Great explanation. Very informative and nicely put. :up:But I'm sure someone could come up with a better interpretation and criticism of his work than me, too. So take this uncited pile of nonsense as what it is, an athiest waxing lyrical about faith on the internet. — fdrake
Was he? Never knew that. Any particular reason for him had been so? Or just a social trend at the time?Why "unfortunately"?
'cos he's sexist as hell. — fdrake
Any particular reason for him had been so? — Corvus
Woman has neither the selfishly developed conception of the self nor the intellectuality of man, for all that she is his superior in tenderness and fineness of feeling. On the other hand, woman’s nature is devotion (Hengivenhead), submission {Hengivelse), and it is unwomanly if it is not so. Strangely enough, no one can be so pert (a word which language has expressly coined for woman), so almost cruelly particular as a woman—and yet her nature is devotion, and yet (here is the marvel) all this is really the expression for the fact that her nature is devotion For just because in her nature she carries the whole womanly devotion, nature has lovingly equipped her with an instinct, in comparison with which in point of delicacy the most eminently developed male reflection is as nothing. This devotion of woman, this (to speak as a Greek) divine dowry and riches, is too great a good to be thrown away blindly; and yet no clear-sighted manly reflection is capable of seeing sharply enough to be able to dispose of it rightly Hence nature has taken care of her instinctively she sees blindly with greater clarity than the most sharp-sighted reflection, instinctively she sees where it is she is to admire, what it is she ought to devote herself to. Devotion is the only thing woman has, therefore nature undertook to be her guardian. Hence it is too that womanliness first comes into existence through a metamorphosis; it comes into existence when the infinite pertness is transfigured in womanly devotion But the fact that devotion is woman’s nature comes again to evidence in despair. By devotion [the word literally means giving away] she has lost herself, and only thus is she happy, only thus is she herself, a woman who is happy without devotion, that is, without giving herself away (to whatever it may be she gives herself) is unwomanly. A man also devotes himself (gives himself away), and it is a poor sort of a man who does not do it, but his self is not devotion (this is the expression for womanly substantial devotion), nor does he acquire himself by devotion, as in another sense a woman does, he has himself, he gives himself away, but his self still remains behind as a sober consciousness of devotion, whereas woman, with genuine womanliness, plunges her self into that to which she devotes... — Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death
I think you can speculate that he had resentment from romantic misfortune, with some evidence. But, at least in Sickness Unto Death, he finds women of a weaker spiritual constitution than men. He definitely was a kind of... advanced sexist... he had a theory for it. — fdrake
The other philosophers who are publicly known to have been sexists are Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. For their reason for being sexists seem to be their personal experiences and situations with the opposite sex folks? Just guessing. — Corvus
am not sure what the reason for breaking the promise was. — Corvus
There is a great deal packed into this sentence.The notion of essence as qualities grafted on to existence is a rationalizing of moral agency in a light we consider most favorable. — Arne
That's quite true. Though perhaps it is more true in Anglophone philosophy than elsewhere. I've encountered the claim before, but somehow I've missed the argument that shows that it is true. I feel I'm left with a blind choice, so I'm not happy. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to understand Sartre's "precedes" as a metaphor; but he doesn't seem to give us much to interpret it. Since the concept of bare existence seems incomprehensible, Heidegger's formulation seems more plausible, so I'm inclined to go with that. But I don't believe that I really understand either concept.Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given. — Arne
Intuitively, I feel that there;s a good point here. These do seem to be inter-related concepts, But we need to think of essence as dynamic, constantly changing. The difficulty here is that if we regard essence as what endures through change, which, if I've understood correctly, was what Aristotle was after - in oder to reconcile Heraclitus with Parmenides. But it seems entirely appropriate, not only to the Heraclitean river, but also to human life.Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche are saying that existence is our essence, i.e., being-in-the-world is our essence, freedom is our essence, will to power is our essence. — 180 Proof
I assume you mean "in the existence of humans as people".Free will and choice are the only essence in existence. — Chet Hawkins
No, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.Free will and choice are the only essence in existence.
