the 'aesthetics of ephemerality' will remain the prime motivator of culture, especially religion and war, and decadence. — 180 Proof

:up: :sparkle:

Why not transition, or just "change"? What is the rhetorical advantage? — Banno

It is not a bout rhetorical advantage. To be honest with you, I used the word "transitoriness" because I liked it. Whatever the word is better to use I guess we end up in the same point: self-realization of passing the time by and the consequences of change.

In my view, doing things for others is more likely to lead to satisfaction and personal transformation. — Tom Storm

Tom, we need more persons like you in the world. If you see satisfaction of doing good to others... wow is so emotional. I nearly in tears for real.

I am in "rumination" side and I don't know if it is endless but I am person who thinks deeply about everything a lot and I have a sense of uncertainty and mistrust. I know you think this is negative to me but I still see it as another step in my own transitoriness. A step I should live my own.

I continue to be let down by some and I am very grateful, and I much admire the examples and demonstrated trustworthiness I continue to witness in others.
You cannot change much as a lone wolf, you do need others. — universeness

Well, I need others if I need to survive, live, feeding myself, etc... that's absolutely true. Nevertheless, I still see a good opportunity to make important actions in loneliness and that's only possible through the self-realization of time and existence.
What I mean is: while I am aware about my limitations on my life and what the future holds, I am not capable of experiencing the same virtue in your awareness or concious. You have to live it yourself in your own as well as I do so.
We can be agree here we need others but for pure interests. The real sense and experience of transitoriness is individual.
Also, a lone wolf is not dangerous unless he is not threatened by others.

I no longer advocate for a parliament/government made up of political parties. We need to send local representatives from constituencies based on their viewpoints and not party-political mandates. — universeness

I wish the law makers listen to your ideas and opinions because they are so brainy. I also think that political parties are not longer useful and we need more technocrats in the state.

Many people are attracted to such but for me, it's a bit too much about self, I favour a different balance to that suggested by the glorious, beautiful, brief existence of a flower. — universeness

Me too! I am agree with you. :up:

Increased lifespan would allow me to 'fight for my cause' a lot longer and I am very attracted to that. — universeness

That's sounds so revolutionary and political. Do you take part on politics actively? I respect how you still have power and strength to keep fighting for a better world. I completely lost every hope in my life. This is why I see the main subject of this topic as individual. I am aware I can sound selfish but I do not see any value of living on a community. I even think we are currently in the most individualistic era because in the end of the day nobody would join us in the transitoriness of life.
If you want to keep fight for a cause you have to be aware with the fact that it is impossible to do it alone and when you are surrounded by people some members tend to betray you... another fact of why is better to pass the by as a lone wolf.

Thomas Mann's notion of Time seems to come from a personal experiential point of view. But Giorbran's version is from a global, universal, and philosophical perspective. Mann's concept feels more sensuous & real, while Giorbran's idea seems more abstract & ideal. Could both aspects be true simultaneously? — Gnomon

First of all, just wow! I really enjoyed the perspective of Giorbran. Thank you for sharing it with us. I like his interpretation of the psychical reality with the pages of a book when he said: Usually we imagine the whole of physical reality moves along with us through time. Yet that assumption might be like someone reading a book and believing that once a page is turned it no longer exists, or someone believing the pages that haven't been read yet do not exist until one turns the page It makes me wonder what is around me in the universe. For real, I am questioning the metaphysics of my reality right now.

In the other hand, I do not have the complete words of Thomas Mann because it was written to a letter to Herman Hesse (another excellent philosopher). I don’t have the response from Hesse either…
So yes, I interpret his words and notion of transitoriness are personal but sadly, I didn’t find why they were debating about the realization of time passing by. Another quote related to the topic says: The best thing about time passing is the privilege of running out of it, of watching the wave of mortality break over me and everyone I know.
I guess they were just conversing as good philosophers. :smile:

I want to put an example I was thinking about.
The main substance of flowers is to perish, right? Well, that's what it makes them so beautiful. Whenever a rose, nettle or sunflower flourish you enjoy it because it is beautiful and colourful. But trust me on the fact that we will end up getting tired of "perpetual" flowers in our garden for seeing them everyday in our lives.
I think this examples fits the concept of transitoriness so well. The aesthetic concept of a flourished flower is ephemeral.

A good OP and an interesting topic. — T Clark

Thank you friend :up:

I've experienced this since I retired three years ago [...] Sometimes if feels like looking out at a vast, flat, empty plain, but that's the challenge and opportunity. — T Clark

I have two questions:

1. Do you feel nostalgic?

2. How do you face the challenges/opportunities? The same way as you did ten or twenty years ago?

. That seems like a bleak prospect. I don't want to die now. I'm having a good time. But I certainly don't want to live forever. — T Clark

I am completely agree. But I didn't want to get deep in this issue because it seems to be a "taboo" topic the fact of accept that we don't want to live forever.

