On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers contex

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Ecmandu » Fri Oct 30, 2020 6:56 pm

Pedro I Rengel wrote:You don't know what philosophy is, you just do as your told.


You’re obviously just projecting here.

I do as I’ve discovered. I do to the capacity of my mind that which is reality orientation. Who exactly told me to be this way? I haven’t met a monk or a church in over 30 years. They never taught me this shit. I wish they had.
Ecmandu
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11458
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2014 1:22 am

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:24 pm

attano wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:T. Context.
Is it possible for a philosopher to get married without screwing up his being-philosopher?
By now it has become nearly impossible for me to count the relationships Ive broken off in favor of my philosophic solitude. I dont want to recall as all of these acts of separation have been painful to both the ladies in question and myself. I may have a child or two running around that, in my philosophic arrogance, I have no knowledge of, and because of this arrogance, never will have. It has worked for me so far, but this time I feel I might be a fool to tread the same path. I am terribly apprehensive still, not at all keen on tying myself to another human by law and indefinitely - my instincts rebel.

Philosophic instinct - foremost, a yearning for solitude. The absolute need to have the opportunity to sink into Tartaric depths and to rise to Olympic heights on a whim, without notice, without consideration for anything less extreme - the philosopher is necessarily an extremist. On occasions though, he must perhaps at least acknowledge the possibility of adopting an attitude that might be called sensible.

I am past the idea of polygamy. If only because the ones who tend to win my affections arent the type to settle for merely a portion. If there is one thing that attracts me in a woman it is pride - perhaps my tendency to break hearts, my own and those of those who saw a future with me, is related to this preference for the proud - I prefer to know that a woman will find happiness after I leave her, and there is nothing so sure to pull a woman out of her misery as a proud heart. Whereas men often use their pride as fuel to navigate abysses and even make their camps in them, proud women are... wiser, I suppose. We would not exist as a species, probably, if they werent. We would still be primates.

Still and all. I am one of these people who find it nearly impossible to master their instincts. And ironically, I cant deny being proud of this, for some sordid reason.

Have there ever been any philosophers marriages which werent farcical, or lover-philosophers who werent Parsifal


If it is really about marriage, then I guess Stuart Mill readily comes to mind. Also Emerson, twice actually.
Then, there have been some famous love stories: Abelard and Kierkegaard.
Actually, it would have the most obvious thing for Soren to marry Regina, but eventually he did not. Maybe he had thoughts like yours...

(Word to the wise: BGE 194. 268).

Thanks, yes. But I am under no illusions about possession - in fact the idea of possessing a woman makes me claustrophobic.
I may actually possess her, or not - I will continue to not consider that to be the case.
To possess another human is to be possessed.

Fixed Cross wrote:must the philosophers social status remain marginal?


Maybe not, but I guess that's what the good ones do.

Yes. And Ive been happy to remain untied. But this one is hard to not want close to me at all times and she wants to marry to ensure I dont run away.
Given her choices and the man she left for me (Im hoping this one wont also kill himself, though last time the trauma of such an event had a good part in forcing my philosophy onward so that I produced value ontology, I feel... temped.
I tell myself - the time for marginal philosophers is gone. This is the time for the Philosopher King, to which belongs a queen.

A weird thing, until she told me she wouldnt want to be married in white but in red, I had stronger reservations.
Im just assuming she wont pull a dagger at the altar though, well, that would be a story, and I love stories.

perpetualburn wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:T. Context.
Is it possible for a philosopher to get married without screwing up his being-philosopher?


Philosophic instinct - foremost, a yearning for solitude. The absolute need to have the opportunity to sink into Tartaric depths and to rise to Olympic heights on a whim, without notice, without consideration for anything less extreme - the philosopher is necessarily an extremist. On occasions though, he must perhaps at least acknowledge the possibility of adopting an attitude that might be called sensible.


It's possible but any normal girl in a normal marriage is going to want a good chunk of your time, in fact she's going to feel entitled to it...and if you pull away to sink back into yourself to do real philosophical work (which would actually benefit your marriage) she's just going to think you're being selfish and aren't taking the relationship "serious". Some say Shakespeare was in an unhappy marriage...and this is the guy that wrote Romeo and Juliet...so what hope do us mortals have?

