd say that Mishima probably has a point, but it could be defused if what we cared about is German philosophy. But if we cared about Mishima, then that'd be different.

I haven't read Mishima — Moliere

Please let me recommend you some of his important works to introduce you in Mishima's world:
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion, The Sailor Who Fell from Grace with the Sea, The Sea of Fertility tetralogy: Spring Snow, Runaway Horses, The Temple of Dawn and The Decay of the Angel

If you have time and you are interested on new original books, Mishima would not disappoint you.

Cheers! :sparkle:

Cool. Heh, I felt the need to respond because I'm a fan of German philosophy. But I'll admit these aren't on the ever-long homework assignments yet ;)

Cheers all the same!

:up:
My purpose in this OP was trying to understand what Mishima was referring to. I am bif fan of his books but I don't have a clue inside German philosophy :rofl: so... I thought: I guess somone can help me here! I think a good idea would be give a chance on Kant or Wittgenstein books!