Individuals CAN therefore live a very interesting and significant life (judged as good or bad by supporters/dissenters). Change, time and self-awareness allows for the advent of choice and perhaps even free will. — universeness

Interesting. Then, you consider that life significance depends on time and transitoriness. Otherwise, everything would be worthless and paradoxically, the things which are perpetual are at the same time the ones we are tired of the most.

James Webb Space Telescope captures dazzling 'galaxy merger' 270 million light-years away

:up: :smile:

Where in Japan is Knut Hamsun from? — T Clark

Aomori!

Jokes aside, I want to give a try on Nordic existentialists.

Good OP.

We have to keep in mind the fact that some successful countries consider the monarchy as "sacred" such as Japan and Naruhito is considered as a "emperor". He is the only head of the state in the world who actually holds this heading. I don't consider him (neither Japanese Imperial Family) as "illegitimate". Also, it is clear and there are a lot of arguments proving the fact that Japan is one of the most important countries in the world. After WWII, there was a deep frustration on the figure of the emperor. Nevertheless, Hirohito remained in power until his death in 1989 because Japan understands that they would lose their culture and honour removing the sacred icon of the Imperial family.

This situation is similar in other European countries: UK, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Denmark, etc... where the role of the kingdom has a strong historical root. Furthermore politics, a lot of citizens see in the monarchy the representation of the culture and values of their nation.
Nevertheless, we have a big problem: we discovered so recently that some royalty members are corrupt or they act without integrity. This issue leads people to start doubting about how worthy is the role of the monarchy. We can say in Europe there is a deep crisis along royal families, but don't worry that much, Japan is and will still be there.

Rouse Up O Young Men of the New Age!, Kenzaburo Oe
Asleep, Banana Yoshimoto
Hunger; Pan, Knut Hamsun.

(The artists are the ones who suffer; we should be compassionate.). — Bitter Crank

Exactly! This is why we should pay more respects to artists/writers despite the fact that we probably don't like his/her personality at all.

Does anyone have thoughts before I give you my own? — T Clark

It is very difficult to interpret a poem based on Irish/Galway culture. Whenever I read the poem I understand what it said but not what was the meaning so I had to translate it into my mother tongue.
As far as I understand the poem, I would say that the main subject is the blonde hair of a woman. I guess that would be a characteristic of beautiness. When the woman claims that she can get a hair-dryer and set the colour brown, black or carrot, she wonders if she would get love with a different colour anyway.
But the poem ends warning: "only God, my dear,
Could love you for yourself alone And not your yellow hair".
Conclusion: the blonde hair is a symbol of status and perfection of beauty. So, a blonde hair woman is what the poets considered as "aesthetic"

Completely agree, Bitter.
The issue of not separate the books of Yukio Mishima from his personal character was the main of being "disliked" in Japan, because he is seen as a weird Samurai with old fashioned ideas who kill himself after a ceremony wearing a military uniform.

The past summer, I have read an interesting biography about Mishima written by one of his best friend who ended up being the mayor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara.
Shintaro tells in the book that Mishima was hated and disliked by a lot of people in Japan but they accepted the talent in his literature. Most of the reviewers saw him as a Japanese artist who was against any sense of modernism in Japan after WWII. (Even some writers insinuated his compromise on far-right politics when Mishima founded Tatenokai, his private militia)

Shintaro Ishihara celebrates the fact that the youngest generations of Japan no longer see Mishima in a negative perspective and they finally separate the personal issues from his works.

Understandable. It is true that Sartre was conceited. But, I still think we should separate the works and the authors. Probably, the personality of the author is not good but his books are brilliant. This issue tends to be more common than we thought.

Why?

French fella’s (Camus and Sartre) are mere footnotes in that overall thought. — Deus

I think these philosophers and original authors laureates with the Nobel prize of literature deserve more respect.

Is it not absurd that there are beings who have an innate desire for meaning living in a world devoid of one? — Agent Smith

That’s one of the main complexities of human nature. The aim of surviving when we were born to die

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. — Albert Camus

:up: :fire:

Nothing has changed. — Agent Smith

If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change — The Leopard. Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

Christian countries like Germany and Russia we find that Christianity can sometimes backfire. The Nazis countered the threat of hell by ceasing to surrender until Berlin was captured. Russia has had a troubled history with Stalin and now with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Putin doesn't seem to fear God at all by committing so many war crimes. — Michael McMahon

Did Harry S. Truman (a President of a Christian country) fear God when he ordered dropping atomic bombs on Japan?

