We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - — Vera Mont

That's like cheating yourself. You are not being fed with the real nutrients. I respect the technology and pharmaceutical products to help us to get a better life. Nevertheless, those tablets never will be a real substitute of a bistec.

Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species. — Vera Mont

Because they all have the same motive: feed the humans. It is not about being moral/legal but an action of survival. If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. I see simplistic but that’s how the world works. If someone tells you that is possible to live without cattle raising, he is lying.

Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? — Vera Mont

But that’s a different example. It is not the same being a primitive hunters than defending myself of an attack. If I kill an animal because I want to eat it, I am acting with premeditation, so yes I am totally aware about my own actions. Nevertheless, when I must make a choice in seconds related to survive or die I wouldn’t know If I would be aware at all. As I said, it is a reflex action not based on full awareness.

Yes, there are animals that can be trained because is beneficial for all the parts. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford. These dogs need a very rigid training to calm them down.
Another example: cows, bulls, lambs, etc… all of them depend on us because we have managed their nature and development for centuries.

well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? — schopenhauer1

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving.

Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1

I am agree. It is true that vegans forget the basic notion that we need to "kill" cows or pigs because it is needed to get feed. We don't do it because of lust.

So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me). — schopenhauer1

Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man.

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be. — schopenhauer1

Interesting arguments. I am not really sure if every human knows what is he doing when he is doing it because there are exceptional cases. For example: a schizophrenic doesn't distinguish between reality and his "world". Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing.
I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans.

"Top Cat?" We call it Don Gato in Spain :sweat:

I appreciate you starting a new thread with a more respectful name. — T Clark

@Baden

:up: :sparkle:

I am agree with Clark. Thanks for taking the unbiased solution. I think all the sides win here.

That's why the unique sunset is so beautiful, because it encompasses the entire field of view. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

I think you need to be careful though to distinguish between living and dying. The transitoriness which you refer to is a property of living. It is not a property of death, because having been forced into the past (death) is permanent. Dying is the process whereby the permanent overcomes the transitory. — Metaphysician Undercover

Interesting thought. It is true I wasn't clear about the distinction between living and dying. I only want to add to your argument that I see "transitoriness" as a horizontal line where the "staring point" is born and the end could be death.
(If we consider death as the pure emptiness. I mean, there will be nothing afterwards)

I stand by my remark that Mann "confuses time with change" and his anthropocentric notion of "transitoriness as distinctly human" is the result — 180 Proof

I think we should remark the context of why Mann used the concept of "transitoriness". This debate started when he wrote some letters to another amazing writer: Herman Hesse. Sadly, we don't know why they were discussing about past, present, future, death, etc... (my guess is they were just discussing as good philosophers do) because we only have some extracts of the correspondence.
I am not sure if we have to consider that Mann is "wrong" because those words about time only come from a basic conversation. I guess he tried to explain that a great "concern" of humans is the pass of time. Maybe he was thinking in a literature view, not philosophical or metaphysical.
Mann was also an acquaintance of Einstein. It could be possible the big influence on Mann about the concept of Einstein about the relativistic time-dilation.

The phrase "self-realization of time" still remains as opague as before ... — 180 Proof

It is metaphysical and I understand that is opened to a lot of interpretations. It remembers me when we debated some months ago about "whether the things exist or not" or "what does real mean?" Etc...
Beyond of debating about the concept I still remark that homo sapiens sapiens has some "self realization" of abstract things: past, present of future. Emptiness and fullness. Born and death, etc...
Despite those are opague concepts we still debate about because we have "self-realization" that they are around us.

The concept of time has always been a subject of philosophical debate. We are discussing about Thomas Mann's notion but you also quoted others authors as Proust or Bergson. I also remember from Kant a good quote to point out: Time travel is impossible because time is only empirically real and does not exist independently among things in themselves.

I understand that there can be a lot of perspectives to understand Kant’s metaphysics but I believe Kantian thoughts on time influenced on Mann's. Time only exists in human knowledge because we literally created to put an "order" to our circumstances and significance. That's why we are the only species of the earth who have self-realization of "transitoriness".

I do not disagree with the fact that animals are aware when the death is near to them. It is a natural instinct and they tend to be prepared for the "last days" of their existence. A dog, cat, elephant, horse, etc... is aware when it becomes old? Yes, absolutely.