— Chet Hawkins
I assume you mean "in the existence of humans as people". — Ludwig V
I agree entirely. And these interactions, to be meaningful, must extend past the colloquial local time scope. That means they have to be eternal or laws to be 'of value'. Memorizing and truly creating delusional non-laws does not help us, and has led to entire eons of 'misinformation' as a dynasty. It is dynastic because investment, once made, seems to personal and deep to let go of. The increasing chaos these days is eroding this tendency and people are vacillating back and forth with no basis other than day to day whim and comfort. It's just survival mode, if you follow.It seems inescapable that fact and value, although distinct, are interwoven in language in order to serve human interests and capacities. What would be the point of language if that were not so? It does seem that it would be more helpful to articulate the ways in which they interact rather than simply trying to separate them into separate discourses. — Ludwig V
I have related insight into BOTH these perspectives and WHY the confusion arises.Heidegger says our existence is our essence and Sartre misinterprets Heidegger as saying existence precedes essence and now we all proceed as if if "existence precedes essence" is an existential given.
— Arne
That's quite true. Though perhaps it is more true in Anglophone philosophy than elsewhere. I've encountered the claim before, but somehow I've missed the argument that shows that it is true. I feel I'm left with a blind choice, so I'm not happy. Thinking about it, I'm inclined to understand Sartre's "precedes" as a metaphor; but he doesn't seem to give us much to interpret it. Since the concept of bare existence seems incomprehensible, Heidegger's formulation seems more plausible, so I'm inclined to go with that. But I don't believe that I really understand either concept. — Ludwig V
In any case, "being-in-the-world", "freedom" and "will-to-power" do not seem to me, according to primary sources, either synonymous with each other or equivalent to "existence". — 180 Proof
I can see what you mean in what you write.No, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that. — Chet Hawkins
But Wittgenstein finds that the ideal, logical forms are indeed perfection and consequently are like a smooth, frictionless surface. He observes:-So defining that non-physical realm of Plato's forms is much more important and essential, than our keen grasp of the obvious insistence on practical physical matters in the world today all about us would easily show. — Chet Hawkins
"We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!" (Philosophical Investigations Section 107).
If you had said that every particle in the universe was free, I could have more or less followed you. What it means to say that every particle in the universal is burdened with choice escapes me entirely.The ONLY thing in all of existence, including physical matter, is the state of free will, inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice. — Chet Hawkins
:evilgrinNo, indeed, I am never so prosaic as that.
— Chet Hawkins
I can see what you mean in what you write. — Ludwig V
I agree with your sentiment, but, it is the need factor that is the thing to doubt in the sense of wisdom."Prosaic" is a complex idea, and quite annoying for those in a poetic or transcendental state of mind. Those are much more exciting.
Nonetheless, what is ordinary, everyday, and commonplace is what we start from and will return to. More than that, what is extraordinary and exciting, if prolonged, will become prosaic. We cannot do without poetry and we cannot do without prose.
I would rather say that I find it necessary to keep my feet (or at least one foot or toe) on the ground. You say: -
So defining that non-physical realm of Plato's forms is much more important and essential, than our keen grasp of the obvious insistence on practical physical matters in the world today all about us would easily show.
— Chet Hawkins
But Wittgenstein finds that the ideal, logical forms are indeed perfection and consequently are like a smooth, frictionless surface. He observes:-
"We have got on to slippery ice where there is no friction and so in a certain sense the conditions are ideal, but also, just because of that, we are unable to walk. We want to walk: so we need friction. Back to the rough ground!" (Philosophical Investigations Section 107). — Ludwig V
Do not let this pass so easily. You give up and run at first blush? Let me be brazen enough to ask for the benefit of the doubt. You did not comment on ALL THAT OTHER information. So the topic was ... a) not addressed, or b) read but deemed altogether to unaddressable. It's kind of unknown.The ONLY thing in all of existence, including physical matter, is the state of free will, inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice.
— Chet Hawkins
If you had said that every particle in the universe was free, I could have more or less followed you. What it means to say that every particle in the universal is burdened with choice escapes me entirely.
