And when they make the cores of ideology they are also imperfect in so many ways.
Its prehistoric, not historic. Telelogy isn’t linguistically based, you can have it without words.
Tool making is a example of premeditation, but not a systematic premeditation. A advanced tool industry (stone based), specialized hunters traveling around large geographical areas… that has Telelogy written all over it.
Chips so similar behaviors, on a much reduced scale, so I would say a human conception… about 6-10 million years ago. Prior to this, with the other apes still in existence, it looks considerably closer to what you see in primates, or social animals like cats (big cats) or wild dogs. Aspects reside, aspects like hunder, as a motivator, and learning from memory. How well can non-apes learn from one another, assume specialized, abstract roles?
Thats what your looking at. Not blaming Plato… he came way the fuck after.
And in my previous post above, I mistook Arminius for you Joker, my apologies.
I mean nihilism is skepticism taken to its logical conclusion. Skepticism, in the history of philosophy, can mean anything from mild reservations to radical anti-realism. Agnostics are religious skeptics just as much as wholesale atheists, but the latter are a lot more extreme. Also, sketicism is usually skepticism of something. David Hume was a causal skeptic. Richard Dawkins is a religious skeptic. George Berkeley was a material skeptic. Daniel Dennette is a consciousness skeptic. But nihilism, it seems to me, is the effort to be skeptical of as much as one can within philosophical reason. Usually, this includes skepticism of truth, value, morality, beauty, and anything that can reasonably be shown to project from the mind. This is why most nihilists still believe in the material world (because they can see it) but even there, there are some nihilist who don’t even believe in that.
I agree, sort of. When it comes to human experience, there is nothing that is fundamentally objective. Everything is first and foremost subjective, but within that subjective framework, there is objectivity. In other words, when we talk about something being objectively real, we cannot do so without voicing our subjective opinion that it is objectively real. It all starts with thought–even if that thought is established knowledge–and things only become objective for us when we start with that thought, which of course is mental and therefore subjective.
Most subjectivists/idealists will say that subjective reality is real, but they usually mean “as a mental thing”. George Berkeley, for example, was a material skeptic, which means he was a skeptic of material reality–he thought everything was nothing more than sensory perception–the world is in the head–but as such, he thought it was real… as a sensory perception. But I kind of flip that on it’s head. I don’t say the world is in the head, I say everything in our heads is out in the world–material reality is just as real as the atheists and the physicalists think it is… but it’s projected from our perceptions. It’s not real “as a perception,” our perceptions are real “as material reality”. Berkeley tried to educate us on the true nature of matter–it was really mental–I try to educate people on the true nature of mind–it is really material (or at least our sensory perceptions are).
But all this requires relativism, of course, otherwise I’d be caught in a web of contradiction given that different people have different perceptions.
I’m inclined to agree (although I don’t know if I’m that adament about it); Platonism eventually got melded into Christianity through Augustine. Christianity was actually already melded together with Hellenic thought, but it was Augustine who took the Platonic realm of forms and equated it with God’s thoughts. Plato had already established that the forms represented perfection–perfect images of what Earthly things were supposed to be–the perfect car, the perfect tree, the perfect house, the perfect human being–and Augustine took this to a whole new level by asserting that the reason this realm was so perfect is because the forms were God’s designs for the world, which includes the design of the human soul, but because these forms are stuck within the Earthly realm–a realm of imperfection, of shaudy and clunky matter–things in this realm, including us, stray from perfection.
And of course, the rest is a very well-known and familiar history.
Just as a note, Plato wasn’t the first to conceive of an abstract realm. That can be traced back to Pythagoras, but Pythagoras only envision an abstract realm of mathematics and numbers, not forms.
Like James? 
Well, Platonism certainly encourages arrogant certainty.
You’re correct to say teleology is prehistoric and ancient however it really started to crystalize as a belief through the philosophy of Plato. The world teleology for instance comes from the word telos.
