I get your point too. Sometimes I think we get hung up on words and definitions when all we need to do is live and experience. Love is a poor word because it has been overused and abused and people seem to be afraid of it.

Despite all the noise and bullshit and personal failures of people, I think there is a lot of love around - certainly based on personal experience and on what I have witnessed. But many people are so cynical that they are often incredulous of anything sincere. The most bitter ones tend to deny love exists because no one must have it if they can't.

The biggest difference for me is Heidegger is unreadable, while Wittgenstein is almost unreadable. But I don't doubt their seminal places in Western thought.

"A cage went in search of a bird.".
— New2K2

Two similar ironic aphorisms come to mind:

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.

The second is apparently a fake quote attributed to Leon Trotsky by author Alan Furst. — T Clark

My favourite version of the first which I was told was Maslow (but such quotes seem to transmigrate) is this: "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as a nail.' Which sharpens it for me.

The limits of a person's world view.

My reading of a cage went in search of a bird is - a cage is pointless without a bird in it. So it describes all the empty people 'cages' in search of their truth 'birds'. When they find it they will trap it and render it a prisoner in their mind - where the meaning no longer soars.

Take logic for instance. It makes a big fuss about proof and avoiding cicrcular reasoning but it turns out it itself can't be proven without resorting to a circulus probando for to justify it is to assume it proven. — TheMadFool

Does that seem equivalent to a black hole?

It's not an accident that our entire economy depends on people buying crap they don't need. It's a deliberate plan. — fishfry

Yes, this phenomenon used to be called, 'Keeping up with the Joneses'. Very mid-twentieth century. Simple consumer capitalism. But I don't see it as described by the OP - suicidal despair if an endless appetite for more is not quenched. That seems like a different spin.

See what happening? People getting burned out? People feeling loss more than gain? That's all pretty basic human psychology if you ask me. — I don't get it

I don't think your point is coherent. Sorry.

They still long for things, and experience loss in life. — I don't get it

Buddhism 101 - attachment leads to suffering.

Every music lover will agree that their favorite music places them in a spiritual, exalted state. This concords with the function of music: to place the listener in a state of spiritual ecstasy, and impart the impression of meaning and significance which the words of the song would not otherwise possess. — hypericin

I doubt this is accurate. I think a lot of people listen to music so they don't have to think. They like the pop music of their time and while the sounds give them pleasure, they never feel a sense of the numinous or much more than a base level tingle.

There is no example we can point to of nothing existing except as metaphor.

Hope I clarified things a bit. — I don't get it

Sorry, Man, no. I rarely see this happening. Except where people are unhappy or have a mental illness.

Still think you need to separate out those things you have described which are necessary for life to exist - food, water, shelter, air.

It's like we desire transcendence, but that desire manifests itself in us as a never ending cycle of constantly trying to improve, and hold on to what we've already got, never realizing that there's really no end game, and that if there was, we probably wouldn't want it. — I don't get it

I don't think everyone feels this or necessarily lives this.

Krishnamurti develops the ideas you have expressed rather well.

Many people I know have almost no interest in material things other than what is necessary. This is of course an inexact idea but that doesn't make it hard to live by.

Things such as air, food, water, shelter, family, friends, praise, affection, acceptance, status, career, land, possesions, not to mention all the personal goals and projects one might be interested in achieving or completing. — I don't get it

You've lumped all these ideas in together and they are not necessarily connected at all. Perspective.

My point is that the theists themselves are not troubled by their circular thinking. — baker

Circular reasoning is a problem in a range of areas and not just confined to theists. You keep coming back to whether people are troubled or not by their logical fallacies. Sorry, but I can't quite work out the relevance. Most people with circular thinking are not troubled by it. Most people are not troubled by their lack of critical thinking in general.

Understand totally. I think the loudest voices on both sides of the debate are often the most doctrinaire, rigid and unpleasant ones.

I guess I don't see this as a choice, at least not a conscious one — T Clark

I hear you - I guess I said 'choice' because that's how we talk at home. I would have been as comfortable with your formulation.

My reading - It's the resistance to something bad that leads to its growth. If you want to stop something, stop fighting it. This stanza really resonates with me personally. — T Clark

My newbie take on this comports with yours. There seem to be a lot of these sorts of intriguing constructions. Do not do the thing you think, it is the reverse of what you think. I can't quite formulate this.

When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

I am ambivalent about this stanza. Maybe I mean confused. — T Clark

I wonder if this means in choosing to think a thing good or bad, you create a reversal by this very thought action. Maybe it means that the more you conceptualize life along these lines, the more you create its opposition. Do not actively label may be a better approach. In a way, this sits alongside Hamlet's 'for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so'.

A plague on both their houses -- Buckingham Palace and the California shelter for still-over-privileged couples. — Bitter Crank

Royalty are generally a distraction from substantive issues and in general are extremely useful to media oligarchs in generating massive ratings, sales and clicks.

What I don't understand about British culture is the fact that they have words such as francophile. Does that mean they themselves are anglocentric? And if that's true, does that mean that the world is anglocentric since English is the lingua franca? — TaySan

You probably know that French was the language of world diplomacy and the official language of England for three hundred years. English was the language of the plebian classes.

t's not like they feel troubled by those circularities. — baker

So what? Wrong is wrong, even if people think it is right. Racists are untroubled by their beliefs too. Does this mean we follow their lead?