Communication requires a shared context. Given this starting-point, I'm afraid that we have a serious communication problem. — Ludwig V
How about 'subjective commitment' instead? — 180 Proof
Perhaps it is enough to understand the interactions.How do we relate meaning to the physical world? It does seem clear in the interactions, but not the ... essence ... of the physical world. — Chet Hawkins
Not quite the intended meaning. Wittgenstein was saying that the ideal world seems more comprehensible, but that is largely illusion. In order to make progress, we need resistance, and that requires the rough ground. For him, it is the ideal that has the training wheels, and the rough ground is where the work gets done.You are ONLY saying for us (or Wittgenstein and you, less me as a dread assertion) these training wheels of 'safe frictioned ground' are still needed. — Chet Hawkins
I can sort of follow the first two sentences here - except that the reason science cannot explain why the universe is alive is that not all of the universe is alive. But the fact that science cannot explain something doesn't tell us very much at all. The last sentence here is beyond my understanding, as is the rest of the paragraph. I can see that you are arguing that wisdom is more than intelligence. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't see where it gets us.The seeds of moral agency are not amenable to the arbitrary science that in its failing cannot explain why the universe is alive. I mean science admits that SOME parts are alive. But in understanding unity and belonging, the real understanding is that anything IS anything else in the final sense. — Chet Hawkins
I've always wondered whether the Kantian claim that existence is not a predicate is consistent with the way that we talk about essence and existence in the context of existentialism. I can't believe that either Heidegger or Sartre were unaware of Kant. Are they contradicting him? — Ludwig V
In some sense and for existentialists, existence is the predicate. — Arne
Does that mean that Dasein is the only thing that exists? I suppose if Da sein means something like "there is", that would make some sense. "exists" is a bastard concoction, and I wish it could be abolished in favour of "there is". But it would make it a lot harder to formulate a lot of philosophy. Perhaps that's a good thing.In turn, existence is that mode of being that belongs to Dasein and only to Dasein — Arne
I'm clutching at straws here. At first sight, you may be saying that existence is the "is" in any predicate.
Do you mean something like "existence is the possibility of attaching any predicate to something" or maybe something along the lines that if you apply any predicate to something, that something exists. — Ludwig V
Does that mean that Dasein is the only thing that exists? — Ludwig V
I wish it could be abolished in favour of "there is". But it would make it a lot harder to formulate a lot of philosophy. Perhaps that's a good thing. — Ludwig V
It might be ahistorical of me, but I'm going to read someone who believes women's natures are "devotion" and "submission" as a sexist. Regardless of why K believes it. — fdrake
inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice — Chet Hawkins
It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only — Chet Hawkins
Well, it is a classical backwards walk, baby steps to glory! But, yes, I suppose any path can meander around and find its way finally to the end of the maze. Hand to left wall and go.How do we relate meaning to the physical world? It does seem clear in the interactions, but not the ... essence ... of the physical world.
— Chet Hawkins
Perhaps it is enough to understand the interactions. — Ludwig V
Regardless of what he meant, I would say that any such assertion is LAUGHABLE in its obvious wrongness. The implication being, again, that Not(wisdom >> intelligence){my point}. That is to say, the idea realm is the ostensible correct aim, the destination. And this (fool) very educated man deigns to suggest that it's enacting is easy?You are ONLY saying for us (or Wittgenstein and you, less me as a dread assertion) these training wheels of 'safe frictioned ground' are still needed.
— Chet Hawkins
Not quite the intended meaning. Wittgenstein was saying that the ideal world seems more comprehensible, but that is largely illusion. In order to make progress, we need resistance, and that requires the rough ground. For him, it is the ideal that has the training wheels, and the rough ground is where the work gets done. — Ludwig V
Au contraire. How is it that life comes from not life? Science thinks it knows. But I say instead that life comes because it can do nothing else. It is not predestined so much as it is intrinsic. For something to be predestined it would have to be missing at some point. It never was missing.The seeds of moral agency are not amenable to the arbitrary science that in its failing cannot explain why the universe is alive. I mean science admits that SOME parts are alive. But in understanding unity and belonging, the real understanding is that anything IS anything else in the final sense.