That’s what I was trying to get at.
Yes, indeed.
Yeah… but telelogy itself as a definition isn’t it’s origin. Plato provided a theory for it, but we had already been building civilizations since Gobekli Tepe 12,000 BC, and undoubtedly earlier with more perishable structures.
I can’t blame Plato… he put the pieces together, but it was inevitable. Its firmly rooted in our neurology, how we thing. Your honestly not too far from Plato and his use of Dialectic, it could be described as Nihilistic in aim. You would fit into his school rather well. Think you would cheer on Diogenes rebuttal to Plato’s Laws, in Diogenes approach to destroying the asprects of state in a Cynic republic… the way you live is fairly close to it, just your bent to evil, ehereas he advocated pacifism and love, given it was pointless to attack a society of hobos. In hindsight… I can say this isnt a surefire way to avoid getting attacked and enslaved. These days it attracts problems, even if your doing absolutely nothing, cops will assaukt you, fine you… people will rob you despute the slim pickings.
Under my specific form of nihilism in my understanding I separate mental and physical forms. Mental forms being entirely subjective and the physical realm being objective. Problems of course arise when the mental subjective state tries to infuse and ascertain understanding with the physical one. The limitations of the mental mind trying to comprehend the physical universe, cosmos, and reality around it.
I don’t view nihilism of course being a nihilist to be radical but rather the acceptance of uncertainty, randomness, and the unknown that is inherent throughout the entire universe. The limitations of the mind and reason to fully grasp the interactions of our universe.
I really have a problem comprehending how something that starts subjective can ever become objective.
Precisely, it is that arrogant certainty about things that I despise about Platonism and philosophies just like it.
Yes, that’s what I meant. Plato crystalized teleology by providing a theory for it.
I don’t really see how his dialectic in any way can be described as nihilistic.
I’m a fan of Diogenes who I view as the father of cynicism although I am at a complete loss on his views of love and pacifism of course.
Yes, they are separate forms, but what you are calling “mental” (I think), I call “inner”–which includes cognition and emotion–and what you call “physical”, I call “outer”–which is our sensory experiences. But as an idealist, I take these mental states–both the inner and the outer–to be no different, in terms of how they feel, from the objectivist’s way of experiencing the world. Even the objectivist will concede to the existence of the mental. In fact, I think the “mental” originally meant the “imagination”; primitive man had an imagination, an “inner” world, in which he could visualize and conceive of things as though inside a simulation of reality–and he had to–he had to have an inner laboratory, so to speak, in order to test ideas and experiment with hypothetical scenarios such that he could predict, in a crude manner of speaking, what would happen in the real world if he tried this or attempted that. It is how he survived. But in order for this inner laboratory to work, he had to experience it as “unreal”. Can you imagine if he couldn’t distinguish between the reality of a tiger standing before him and one he just imagined? In order to feel safe about experimenting in his inner laboratory, he had to regard it as unreal.
This, I believe, is where the mental being “unreal” came from. We think that if we can identify it as just a thought, or just a perception, or just an emotion, then it is unreal; but the “unreal” was never meant to be applied to these, just to the imagination. Stretching the “mental” to all other experiences, which is a legacy passed down to us not just from Plato, but more recently from the likes of Berkeley, Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc., seems to have brought with it, the “unreal” aspect, and in the end, we get wholesale anti-realism about pretty much all our experiences.
I agree with the stretching of the “mental” to all our experiences, but leave the “unreal” in the imagination, I say.
Yes, there are certainly limitations, but I think the problem of infusing the subjective understanding with the physical world of perception depends on if it works for you or not–for some people it does, for some it doesn’t–but it becomes more problematic across the board when you attempt to enforce your understanding on others for whom it doesn’t work–which is usually going to be the majority of people because we are all so very different from each other, and different understandings will work for different people. People believe in all kinds of hokey bull shit, and for some this may bring them peace, help them get along with others, make them feel confident, whatever floats their boat, but the minute they start thinking this is an objective, universal, absolute way of life, then they begin to think of it as public, not private, and so it should work for everyone; that’s when they start getting ideas of promulgating and showing others the “right” way, the “truth”.