Did the man who claimed things do not make sense make sense? — Banno

:up: :sparkle:

Well, a lot of studies claim that the universe is expanding.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the "universe" has, contrary to what scientists claim, contracted. — Agent Smith

Are you really sure?

To be honest, I only see involution. We have lost a lot of good habits on the basic sense of civilization and ethics. We deserve to be pessimistic because most of the youngest people do not act proving the contrary. There are exceptions, of course. But the amount of persons that do not care about anything is disturbing.

Yet then comes then question when people look for a mate to start a family that our in our society money is important. — ssu

:up: :sparkle:

Most romantic relationships stand and fall by the ability of the male to provide for economical stability, love has much less to do with any long term success. From an anthropologist's perspective it is a logical conclusion in the context of reproduction and safety of progeny. — Seeker

Agree :up:

To be honest, I even think love doesn’t exist or is just merely a state of mind where someone feels obsessed with a person. As you perfectly said, the romantic side of a relationship would disappear in long term. I like how you compare economical stability (inside relationships) with safety. Sadly, this principle is fading away in youngest generation.

Maybe if they put in extra hours every week in their training they'll get it done in less then 8 years. — HardWorker

It took you five months to answer @Cuthbert :eyes: you are a real patient person indeed.

I feel it’s my responsibility to try looking for the truth and see issues from all sides — praxis

:up: :sparkle:

we moved near the beach and really enjoyed using it a few times that year. Next year we used it once. This year we didn't use it at all. So rather than being satisfied, I am feeling kind of dissatisfied with that possession. Really I am dissatisfied with myself for not using it, or for not knowing better. — Pantagruel

Interesting. We all have had a similar experience as yours. I think this happens because of the transition of time. We are happy and satisfied when we acquired the new possession, but when we are used to see and enjoy it, the object itself becomes boring.
Paradoxically, it is worse if we decide to sell it or pass it on to another. We need to maintain it in our possession because otherwise we would suffer of nostalgia for not having the object anymore, despite if we don't even use it.

Unfortunately, being free seems to involve being free not to do what one ought to do. — unenlightened

:up: :sparkle:

No, self-confidence

We must accept our condition as sinners. — Agent Smith

:up: :sparkle:

I am not embarrassed about it

I see your point now. Yes, that’s true and I am agree. It’s automatic to have empathy with someone who is struggling.
My problem was a misunderstanding. I thought that you cannot have empathy with people if you understand them previously. But that’s a fallacy

Only good people go to heaven, — Agent Smith

Only bad people who have redeemed their sins go to the heaven :death: :eyes:

For sociopaths, no doubt. — 180 Proof

Who said otherwise? :cool:

I find empathy easier than understanding. — Tom Storm

Interesting! But how can we do it? I promise I am not kidding. I don’t see being empathetic as a fruitful or possible scenario. I only try to understand how the people act in society. For example: a drug addict. I could understand him/her of what is the cause for shooting heroin. But I wouldn’t be able to have empathy because I never experienced the fact of taking drugs.

Would it show a lack of integrity to not fact-check what Trump said? That depends on the nature of the individual or group reporting, what their principles are and what their audience's expectations are. — praxis

Good argument, indeed. Nevertheless, I have to admit that it is a very difficult issue to reach. I guess that's impossible. To be honest, we have to accept that most of the information has filters, simple. But that's not necessarily always bad. What I tried to argue is the fact that we "deserve" more transparency. How? I don't know... and this context, I am lacking of information or knowledge to keep arguing in this point but I really liked what you said.

Newspapers and News Networks are in business to make money and they will therefore cater to their audience. — praxis

This is the root of everything. They need money (millions) and rich politicians (as Trump) gives them a lot of money in order to make news just for some interests.

It's not clear if you mean that their right to free speech should be curtailed or if this is just wishful thinking, like casually saying that you don't think that people should lie — praxis

No, no. What I mean is in act of free speech, they should act objectively. If we know some information or news is "thanks" to them who provide us all the "breaking news". But... sometimes I feel they have the "duty" of lying...
I mean, it looks like that's the real nature of journalism.

BUT, I am agree with you that I should not have prejudices. It is true that there are some good journalists but they don't have so much power like the big ones.

There isnt anything difficult about it, it is actually quite simple, either it is there or it is not. — Seeker

Our task could be understanding but not empathy. I don’t see it as simplistic. One of the main complex issues in the relations between people is the fact that we don’t understand us pretty well.