— Chet Hawkins
I can sort of follow the first two sentences here - except that the reason science cannot explain why the universe is alive is that not all of the universe is alive. — Ludwig V
Oh yes it does! It tells us that science is NOT THE ONLY WAY. It hints that science is insufficient in much of our efforts to help us be wise, to even answer its little corner (one third) of the universe, awareness. Wisdom is so much more. Understanding is so much more. We need that ... more ... to function RIGHTLY in every now. And overt and improper dedication to the single path of order amid fear is cowardly. That is the primal all encompassing sin of fear.But the fact that science cannot explain something doesn't tell us very much at all. — Ludwig V
Certainty is an absurd goal. Anger demands you stand to the mystery. Desire pulls you towards perfection and only a living universe can respond, so it is alive, and it does. Evolution towards greater moral agency is a law of the universe.The last sentence here is beyond my understanding, as is the rest of the paragraph. I can see that you are arguing that wisdom is more than intelligence. I wouldn't disagree with that. But I don't see where it gets us. — Ludwig V
If the experience of it does not lead to it again, is that accurate? Idempotency must be ... the thing. Meaning proceeds endlessly from meaning. Which was the cause and which the effect? The balance is that each is both. That is the only thing that could be a balance.inflicting every particle in the universe with the burden of choice
— Chet Hawkins
Or, there is no "choice." Everything is interconnected. Every action is a reaction to a trigger(s); the same principle applying to each trigger. — ENOAH
You confuse inertia with truth. Really? Why so drawn?Is this not so from subparticles to suicide? a triggered b triggered c triggered molecular bonding. x triggered y triggered z triggered suicide. Even when the free act of choosing seems indisputable, like in difficult decisions where one wishes one had no choice, the difficulty, the process, and the final action were each reactions to triggers. — ENOAH
And yet nature is the entity anthropomorphized that we most ascribe to as having balance. I love it that you went there. It seems you wish to be convinced! On-on!Choice is the illusion which arises when we (humans uniquely) construct and superimpose meaning retroactively (albeit often with lightning speed) onto the autonomous activities of Nature (said construction and superimposition also caused by triggers). — ENOAH
And the heart has no say? Does the heart ALLOW the mind free reign? What of the body? Does it offer no constraint upon this mind? Or on the heart? These three are compelling are they not? Why is it these three in humanity the greatest moral exemplar we know of? Is Homo Sapiens Sapiens deserving of that moniker? You counsel from the path of mind alone (as do many an most academics and their groupies). But Noah had to prepare humanity for a RIDICULOUS tragedy that no one else foresaw. What is/was the predetermined source of that? And if not Noah then let's ignore your happenstance name and use someone like the Wright Brothers.It takes real courage to pursue meaning beyond the physical and to have the balance amid that pursuit to resist temptations in the realm of imagination and forms only
— Chet Hawkins
Or does it take no courage at all, but only imagination and forms? Is meaning also autonomously constructed and superimposed as part of an evolved system we have come to think of as directed by the Subject, "I"; and to "know" as our Mind? — ENOAH
What dread demand requires an atom hold itself to an identity? Just physics right? Not at all. The atom is a moral agent. It 'knows' what it is, and let there be no doubt, it is wrong. It can be other. This demand, this consistency, is order. Order is meaning (chaos and balance are meaning also. Order IS NOT alone as meaning). What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes.Where in Nature is there striving for meaning? Where outside of human minds is meaning pursued? — ENOAH
determinism is wrong. Free will is the only possible final perfection — Chet Hawkins
You counsel from the path of mind alone — Chet Hawkins
But — Chet Hawkins
your happenstance name — Chet Hawkins
The need for certainty is only fear. Cowardice is no way to face the world's mystery. — Chet Hawkins
What will it want? If it's a noble thing, maybe not much. But the most of us, of them, get all 'busy' interacting by choice. Notice I did not put choice in quotes. — Chet Hawkins
I think I understand the rest of what you say. But this suggests to me that applying any entity having the characteristics of Dasein will cause that entity to exist. ???Applying any predicate to any entity not having the characteristics of Dasein will not cause that entity to "exist." — Arne
.. and H. acknowledges only three modes of being, one of which is true of everything that is. (Is that the right word to use here?Existence is Dasein's and only Dasein's mode of being. — Arne
I can see that.What I mean is that the difference between "arbitrary" (as you put it) and "subjective", IMO, is the difference between nihilism and existentialism, respectively. — 180 Proof
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.