Which is quite sound. Nihilism is radical only in relation to skepticism, which as I said is usually a bit milder (but of course, all forms of disbelief are skepticism, and this can include forms even more radical than nihilism–anti-realism and idealism, for example).
It’s like Einstein’s relativism. He says that if you’re standing still on the sidewalk, and you see a car drive by, of course you say the car is moving. But it’s perfectly legitimate to say it’s really you (and the rest of the world) moving in the opposite direction while the car stays put. Either way, however, there’s motion. You can say, therefore, that given that you are fixed on the sidewalk, then it becomes an objective fact that the car is moving. But if we say that the car is fixed as a given, then it becomes an objective fact that you are moving. It isn’t that the motion is fake–it’s always objectively real–but what is moving depends on a subjective interpretation of what is fixed.
Me too, dammit!
Yeah… we have a good idea of what Diogenes Republic said… it was written in response to The Laws and Republic (Diogenes is recorded demanding to know why he wrote another book on Laws).
He wasn’t the first though. There was a lot of debate over this… some mythical taken from the Homeric Cycle (which is much bigger than just the Illiad and Oddessy by the way), such as when Odysseus was dressed as a hobo, in Libya… but others said that was bullshit, cause he was merely traveling incognito for alterior motives.
They usually just locked on Socrates, or Antisthenes.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisthenes
The school broke up over the millinia into several factions, Christianity is one of these movements by the way… if you ever take the time to look over the Didache you would know why… it’s one of Christianities oldest texts and it will likely shock you. Nothing Neo-Platonic about it. Its all Cynicism.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didache
I’ve been able to trace the school much earlier, back to Assyria, in the dog literature (Cynics were known as Dog philosophers, but the later Greeks and Romans were at a lost as to why).
As to Love… we know because the Stoics under Zeno (not all Stoics, Zeno’s specific branch, who had a love hate relationship with Cynicism, as it was a offshoot) we’re hotly debating it… it already existed carried over… nobody quite agreed with the exact definition, suggesting it was already in play in Cynicism, which the first Stoics were heavily recruited from.
The ancient philosophies of this era were also cultic religions… we prefer in modern times to overlook this, given our secularism. It appears for the Stoics at least, the worshipped a kind of hierarchical, mutual love as the ordering principle of society… instead if laws, people loved and choose to model themselves off their elder lover… the elder lover went through this same process when he was young. We do this with wealth and status… such as secret societies in college for guts like David Cameron, or George Bush… but originally it was conceived more as a cashless attachment.
In their theory, ever more ratified men would arise, and you eventually end up with a society of sages. The early Stoics worshipped Love as a Goddess.
Of course, this sounds all nice and all, but you gotta remember, Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, (I don’t know about crates, he had a chick he would fuck in the open, married to him after he gave up his wealth and turned hobo), Zeno… they were all gay, and molested young men. We would of thrown them in jail. Same goes for Aristotle and Theophrastus… who were buttbudies and appear to of been both tutors to Alexander the great, who likewise turned into a faggot extrodinare.
What eventually killed off the acceptance of homosexuality and pedophilia in the ancient world was this practice died off within the ancient Greek schools… universally abandoned, but then the Pyrrhonists (THE great school of skepticism in antiquity, see Sextus Empericus) got in a squabble with the Stoics, and one of them noted the old Stoic concept of a society guided by love was just a bunch of dirty old men raping youths… this caused a massive scandel, cause the arguments had advanced way past thus stage towards a more “Platonic Love” like we would view it today. So the old texts were modified at the main library in Antioch (think that was it). Texts were often paraphrased, cause they had to be written down by hand per copy… so authoritive main texts really mattered, you wanted the best edition to set up shop as a copyist. Once the main works were changed, it likewise caused a scandle, cause people remembered they differed.