His story of a fated and doomed love doesnt necessarily suggest to me that he himself was happily married.
What is a good story about marriage? About one that lasts?
Ive just finished the novel Penmarric, which exhaust this topic in the setting of late English aristocracy and the beginning of modern times. Pretty good. No Shakespeare obviously though.

Could it also be you haven't found an "honest" woman yet? Your "sensible" attitude could maybe be equated with Nietzsche's "small marriage"?

Thats just me being wary of being too exultant on the internet. Ive learned my lesson.

“We love each other: let us SEE TO IT that we maintain our love! Or shall our pledging be blundering?”

—“Give us a set term and a small marriage, that we may see if we are fit for the great marriage! It is a great matter always to be twain.”

Thus do I counsel all honest ones; and what would be my love to the Superman, and to all that is to come, if I should counsel and speak otherwise!

My most serious relationship before this one, I ended precisely because it had too many characteristics of such a small marriage - one that speaks: work at it.
To be fair though I mostly broke it off because she wanted to have children immediately and I could very well see the times ahead - the present - and by Zeus I am glad I dont have children yet at this point.

Not only to propagate yourselves onwards but UPWARDS—thereto, O my brethren, may the garden of marriage help you!"

Well, for sure.

However, I highly doubt there are many if any women that would read what Nietzsche wrote on marriage and not laugh...

Man: Will you marry me

Woman: Yes, omg, Yes

Man: Just to make sure, the arrow and longing for the Superman is in your will to marriage, right?

Woman: nigga, what?

I think you would be surprised. The women Ive known have certainly not lacked the will to cultivate greatness.
I do not think that Nietzsche really did understand women all too well. I do think Nietzsche too has to be overcome - not in favour of a kind of feminism but simply a greater happiness, a more relaxed nature, and I think he would agree with me. He did not consider his own nature to be the template for the higher man. He simply was the juncture in history, the Antichrist, the dweller at the threshold, the warden of the Aeon.

Which is probably what lead Nietzsche to say:

Never yet have I found the woman by whom I should like to have children, unless it be this woman whom I love: for I love thee, O Eternity!

Aside, but god how I loathe that passage. Once I read it in German (when living with the aforementioned woman) I became nauseous. Nietzsche goes too far her, he attempts to forge nature into something it is not.
It is, I have no doubt, the inception of his destruction.

Which makes me believe that ALL marriages where the partners don't view their other as the source of eternity are shams, just contracts with the state, or made for the sake of tradition just to keep the species going.

Ah ok you take it as metaphor then - well then I agree.
Marriage without a deeply poetic core to it is surely a sham.
I am thankfully not even capable of approaching a woman by whose eyes I do not lose a sense of time and whose first gestures to me dont betray both a loss of control by a passion, as well as the power to hide this loss from her environment - a woman trained in truth.

Do women in general even take marriage as seriously as the philosopher then... Since most of them seem content with a cookie cutter relationship and marriage... Of course, women make a big show of how much they want to be married but do they really care about what it means to be married in a higher sense? Perhaps they do, on an instinctual level, better than man, but how often is marriage in this sense ever realized in real life outside of myth...

Well, women on average are often nearly as uninteresting as the average man. But the averages dont apply to this one.

And if, as a philosopher, you're not going to be married in a higher sense, all these little relationships merely serve as fun(or possibly hellish as the case may be) and educating diversions that take time away from your task (you might even love these women in a small sense)... And if you keep indulging in them again in again, you'll never finish what you set out to do.

My inquiries were mostly aimed at securing that indeed this is not going to be a small marriage. But as I have read the replies Im very far from even being able to endure the shallowness that would lead up to such a marriage. Thanks for your advice, your points are pertinent to the doubts I was having a while back.

zinnat wrote:I do not see any reason why marriage or having a relationship with opposite sex can curb a philosopher's persuit in any way. This argument of having less spare time may have merit but that is not a very sound one. One can always find time for his/her likings, if one wants to. Otherwise it is a good excuse.

Secondly, and more importantly, philosophy does not fall from the sky and neither one can become a philosopher in true sense by reading books only. Real understanding of the issues come from going through different aspects of the life in person. So, if marriage or a relationship is a strict no- no, then one is going to miss a lot of valuable experiences and thus derived cogitations.

Thus, pros are far more than cons.

