The way I initially interpreted this statement is to say we essentially feel as if reality warrants, or ‘calls for’, despair and negation. Every person has his limits, so perhaps overwhelming sentiments of despair (provoking skepticism) can convince the subject that reality is despair and only deserves negation.
In my opinion, I think such an overall negation to be more a statement of lost faith or trust. That sort of ‘in your face’ nihilism, where one accepts despair and negation as a way of life, seems to me like a cry for help, purpose, or reason – or, as one of our esteemed colleagues on this forum might say, ‘emo claptrap.’
But “negation” can be linked to a particular circumstantial landslide that overwhelms someone. Their despair flows from an existential context they feel powerless to overcome. And indeed it may well be beyond overcoming. And their optimistic philosophy succumbs as well.
It has nothing to do with faith or trust, in my view.
And it is possible for someone to feel “thrown” into an essentially absurd and meaningless world [as I do] and be able to distract him or herself from the despair this can, at times, precipitate, by pursuing things like love, family, career, sports, the arts etc.
It is all rooted in dasein—in an individual’s “sense of self”.
It seems individuals almost always let their sense of self and the world they live in (‘dasein’) overwhelm their philosophy. For example one could accept ideas of atheism, nihilism and the like but although it will be a very poignant occasion for them they are still going to be more concerned with dasein; the welfare of their family, career, love, anything like that which when you accept nihilism becomes arbitrary. So back to the original point, I think it’s perfectly normal to have feelings of despair regardless of your philosophical views.
It seems nobody really lives directly in adherence to their philosophy because it suits their life better. Socrates is the only one I can think of who seemed to only live by his word. And he may not have even existed.
You have to remember that philosophy is not something most are able to pursue as a discipline. For instance, there are over 3,000,000,000 men, women and children around the globe that literally live on less than $2 a day. They are preoccupied mainly with survival. They leave all the stuff we talk about to God.
Yes, despair is an equal opportuinty emotional reaction. It can afflict anyone from a Platonist to a Nietzschean. But those who not have a philosophy that includes God can be especially afflicted because their suffering is viewed as essentially meaningless. And there is no Salvation to take its place.
I think philosophy will only make a comeback when it abandons scholastic, academic analysis and embraces a more existential agenda instead.
I think you got me. To despair, especially overtly, is an expression of grief or pain. For an introvert, I would expect the “cry” to be directed inward, as if to say “learn more, understand more, and perhaps you’ll find purpose.” An extrovert, on the other hand, is more likely to seek answers from others by making his despair that much more obvious (prompting recognition).
I realize these assertions may seem presumptuous, but they are not unfounded. I’ve personally experienced despair to such a degree, and for such a duration, that I resorted to both methods --those are my conclusions.
You restated almost exactly what I said. That feeling of powerlessness is a loss of faith, of ‘hope.’ A person can be pushed to a point wherein reality becomes torment – this is where negation may be a source of comfort.
Sure, but in direct relation to ‘reality’ as the respective ‘self’ perceives it.
It is all rooted in dasein—in an individual’s “sense of self”.
Yes, “reality” is as it is percevived [and then concieved] by each individual dasein. But there are some parts of this alleged reality that can be confirmed as in fact true, and other parts that can only be subjective points of view.
Thought in its very nature is short-lived. So every time a thought is born, the dasein is born. But there’s been added to that the constant demand to experience the same things over and over again, thus giving a false continuity to thought. To experience anything knowledge is needed. Knowledge is the entire heritage of man’s thoughts, feelings, and experiences, handed on from generation to generation.
Just as we all breathe from a common fund of air, we appropriate and use thoughts from the surrounding thought-sphere to function in this world. That’s all there is to it. Man’s insistence that thought must be continuous denies the nature of thought, which is short-lived. Thought has created for itself a separate destiny. It has been very successful in creating for itself a separate parallel existence. By positing the unknown, the Beyond, the immortal, it has created for itself a way to continue on. There is no timeless, only time. When thought creates time, a space is created there; so thought is also space as well. Thought also creates matter; no thought, no matter.
Thought is a manifestation or expression of life, and to make of it a separate thing, impute to it a life of its own, and then allow it to create a future for its own unobstructed continuity, is man’s tragedy.
If it “makes sense” to do something, it’s because that something serves some function - it can be put into a larger context and valued for its relationship to that larger context. No? Otherwise, all that’s being said is that it’s understandable - i.e. nothing to be ashamed of or to be fought against.
i guess we just have different definitions of “making sense.” pretty much all that’s required to make sense according to my definition is that it’s logically consistent.
I was merely asking what was meant. I’m not making an argument, other than that wallowing in despair serves no purpose that I can think of. I think it is perfectly understandable though.
With every thought dasein is reborn. It’s symbiotic. The thoughts we have now are predicated in part on the thoughts we once had. And those thoughts are predicated on the manner in which we viewed our “self” then. And that is predicated in large part on our historical era, our culture and our own unique individual experiences. And then a new thought can reconfigure dasein yet again going on into the future.
And sometimes when we experience a completely new thing…or experience a circumstantial landslide…“I” can change dramatically.
I agree. But the thoughts we had drummed into our heads as children, by sheer repitition, can stay with us throughout our lives. And thoughts associated with significant events in our lives can as well. It varies from individual to individual of course, but some thoughts are far more continuous than are others.
We can think thoughts based on what we think we know is true that either is not true or cannot be confirmed as true. That is always a facet of human interaction that is exasperating. We believe something that others do not. And try as we might we can’t reconcile the differences.
This is the case when discussing Camus’s take on nihilism. Or in discussing moral, political or aesthetic values. Or in discussing personal tastes.
And mind and matter are always routinely symbiotic. We simply do not understand fully this profoundly problematic relationship. And perhaps we never will.
But I agree the extent to which the mind of man can create thoughts that create Gods and doctrinaire ideologies and all manner of additional absolutist and authoritarian monsters, is indeed a tragedy.
If, of course, I understand your own thoughts here.
Really? Can you cite specific examples of ‘in-fact-truth’?
Some parts of reality can affirmed as more objectively ‘true’ (more in terms of quality), whereas other parts are more obviously subjective. We don’t confirm ‘truth’ as much as we agree with it. Our only means of confirmation would be the same by which the ‘truth’ was posited, meaning we agree or disagree with the respective ‘truth’ and its justification altogether. “Confirmation” of a ‘truth’, in this respect, is essentially recognition that someone else’s perception of a thing is somehow similar to your own.