nihilism

Any issue involving any particular “I” at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods, political economy and the part after death works for me.

Others either understand the points I raise in my signature threads here or they don’t.

And to the extent that they do understand them, they either concur or they don’t.

All I’m interested in though is that the discussion revolves either around personal experiences or around an issue “in the news” that is likely to have generated conflicting goods. And is likely to be widely known about. Abortion being just one of those.

Iambiguous said:

“How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?”

Therefore, any existential inquiry forfeits essential connections, per discussion above, constructing mute, as such connection may connect personal moral analysis with ethically transcending overlap.

In other words You are formally right ex-cathedra( since a personal-existentially signified issue was not disclosed by You) to abstain from an unexistentially form of involvement, and heeding to my own familiarity to what I view as my existentially transcendent issue, …

At the very least I abide by such lack -overlap, however that points to an unassailable to ground , or unwillingness to form existentially derived formulations.

Even without presenting some kind of relational component strove by the above mentioned, over and above that of Nietzche’s , displays the very conditions whereby You are trying to figure out how to change the very personal conditions alluded to.

I for my part will point to Nietzche’s nihilism as the very display of the kind of analysis which ( on Nietzche’s part) proves only that lack of knowledge of future analysis may have not crossed N’s mind-to either validate or argument to confirm his definition of Dasein-as differing in kind .
On Your part, that claim would not appear similarly., For you were not born in 1844.

By a similarity I mean the sort that is the essential part of the signified narrative within Wittgenstein’s ’ family of resemblances’

In other words, whether You are speaking from life experience, that you did have a relative who had a problem with moral/ethical issues over abortion, or not, it makes little difference , whether to disclose that or not- except to retain the doubt that is fueled into what appears as an ex-cathedra construction:

It has nothing to do with good faith, as in a reductive effort to ground somewhere else sans god, then in a hotly contested Dasein. ( again referring to the psychiatrist Jaspers.

When it was Your specific question based on deliminiting the way Nietzche used { Dasein} withertall the mentioned dame question You posed.:

"How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?
Report this post Reply with quote "

and even more specifically:

“So, my aim is less in regard to “ushering in something new” and more in grappling with how to communicate “I” as I know it – broken, splintered, cracked, – in a world that is still largely nestled in one or another rendition of objectivism”

and most poignantly this:

"
Then [for me] that truly enigmatic relationship and interaction between the psychological self and the part where any particular “I” chooses to pursue this philosophically."

Asking about the distinction between the ontological and the ontic, where the ontic begs familiarity with relationships, generally, then, resisting familiarity , but excluding the principles behind it by excluding linguistic analysis based on the idea of ‘family of resemblances’ - appears as if the essential was reduced to a prior level of primary logic.

The logic of the excuses middle, the logic of the either/or- Descartes vs. Kierkegaard.

But lets not stop with Jaspers, Ricoreur and Gadamer may also shed a light of how psychological analysis differed , and the possible over extended analysis of Laing may have exceeded the portals of what philosophy may contain of modern psychology, substantively.

However, formally, the conclusions drawn are really hard to argue, even for die-hard Nietzcheans.

Sorry, but I had to stop reading after this. It being what I construe to be intellectual gibberish.

Note to others:

Was it a mistake to stop?

Yes? Please explain.

I have read You long enough to realize, one thing though.
Philosophy, is abstract for a reason, and cannot be simply addressed as if …were someone’s prerogivtive to set the rules, as how language games are or should be played, and it should never be played for effect or even affect, to have how or when an inquiry should go, or conclude.

It never is a matter of ego, and that should be left at the door.

The fact is, there should be an overlap between what is addressed and received, by the token that maybe early dismissal of a structural difficulty, may be engendered by a common.charge : based on the primary defense, of projecting fault in the other person.
Let’s say I was your student, and am trying to learn how you think, in what I still think : by a method, such as is described by Descartes.

Let’s also suppose that I paid some kind of tuition, and was not the kind to cut classes or withdraw.
If such a position would entail the kind of interaction which predisposed one to learn, I would seriously remind myself of Meno’s dialogue, where the exposition leads one to believe in the strength of argument that eventually became an a-priori type of ontological reality.

Which it did.
Now, if I quit, then it would not absolve me from the charge of failing in that argument, whereas strangely, the overwhelming case to be made for Dasein, in all it’s forms, and that it continues in the vein of a holding for some kind of transcendence.

If, I can transcend the ego-baggage we all come equipped with, and realize that student and teachers are interrelated and their roles easily interchanged, then it may possibly become for me less of a problem to answer a typical question such as: maybe the obtuseness of the answers to the question is the result of cutting off interrelationships and communication -not on the ground that obtuseness is a sign of written narratives, and appealing to public opinion to assert it, or, that the ideas are thus false, but maybe the contrary, that I can not accept a possibility that it has things to teach, but I cannot learn them because I can’t accept that I may be wrong or mistaken.