With love,
Sanjay

Fair.
Indeed my logical technique (value ontology) came to me during a relationship that was leading up to a marriage, except that I broke it off for the aforementioned fear of having children whom I would have to surrender to a system of technocratic banality - what you say rings true to me, personally.

Pezer wrote:Honestly man, I think you're a goddamned fool not to go for it.

What was Neitzsche's last work, the one that spoke most of his truth?

You can sum it up thusly: "I should have married that girl."

I dont think that he ever had the chance to marry the women he loved, she fell for his friend.
No need to send me gifts, if you just refrain from sending curses my way thatll do just fine.
And concerning these, there are plenty of good targets nowadays for such powers as you demonstrated to have. You nearly killed a child, which is why I asked the way I asked to stop it.

Phoneutria wrote:The only way we have managed to further this cursed species is by enduring our collective perpetual succession of mistakes.

If there is anyone in this forum proud to be a parent it is you, so I will consider this to be an instance of rhetorical jest rather than an honest judgment. And I dont hold it against you - the point in general may actually apply but only to the fact that not enough philosophers have children to compensate for the vast quantities of idiots that do.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11056
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:48 pm

Has it ever occurred to you that a straight forward way of addressing a man might save you a lot of time and trouble?

I hope all this isn't some contrived bullshit, and you really have a girl, and it really goes well.

I'll stay out of your thread now.

Gifts received and time shared is not forgotten.

Good luck.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Fri Dec 18, 2020 6:48 am

Any updates on this?
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 20, 2020 12:51 am

None for the moment, and I think it would be wiser for me to, when there are, keep reporting about it to personal, live conversations. The internet isnt exactly a place that respects the sanctity of love.

I do appreciate the general attitude in the comments.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11056
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:04 am

I don't get this attitude of yours. You brought it up.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:26 am

As a conceptual question about whether or not people thought philosophers can get married, since I have this strong reluctance that prevented me from getting married in 2012 where there wasnt really a good reason not to go for it.

You know from seeing Esther look at me how ladies respond to me. What they hate in me foremost is my detaching attention from them and looking at some kind of crowd, as if to justify to them my attention for her.
I dont want to go down that road ever again.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11056
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Pedro I Rengel » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:42 am

Fixed Cross wrote:T. Context.
Is it possible for a philosopher to get married without screwing up his being-philosopher?
By now it has become nearly impossible for me to count the relationships Ive broken off in favor of my philosophic solitude. I dont want to recall as all of these acts of separation have been painful to both the ladies in question and myself. I may have a child or two running around that, in my philosophic arrogance, I have no knowledge of, and because of this arrogance, never will have. It has worked for me so far, but this time I feel I might be a fool to tread the same path. I am terribly apprehensive still, not at all keen on tying myself to another human by law and indefinitely - my instincts rebel.

Philosophic instinct - foremost, a yearning for solitude. The absolute need to have the opportunity to sink into Tartaric depths and to rise to Olympic heights on a whim, without notice, without consideration for anything less extreme - the philosopher is necessarily an extremist. On occasions though, he must perhaps at least acknowledge the possibility of adopting an attitude that might be called sensible.

I am past the idea of polygamy. If only because the ones who tend to win my affections arent the type to settle for merely a portion. If there is one thing that attracts me in a woman it is pride - perhaps my tendency to break hearts, my own and those of those who saw a future with me, is related to this preference for the proud - I prefer to know that a woman will find happiness after I leave her, and there is nothing so sure to pull a woman out of her misery as a proud heart. Whereas men often use their pride as fuel to navigate abysses and even make their camps in them, proud women are... wiser, I suppose. We would not exist as a species, probably, if they werent. We would still be primates.

Still and all. I am one of these people who find it nearly impossible to master their instincts. And ironically, I cant deny being proud of this, for some sordid reason.

Have there ever been any philosophers marriages which werent farcical, or lover-philosophers who werent Parsifal - must the philosophers social status remain marginal?


This was posed as a question about an ongoing situation. Don't play with me.
User avatar
Pedro I Rengel
ᛈᛖᛉᛖᛉ
 
Posts: 8792
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 2:55 pm

Re: On the touchy subject of marriage in the philosophers co

Postby Fixed Cross » Sun Dec 20, 2020 1:49 am

Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image -
Before the Light - Philosophy 77 - sumofalltemples - The Magickal Tree of Life Academy

Image
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 11056
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users