I have read the article on animal grief and it says an interesting thing: In September of 2010 off San Juan Island, Washington, people watched as a killer whale pushing a dead newborn for six hours. If this whale understood death purely rationally, she should just leave it. But humans don’t simply leave dead babies either. For us there is a concept of death, but also a feeling of grief. Our bonds are strong. We don’t want to let go. Their bonds, too, are strong. Perhaps they, too, don’t want to let go.
I am completely agree. Who doubts on this principle? Of course animals tend to grief. The same way we do.

But this is not related with the measurement of time. That's only a pure human concept. A dog is not aware if it is four or eight years old or when it is the "birthday" because these concepts where created by humans. For example: I doubt that my dog is aware that we are in 2022. I respect her intelligence but I don't think if my dog is truly aware about the "passing of the years"
That's why I am agree with Thomas Mann in the sense that the "self-realization" of time passing by is a distinctive between humans and animals.

Therefore, I don’t see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like “Antinatalist Arguments” or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a “Life is Awesome!” thread? — Pinprick

:100: :sparkle:

Good examples but all of them are animal's acts which come from the wild or survival. The cat collected the kittens in a hiding spot because her animal instinct pursued the aim of survive at all costs.
We reached another important difference between animals and humans. The will of survive. An animal is not able to kill himself because his instinct prevent him to do such act. Nevertheless, humans have a big problem with suicide.

It is off topic and I am aware that suicide has many causes and it depends on each individual. But I am sure that self-realization of passing the time/life is determinant.

To be at the present, to live, to exist, requires effort. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: :sparkle:

So effort is best placed, not in attempting to extend one's time at the present, indefinitely, as this is futile. Effort is best placed in doing something spectacular in a very brief moment of being at the present. So we sense the most beautiful things as occurring in the most brief periods of time, like the flowers, music, and all our moments of joy, which are but a flash in the pan, so to speak. — Metaphysician Undercover

There are authors who have written books or novels about fleeting of life or moments. One of the aspects I am agree with them the most is the fact that ephemeral is beautiful. I mean, if we consider a nettle as “pretty” is not due to their physical appearance but the brief of the moment where the flower grows up and then withers. This “transitoriness” is another perspective of how we see death. Instead of being a taboo topic, it can be understood in an artistic portrayal. It sounds so poetic, doesn’t it?

I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.' — universeness

I see your point and I respect it and even agree with it. I don't recall having a serious discussion with you at all (furthermore, when we debated about the role of Spanish/British Empire in the world but that's fluffy political stuff... not personal disagreements)
That's what I was surprised because I don't remember you to get involved in discussions with other members. But now I see your point: it is good and practical to avoid conflict situations when the threat is approaching.

I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy. — universeness

Wow this completely lost my mind! I promise these members created the threads on pessimism to specifically speak only about it. But it turned out to be a simple camouflage to still debating on antinatalism!
We are surrounded by ninjas :eyes:

You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep. — universeness

Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.

I understand the cause of lump anti-natalism together because there are a lot of them. But this could be a negative act towards the originality of some users. There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. As much as I love to debate about Mishima or Japanese culture (for example) and it would be disappointing if my threads end up here because it would probably lost the nature or purpose of my debate.

Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be — universeness

I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:

You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that? — universeness

I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...

It's my experience of the past that has changed. — T Clark

I see what do you mean now :up:

He can speak of "transitoriness" because that is his nature, our nature. But that's all he can speak of. — L'éléphant

:up:

I only want to add the important fact of self-awareness of this nature. Thomas Mann tried to explain that the main difference between humans and other species is realization of change due to the pass of time. I mean (and try to guess too) that a dog or a cat is not aware of something that complex as "transitoriness".
It remembers me when some philosophers tried to make another distinction using the arguments of emotion. For example Schopenhauer's essays on weeping and suffering.

That's not nostalgia. No longing for or regrets about the past. It's almost as if there's no past at all. — T Clark

Interesting perspective. I am not sure if I am aware about the possibility of denying the existence of my past at all because it created myself in the present and how I will be in the future. So past is there. I guess you are trying to say to me that is possible to "get over it" and not being stuck in the past endlessly. Another important characteristic of the transition of our lives. Every has an end, so the past too.

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.