a philosophical theory or approach which emphasizes the existence of the individual person as a free and responsible agent determining their own development through acts of the will. — Chet Hawkins

That is good.

Only common concept is the supremacy of existence over essence and the existential crisis. — Abhiram

I often see the notion of existence over essence or existence preceding essence. Yet it seems to me that 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. And even if that is the only common concept, it is a significant concept.

Given what I said before about N and K, I disagree -- existentialism can certainly be an activity or state, but it's also a concept -- and not less than an activity or a state. — Moliere

I agree. For Sartre, individual existence is freedom. For Heidegger, individual existence is being-in-the-world. For Nietzsche, individual existence is will to power.

he is talking about way more than art. he is talking about the reality of existence. and that is philosophy.

My interpretation is that he is saying that the formative forces of art (which he distinguishes as Apollonian and Dionysian) are the same forces that form the reality of the existence in which each and every one of us lives each and every waking (and dreaming) minute of our lives.

And that is bold and that is unequivocal.

It is my dinner time.

Yes, I have read and heard a lot about N and tried to read several of his works (Kauffman's mainly) - including Zarathustra, Human All to Human, On the Genealogy of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil. — Tom Storm

I recently began re-reading Kauffman's book and thought I might as well read Nietzsche's publications in the order in which Kauffman discusses them. So I read for the first time The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and immediately re-read it two more times. It is fascinating and unequivocal. At first you think he is talking about art but then he says to the effect:

"The person of artistic sensibility stands in relation to these formative forces and the reality of art
as does the person of philosophic sensibility to these formative forces and the reality of
existence."

Where does this 28 year old professor of philology get off telling the rest of the world about the reality of art AND the reality of existence? And in such an unequivocal way?

But I could see in the book the kernels of his ideas regarding both the will to power and the eternal recurrence of the same.

A reading of him. Yep, ok. — Tom Storm

And by contemporary standards, he was a prolific writer and not a particularly systematic writer.

What is it intrinsically about making a claim of understanding Nietzsche that you take issue with? Also, are they all necessarily liars? Or are some merely mistaken? — Tom Storm

Experience tells me that ignoring my intuition is bad. As a result, when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away. It is my intuition rather than a "claim" that is "intrinsic" to the situation. Though some could be mistaken, my intuition does not rest on the distinction and my experience tells me otherwise.

And of course I am talking about claiming to understand "Nietzsche" rather than claiming to understand what Nietzsche says regarding any particular issue.

There is a significant difference between saying my understanding of Nietzsche is X and saying I understand Nietzsche.

For me, claiming to understand Nietzsche is sufficient evidence that you do not understand Nietzsche.

And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.
— Arne

That's an interesting comment. Can you say some more? — Tom Storm

I don't like liars.

You’ll notice Amadeus was speaking not just of his followers, but of Nietzsche himself. Perhaps one can say of many of Nietzsche’s followers as well as of his more shrill detractors that they are gauche and insufferable in their inability to read him well. — Joshs

I do not know what a Nietzsche follower is. But you either read him well or you don't. Though I am confident that I know far more about Nietzsche than the average person (not including this forum), I would claim that I am not a Nietzschean but I do not know what that means.

I recently read the Birth of Tragedy for the first time and immediately read it two more times. And it was definitely worth the time.

He comes across, to me, like an Emo lyricist of the 19th Century. It's mainly just him wallowing in his own filth and projecting on others. — AmadeusD

There is much truth to that. He definitely had issues and they came through in his philosophy. And when anyone claims to "understand" Nietzsche, I try not to make eye contact and slowly walk away.

You begin with "On the Values Necessary for Thought" and end with 3 paragraphs on "Fear of the Lord is the Beginning of Wisdom." And you raise many issues in between. I do not wish to discuss all the issues raised and I do not know which of the many issues raised is the one you wish most to discuss.

I too am concerned about the almost knee-jerk disrespect for those wishing to affirm or entertain the possibility of the existence of God. And my experience is that I receive more disrespect from those who consider themselves enlightened than from believers. Such disrespect is okay on Facebook. It is out of place on this forum.

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313 — Arne

— Joshs

Thank you, Josh My bad. I did not intend to imply that "freedom" is a term Heidegger never uses. But it does not carry the same gravitas for Heidegger as it does for Sartre. Not to mention, I have a deeper interest in Division One of Being and Time than Division Two. I should have taken more care with my answer.

Thanking you again.

.

Heidegger doesn't seem to say a lot about freedom and Being — Corvus

No, he does not speak directly in terms of freedom. However, authentic Being-one's-Self is a choice. Please see Being and Time at 312-313.

it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

A sense of "evil" is a physiological phenomenon not limited to only those who experience evil. I have never experienced evil yet nonetheless have a sense of what it is. An evil act is repugnant to nature.

I am going to bed now.

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void?

And I concede in advance that natural rights, if they exist, are the rights of beings with minds and that is certainly where they are to be found.

So rather than inferior to or equal to the logical thought which philosophy uses to try to grasp it, it rather precedes it. — Noble Dust

Some, such as Nietzsche, argue that the formative forces of art and the formative forces of philosophy are the same.

I haven't considered him an artist. — Ciceronianus

Your OP is entitled the "Nature of Art." It would be a mistake to presume only artists have meaningful things to say about the "Nature of Art."

but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it — AmadeusD

Then you are correct, we have little to talk about.