That was something I had to learn when I started to think as a prerequisite. Otherwise the name I have chosen myself could not. be possibly sustained as ‘Meno.’

Ah, now I get it. Thanks.

Do You? Could You expand on that?
No irony of any kind will be read into it.
,

Now that it ain’t broke, let’s leave it alone.

Ok. Here is my answer to Your original question.
I do not think that the superman idea is merely a Nietzchean one of based on overcoming by brute strength. there are supermen among is presently, who have been able to ensure almost unending challenges ofnthe worst kind.
And how? Because even if, God is dead, they understand evolution to have a.purpose, a god inspired purpose to overcome doubt, without whithout which the jungle would swallow recapture us.

The seeking of the light . of the implicit struggle to achieve superman status, is primordial. We should become god like. God minded. to overcome the evil of Satan’s doubt.

This redeeming quality in man separates men from animals, and this isn’t he example incam offer to show, that this overcoming is what has always caused the continuation of human life.

Without the ideas andntje ideals of the good, the beautiful and the wise, inherent even within our gene, all this, life as we got to know it, would have been impossible.

I challenge anyone here to connect the dots between these points and the ones that I am making above.

As that relates to passive/active nihilism in confronting conflicting goods in a particular context we might all be familiar with.

And, no, not just abortion.

I am up to the challenge, if the simplification I’d the circular argument referring above:

Passive in any context means relegating to a determinitive power, overcoming the Will, as per its opposite.

As such, the source of determination relegated to an extrinsic source, may compensate to the waning of am undeterminative power to will.

How can a will to power arise indeterminatively sans an extrinsic source , if not from an already arrived nominal Superman?

A developmentally ideal , evolving through the transcendent ideal, powered by a intentionality spelled out through the ages-makes sense.

On the other hand, almost every attempt to passively expunge the will to power has been fiercely met by those hell bent instead on actively espousing indeterminate power — even among those Bernie Sanders supporters who reject Nietzsche’s will to power as synonymous with those K Street sycophants that Biden is counting on.

Or would you argue that once new world ubermen confront the old world facsimiles, neither passive not active nihilism will uproot Donald Trump’s own sycophants?

Besides, what’s nominal about the money being poured into the big banks clearly determined to sustain crony capitalism as the only inherently extrinsic antidote to anarchy?

Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?

Really, just go to the fucking dictionary and look up the word “gibberish”!!!

Iambiguous said

“Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?”

Not really, but in all due earnestness, whichever party You insist on belong ing to, please take note of eternally recurrent repetitive phenomenal cycles of alternating epochs, whereby the many stills develop through constant motion into a simulated movement.

Various descriptions of nihilism from Nietzche’s preceptions through Jasper’s psychoanalytic applications, the nihilism change, descriptively.

A good analogy, iambig, could be the feeling of stability and lack of movement we experience here on earth, whereas the earth rotates and revolves around a sun, a star among trillions of stars , belong ing to numerous galaxies, which also move at tremendous velocities.

Besides the probable idea that there may be innumerable parallel universes.

With that in mind, anything, or everything may be a potential ground for a unique possibility. St.James proved that there are at least two identical copies.

Have You read him ? If so, could You comment on that? I will try to dig it up, but it seems like an endless chore.

The above is merely an extension on Das-Ein as the hidden perspective on the Vedantic influence on Heidegger.

Besides, Bernie Sanders bowed out.

Unbelievable.

Google Alan Sokal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

That’s what I was doing here. Fairly or not, I construe much of what you post as intellectual gibberish. So I just strung my own words together as well. None of it was meant to be taken seriously.

Or again [as I still suspect] is that what you are doing as well: poking fun at any number of “serious philosophers” that spew out worlds of words here that have almost no relevance to the lives that we actually live.

Actually I am not doing that. Philosophy, serious, or not must have truth in it, truth that can, and have to be backed up by referential authority.
It may be strung together, yes, in a ‘postmodern manner’ but still it is a re-construction, at a place of deconstruction, or a partially differentiated place-where the phenomenal reduction settles in an epoche.

So far ok?

All the elements of the phenomena, then, may become strange, like Kafka’s bugs, Sartre’s Nausea.

Back will finish the answer below. Needed break.

Ah, now I get it. Thanks.

I asked You for a break, and ill be back shortly. Don’t be so eager to disprove a partial derivitive

Back, thanks Iambiguous.

Now where was I?

Ok. The differing contextual history of Dasein. Try to put it as simply as possible , so that most of the confusion can be put to the disassociation between building up and tearing down of civilizations as we have come to know it.