Learn psychology. That will keep you sane. Philosophy will always remain subordinate to it. — Atman

A claim like that requires some texture otherwise it is no more profound than a bumper sticker.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of modern psychology had some very dubious theories about women. He viewed them as utterly inferior to men. The power of philosophy lies in questioning psychology and its claims. — TaySan

I don't think many psychologists would take the Freudian model too seriously. His ideas would be seen as historically important - a seminal influence. Psychology is as fraught with sectarian division and as any religion.

I don't know. Like I said, I can't imagine what that is like, to live in a world where one isn't demanded to justify one's moral principles to others. I simply haven't lived in such a world. I suppose it's a nice world to live in. — baker

Many religious share your experience. I am not sure I understand where you believe you morality comes from.

If you want to live your life chasing your own tail, I won't stop you. — Dharmi

I've not met the person yet who isn't chasing their own tail.

Because those people have lost their minds. — Dharmi

Medical science would say they are mentally ill.

Why don't you ask them? Christianity is more complex and subtle than you might imagine.

but that it's unhealthy. — Nagel

Ok, I get you. I guess if you are addicted to anything as a form of self-medication (which is usually what an escape amounts to) this is problematic, sure. I know a businessman who has neglected his family and friends (and to some extent his company) to spend a fortune collecting and pursuing fine ancient Greek vases. That's no different in practice to losing yourself in slot machines. One is art, one is artless both are unhealthy.

So, what does it mean to you? — T Clark

I get from this that it is an immutable truism that the paragon teaches the scoundrel just through their presence or example. Anger and aggrieved advice or recriminations are without utility. What I also get from this is if I want to be of use and work towards a better 'way of being' remember that good and bad share the same space and need each other. Endless unhappy thoughts and interpersonal conflicts will be avoided if this is understood and acted out. And I will also avoid the path to being the very thing I think I hate.

Thank you TC. As I said to you earlier, I read TTC first in 1985 (ish) and was unable to incorporate it into my thinking. I guess it seemed then to be a kind of lengthy and unintelligible fortune cookie aphorism.

Looking over the Mitchell translation recently, I was struck by how some of the versus now instantly made sense. It's like something you recognise without it being familiar. This tradition is not known to me but it seems to be at least in part about balance and perspective and an invitation to stop and start again. Hope that's not too crude or obvious. Or wrong...

As a vulgar secularist, who is fond of words like metaphysical and spiritual but not too fond of what these words tend to mean in ordinary discourse, I am very interested in how people integrate this kind of work into a life.

I imagine people either click or don't with this.

I was struck by the following:

What is a good man but a bad man’s teacher?
What is a bad man but a good man’s job?
If you don’t understand this, you will get lost,
however intelligent you are.
It is the great secret.

f there is a philosophy, there is a truth, then let's discover what it is. If there isn't, then just as Fish, Rorty, Wittgenstein and Hume say, let's do something else with our time. Philosophy is simply a waste of time if there is no truth or good or reality we're trying to discuss or discover. — Dharmi

There's another approach - the staring point being 'I doubt that there is truth, however, let's look into some of this to see what I find.' This means philosophy is both a waste of time and a solemn responsibility.

Cool

That's one of my favorite verses and Mitchell is the translation I read first. It's probably the most accessible for modern English speakers. — T Clark

Good to know. I find myself agreeing with many of the versus - I don't understand all of them. TC, I'd be interested in how you find it supports you (if this is the correct term) in life.

Regardless of their taste, of whether the art form is of a higher caliber or not, it is fine as long as it isn't used to escape to dreamworld. — Nagel

This bit I don't understand. Why is this wrong?

Art does whatever you want it to do. What does it matter? Unless you are a strict idealist...

I guess young people are different depending on who you know. The young people I know do not share this view. They work hard, seem respectful and are fairly optimistic. I think Gen X was much more like you describe. But this is all anecdotal.

Mainstream taste has never much differed from what I can see. Very few people choose high art over popular forms.

Although ... the Tao Te Ching has some interesting things to say about being and non-being. — T Clark

Tao Te Ching – Verse 2
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.

I like it.

Not sure about the translation - Stephen Mitchell, 1995)

I am concerned of how present idols (Singers, boy bands, K-pop artsist,...etc) are used as a sort of drug to intoxicate one away from the glory of the art (specifically, the it's pains and suffering) of life. — Nagel

Not sure anyone is being intoxicated away from anything. That's a curious formulation. People like what they like. Even when exposed to alternatives in food, clothing, literature, music or painting - most people seem to prefer mainstream. Do you care what taste people have and, if so, why?

A crazy woman screaming hysterically is just as beautiful as the moonlight sonata unless there's an actual standard of beauty. — Dharmi

There's also the matter of personal taste. A few people I've met would rather be exposed to the hysterical woman than the Beethoven.

You have to be a Platonist (in the broad sense) in order to justify that there is such a thing as "true art" otherwise, there's no justification. — Dharmi

:up:

I first attended a lecture on Plato's theory of forms in 1985. I struggled to comprehend the nuances. Asked a fellow student who said - 'We are to take the existence of forms on faith. They all live in heaven with Lord Jesus."

For me Heidegger, Derrida and Husserl are clear and accessible — Joshs

You can say that but how do we know you understand them? And I am not saying you don't, just that we have no way of knowing this. Heidegger is notoriously difficult to follow. Derrida is understood so differently by so many closes readers who can say what he really means?

No. But the Wikipedia entry on it is quite good, especially the section which details the dialogues that discuss the forms, and also the biblography. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms — Wayfarer

Thanks already know this one. I was referring to Joshs other terminology and asking if it was in the same vein as Plato's forms.