ILovePhilosophy.com

Alf wrote:But is that a proof or evidence that life makes no sense (to you)?

How would You determine that life makes no sense to someone? What would You take to be proof or evidence ~~ aside from one's words to that effect?

Brando wrote:I think that life is what the whole is in a sense of immediacy. It must be integrated into a Mediation. Perhaps by Music, which sets categorial perception on controlled Change. In this way a certain Musical way/direction mirrors social Relations. And this does mediate life.

Music could be the best.

Just for comparison.

Arminius wrote:

Brando wrote:I think that life is what the whole is in a sense of immediacy. It must be integrated into a Mediation. Perhaps by Music, which sets categorial perception on controlled Change. In this way a certain Musical way/direction mirrors social Relations. And this does mediate life.

Music could be the best.

Just for comparison.

untab

Greetings from Spain.

Ravel's Bolera comes to mind here. There was a time when I found it to be a bit boring and tedious until I really listened deeply to it. It reminds me of such controlled Change.More of a meditation than a mediation. But I am not sure what is meant by mediation in his instance.

Arminius wrote:Greetings from Spain.

Is that you, Arminius?

No.

I am this of course:

...I just knew he had dark blue eyes...

Arminius wrote:No.

I am this of course:

..that is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.

[tab]Greetings from Spain:

..you been taking advantage of the clubbing facilities? I hope so..

James S Saint wrote:...I just knew he had dark blue eyes...

A good one.



(The similarities are purely coincidental, by the way.)

MagsJ wrote:

Arminius wrote:No.

I am this of course:

..that is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.

Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?

MagsJ wrote:

Greetings from Spain:

..you been taking advantage of the clubbing facilities? I hope so..

Yes. But being like "SAM", San Jaime (Saint James ) is for all guests here in this area.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Brando wrote:I think that life is what the whole is in a sense of immediacy. It must be integrated into a Mediation. Perhaps by Music, which sets categorial perception on controlled Change. In this way a certain Musical way/direction mirrors social Relations. And this does mediate life.

Music could be the best.

Just for comparison.

untab

Greetings from Spain.

Ravel's Bolera comes to mind here. There was a time when I found it to be a bit boring and tedious until I really listened deeply to it. It reminds me of such controlled Change.More of a meditation than a mediation. But I am not sure what is meant by mediation in his instance.

Meditation is well. Another aspect: Nietzsches favours the Artist even with philosophical questions. In art some Relations are wrapped, and we may ask what does this mean for science. Perhaps an outer perspective on science, e.g. questions like that for truth, couldn't be established, but are thematised in art. As a consequence some other questions like that for life couldn't be streamlined.

Meditation is well. Another aspect: Nietzsches favours the Artist even with philosophical questions. In art some Relations are wrapped, and we may ask what does this mean for science. Perhaps an outer perspective on science, e.g. questions like that for truth, couldn't be established, but are thematised in art. As a consequence some other questions like that for life couldn't be streamlined.

What does this mean for science?

What does this entire post mean???

Are you doing a Google translate from another language? Cause it ain't working.

phyllo wrote:

Meditation is well. Another aspect: Nietzsches favours the Artist even with philosophical questions. In art some Relations are wrapped, and we may ask what does this mean for science. Perhaps an outer perspective on science, e.g. questions like that for truth, couldn't be established, but are thematised in art. As a consequence some other questions like that for life couldn't be streamlined.

What does this mean for science?

What does this entire post mean???

Are you doing a Google translate from another language? Cause it ain't working.

I just want to say, that art answers question which science doesn't. We do not know what is truth in science, but we know what truth is in art. Perhaps, if the relation between art and science is enlightened science can Profit from it.

We do not know what is truth in science, but we know what truth is in art.

Really?

One could say that truth is unknown in both science and art because we do not have access to 'absolute truth'.

One could say that truth is known both in science and art because all truth is subjective.

But how can one say that it is unknown in science and known in art unless one uses different definitions of truth for science and art?

With Vico man could understand what he himself produces. In art the range of this is wider than in science. So truth in art is deeper than in science. With a philosophy of technique like that of Gotthard Günther things are different. But transclassic logic must be applied to science, to get Vicos Claim even in science.

Brando wrote:With Vico man could understand what he himself produces. In art the range of this is wider than in science. So truth in art is deeper than in science. With a philosophy of technique like that of Gotthard Günther things are different. But transclassic logic must be applied to science, to get Vicos Claim even in science.

But truth is not always deeper in art than in science.


Naturally, life makes no sense, because it has no natural goal. Or has it? Culturally, life makes sense, because it has a cultural goal - due to its soul.

Arminius wrote,

But truth is not always deeper in art than in science.

What do YOU mean by *truth* here, Arminius?
I may be wrong but I take your words to mean that it is not such an easy thing to grasp what it is the artist (in any form) is trying to convey. Art is open to interpretation and subjective thinking - as it is in the eyes of the beholder.
But that can also be the fun part of it too - akin to going on an archaeological dig.

Sometimes we tend to see what is only on the *surface* instead of seeking to find what lies beneath and looking through the *eyes* of the artist. Art is like philosophy in this way.

Naturally, life makes no sense, because it has no natural goal.

You meant to say "speaking naturally"?
Well, anyway, it might appear to have no *conscious* natural goal but wouldn't evolution be Life's natural goal? Could we say that? Would it be valid to say that?

Or has it? Culturally, life makes sense, because it has a cultural goal - due to its soul.

And what if that culture's soul is a means to destroy and devastate? Does that make sense?

If there is any meaning to life, it doesn't come served to you on a silver platter. We have to go about discovering the meaning of life in a long and arduous life-long process.

We are given things to start--experience--and this is usually obvious, simple, and banal. I'm eating a banana. It tastes good. It satisfies. <-- That's the meaning in a particular experience you might have of eating a banana. To get at the deeper meanings of life, we have to start with these.

I'm not sure we have the capacity to comprehend these deepest meanings to life (if there are any), but if we can, they would have to be discovered by this same process.

I mean that life makes sense in a cultural way, because culture is something that is started and stopped by the cultural beings themselves.

Also, destruction can make sense too, at least to certain humans.

Arminius wrote:I mean that life makes sense in a cultural way, because culture is something that is started and stopped by the cultural beings themselves.

So are you looking exclusively at how the things we learn from culture contribute to our apprehension of life's meaning? How do we tear that contribution away from the contribution of other experiences (ex. personal hands-on experience)?

We are both natural and cultural.

Arminius wrote:Also, destruction can make sense too, at least to certain humans.

untab

Greetings from Spain:

2017_10_06_08_45.jpg

2017_10_06_08_45_.png

2017_10_06_08_48.png

Of course. We cannot build up or rebuild until we tear down. It is a part of human evolution.
But, for instance, chopping down trees to make way for parking lots is for me senseless.
Destroying the natural habitats of animals to make way for apartment buildings and malls is senseless to me.
Destroying the beautiful and necessary rain forests makes no sense to me.

How much sense and meaning does the above hold for you?

Destroying our own environment does not make sense to me. We should only take as many things from nature as nature can reproduce in the same time. So there must be a sustainable development. But therefor we need responsible rulers. And responsible rulers are those we do not have. I am for politics of real sustainability and real responsibility.

Arminius wrote:

MagsJ wrote:..that is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.

Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?

Less brawny/rugged, as your gentle demeanor (based on your literary offerings here) belies that.

MagsJ wrote:

Arminius wrote:

MagsJ wrote:..that is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius.

Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?

Less brawny/rugged, as your gentle demeanor (based on your literary offerings here) belies that.

Is that true?