Or, constructing it and deconstructing it.

One must agree, we should, that Nihilism, passive or active appear as opposite ideas, in fact deconstruction entails tearing down of rational apprehensions, again as we know it.

Tearing down started a long time ago, after Hobbs and those guys started to whack away the famous cogito, and that mode or the irrational sneaked into the equation.

Take equation as a metaphor if You like, for Leibnitz did in fact let it sneak in the back door , being a mathematician and a superb philosopher concurrently.

So. As time went on and modernity became more and more irrational- we arrived to post modernism, with the various methods , with differing post modern philosophers interpreting the trend, or the process with which to back up their volumes and volumes of flows of ideas, each one borrowing from the other, they shared knowledge and often became each others students and teachers.

But to return to Dasein, there were oriental authorities backing up the idea of Dasein, and will dig it up for You, not today, but tomorrow for sure, and You can hold me to that.

But the idea is someone faded, even though I reasoned with it only a month ago: but in a nutshell, it consists of the idea that da sein and das ein are relatable structurally as illustrative of the idea brought up, in this forum, that das is neutreal German, whereas der and die are masculine and feminine respectfully.

Again I will illustrate this when more time becomes available. This is an important idea, for Dasein is not a static idea, but moves along temporally from all the way back to Hegel I believe and through Heidegger and Jasper. Even now Jasper’s influence is taken up by more recent thinkers , and it would maybe worth it to follow that through, nominally at least.

So, with that, it is worth it to connect dots, that involve Dasein with what You and I must admit I find our self in a state of fracture, and as You suggested, another break occurs when the philosophy of Jaspers, who was both, psychiatrist and philosopher-compares with the earliest. and MORE inclusive definitions of Husserl-Heidegger.

I am for it, and it excites me to be able to delve into it, and as You can see, by now, from no other motive then that I really love philosophy.

I may, or should I say, I will have more time next week to go over some of the missed stuff, and hopefully search the soft drives that have the required references.

That we do, both of us, construct and deconstruct language, is no willful attempt to misrepresent anything, first-we are prevy to the times we are living in, and second- we try to do our best to express meaning and opinion with the cards we were dealt with and to use them in a manner that our tools can accord toward that objective.

So, since You have given me a certain engaging motive, with or without congruent participation, (or any other member’s) I shall further develop this forum.

Of course You can reserve the right to abrogate, or whatever, since it is, after all Your forum, if You wish to look at it in that manner.

I do agree with Your positing Dasein as the fulcrum upon which any further discussion can hinge.

As far as the tools are concerned , the three main ones that help to bring the study of nihilism together were, and still consistently are :

Transcendentals
Universals
and Game theory.

These are really the skeleton upon which the prime facie skin of most philosophical concerns appea. to be built upon , and muscle develops the ability to apply them , through them.

This method, corresponding to The Method written, again to the method Descartes so famously wrote about explains the pivotal paradigmn position he has been accorded within the lengthy history of philosophy.

I would consider Will Durant to be this type of analysis, and though it’s skin deep, I’d rather start with him then say the equally famous Tractatus of Wittgenstein.

But that choice is a matter of preference.

I wouldn’t have said it better myself.

Ok, but then, do You want to go into it , more in depth, or, refer to it by and by? Nevertheless I will search for the promised reference to begin with.

And another thing. How would You like Your orange juice pulp or no pulp, or some?

Nihilism
Nolen Gertz at the Aeon online site

Just out of curiosity, to what extent did Nietzsche himself accomplish this?

In other words, it’s one thing to erect new values in a series of aphorisms in a series of books. To intellectually broach the uberman as a philosopher in a world of words.

But out in the world, given his interactions with others, what did he actually accomplish by way of embodying these bold new parameters?

Any advocates of Nietzsche here familiar with that part of the story?

Just doubts? How about the passive nihilist who remains passive because he has thought himself into believing that any new values are no less subsumed in dasein, conflicting goods and political economy? How about the passive nihilist who seems convinced that “I” can never really become this vaunted uberman because in making the transition from might makes right to right makes might, he is no less “fractured and fragmented”?

Instead, he sees any number of wannabe ubermen [like the folks over at Know Thyself] creating their own world of words reality out of “general description intellectual contraptions”. Autodidactic assessments in which their own “superior” intellect is predicated almost entirely on their own rendition of this:

1] I am rational
2] I am rational because I have access to the objective philosophical truth
3] I have access to the objective philosophical truth because I grasp the one true nature of the objective world
4] I grasp the one true nature of the objective world because I am rational

Thus the author trudges on in promulgating his own intellectual facsimile…

To believe in what? In what context? Regarding what conflicted behaviors? Pertaining to what conflicted goods? Derived from what particular sense of identity?