And I would agree that it's not useful to reclassify philosophers as artists. What I was saying was that there is an artistic sensibility, an artistic creative power behind some philosophical visions/works. And that (perhaps) the act of philosophy can also be considered an artistic one, as per Janus below - — Tom Storm

I agree. Not all with an "artistic sensibility" are artists. And Nietzsche goes so far as to suggest that the primary formative forces that frame the "reality of art" for the person of artistic sensibility frame the "reality of existence" for the person of philosophic sensibility. And he makes a damn good argument.

Your OP is entitled "The Nature of Art." Philosophy historically is very much concerned with the "nature of being." Reason alone suggests that the nature of being would include the nature of art.

I strongly recommend Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music and Heidegger's Origin of the Work of Art..

Abstract concepts like being, self, and consciousness are expressed using language, and most of the time, their terms don't have a unified meaning.
— Abhiram

The lack of what you call a "unified meaning" reflects a lack of consensus, hence a diversity of opinion. This diversity is the source of the richness of philosophy, not a problem to be overcome. Your proposal is essentially one of linguistic despotism. — Pantagruel

The lack of a "unified meaning" to fundamental terms over hundreds (thousands?) of years suggests that the terms may be beyond the ability of language to define in a manner sufficiently precise to yield anything close to a consensus.

And no philosopher worth their salt is going to allow anyone to decide what they mean by the terms they use. It is not going to happen.

I don't see the philosophy of Kierkegaard in 'jeopardy' because his concept of anfægtelse lacks having a unified concept. — javi2541997

and in the world of philosophy, putting it in jeopardy would likely cause a revival. The Kierkegaardians would be coming out of the woodwork.

philosophers would be the last group of people to ever agree to a unified language.

So what would be the point of needing what you cannot have?

Won't they mean something in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation?
— Count Timothy von Icarus

This seems to beg it's question. The 'evil' seems to consist in the violation of a right. If so, without hte right, there is no evil. — AmadeusD

I am not certain I agree with that. The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character.

.

The West does not think, and all the people who live in this undefined western region do not think with one mind. Nor do they all share the same values, or even interpret specific values in the same way. "The West" is a diverse, incoherent and frequently self-contradictory human construct. — Vera Mont

This is well said. And to some degree, the same can be said when we begin talking about the X community or the Y community as if they shared the same brain. In some sense, a "human construct" is simply a useful "illusion."

This is hermeneutics. To me, the revealing power of phenomenology is the foundational indeterminacy, the openness that one stands in when one's language potentialities proceed in open inquiry and discover the threshold, and NO words are fit to do the foundational work. — Astrophel

Well said.

Freedom, not free will. Sartre was not an anti-determinist. — Astrophel

I agree that Sartre was not an "anti-determinist" but he was also not a "determinist". And that can be seen with my comments considered as a whole.

I suspect Sartre, like Heidegger, would consider the determinism/free-will issue to be philosophy as industry and would have no interest in engaging on the issue (as I also suggested in my initial comment.).

I was answering a hypothetical and my intent was to suggest that Sartre is never going to be backed into a determinist corner. Perhaps I should have used those words rather than suggesting he would always come down on the side of "free will."

Your point is well taken.

Not sure if we are IN our existence. Aren't we existence? — Corvus

Great question. Existence is a "mode" of being (other modes of being are "present to hand" and/or "ready to hand."). And existence is the mode of being of that being that IS "being-in-the-world." And the being that is being-in-the-world" is "Dasein." Ergo, existence is Dasein's mode of being.

Astrophel is correct, your question begs a reading of Being and Time.

Questions like that beg for a reading of Being and Time. — Astrophel

Absolutely.

.

Therefore, Sartre would spurn biological determinism. — Justin5679

What is this about? What is it that you mean by biological "determinism?" Certainly Sartre accepts that freedom as he conceives of it is circumscribed by the biological organism in which our consciousness seems to be embedded?

Is it not safe to say that Sartre will "spurn" any all "isms" insofar as they suggest that we are any less free than Sartre considers us to be?

Is there any doubt that Sartre will always come down on the side of free will?


Good stuff.

Would Sartre contend that freedom is a product of our biology ontologically speaking? — Justin5679

I would be surprised if Sartre would take a stand on the issue. His aim is to describe existence as it is rather than how it may be that it is as it is. For Sartre, it is not relevant whether existence is a product of biology?

Resentment and Ressentiment are not the same. For Nietzsche, ressentiment is a reactionary generating of new values and a normative re-evaluating of existing values within a hierarchical context.

But time exists if space exists independent of whether change exists or not. — MoK

you are putting the cart before the horse. The greatest change in the history of the universe is the Big Bang. There would be no space/time without the Big Bang. Ergo, there would be no space/time without change.

yes I did.

Time and space are twisted and are parts of a single manifold called spacetime. This means that you have time if you have space. — MoK

Thank you.

I already know that.

And nothing I said is inconsistent with it.

Logic does have its limits.

And sometimes those limits are determined by the way in which we choose to assemble the language.

For example, one could just as well say: time is the measure of change rather than a pre-requisite for it. There would be no time in the absence of change. Time is not in the nothing anymore than time is in the something.

And of course we would have a different set of logical implications.

/