Every major stoic from the early era wrote a text on a republic, and on love. We know they we’re similar, yet also differed, and Diogenes was the root.
I can’t say, that it was a universal code. I doubt for example, Pheonic of Colophon much fucking cared, he was doing his shit with a dead bird, signing like it was a Italian Opera.
Likewise, the Cynics themselves never put much stock in writing… we know some wrote, but they didn’t put much stock in the authority of their texts, but rather their example. When someone joined a cynic school, used to another school, and asked for a text, they got laughed at, told your best guide is to follow their example.
It was usually the Stoics or Church Fathers who preserved their ideas. What love meant to any group of cynics is up for debate, but I don’t think they were generally pissed off at the world. I have a few examples… after Alexander the Great invaded Thebes, it is said Crates (Diogenes student) lived in a ditch outside the city, refusing to enter into it. You can well damn understand why he was pissed… he gave up his wealth to pursue philosophy to his city, but was universally loved for it… he was as a result a celebrity. Alexander came, took his bequeathed wealth away, took his city… it was only then, outside the city walls, did it occur to him he never quite gave it up, till Alexander took the city itself away from him. Alexander wanted him back, but he refused, preferring the true hardship of exile over servitude to Alexander. Alexander likewise went to Athens/Corinth (hard to say which) and asked Diogenes what he wanted… Diogenes said he wanted him to move out of the way, as he was blocking his light.
I added the Diogenes aspect as further historical context to Crates. Later on, Cynicism evolved into guys on street corners, hounding people passing by on obvious vices they saw them committing. While this isn’t proof of pessimism, it doesn’t exactly scream they were hippies either, as hippies don’t bark and scream at passing people to get their attention. Obviously though, these were tight knit groups, that can be said to be ruled by love.
Likewise, the early Christian communion began as a communal lunch, paralleled the message. Its strongly encouraged in Christianity to this day, emphasis on community support, food distribution, clothing, emergency shelter. You can extend Libertarian and Austrian Economics emphasis on charities vs state socialism. Its said it is impossible by the socialists, but that’s simply not true… my town has a very advanced system in place, via CHANGE… it’s a conglamorate of privately sourced beneficiary funds supporting institutions under that banner, using it’s internal bueracracy… it’s free clinics are directly descended from Patch Adams’ network (he started in West Virginia).
This is a evolution of the concept of love… but I know this isn’t exactly what Diogenes had in mind. He wanted to abolish state buildings, the use of temples, etc… houses would sorts remain, could people farm? I dunno… were murky on this. They mostly scavenged in real life. Diogenes healthcare plan was suicide… when his friend (can’t recall who) was having issues, he handed him a knife.
But at the same time, Diogenes and Crates both emphasized going door to door, asking people what they were doing, and how their actions lead to a better life. I think he would scoff at a place like CHANGE until he needed antibiotics, or his would stitched up, or his syphalis from fucking some whore taken away… Cynics were quite willing to challenge their own belief system. Its why I eventually left Cynicism for the lesser subbranch of Stoicism.
I get why your so fucking pissed. Every hobo reaches that point of desperation when it finally clicks… when your teleological presumptions that had carried you, like Crates being a much lived Celebrity Hobo in Thebes… you know damn well he wasn’t suffering too badly then, when it is trueky all gone, your down to just one pair of tattered shorts, shirt in in tatters, sunburnt, dirty, rained on you yet again… ants crawling on you, mosquitos buzzing… you realize you can’t integrate back in anymore. Your truly isolated, cut off, dead… anything can kill you, you can’t walk into a store to buy razors and clothes even if you had the money… people antagonize you when they see you, in utter contempt. That builds and builds and builds. A unimaginable rage can issue forth.
Cynics, none I know of, accepted it. Their philosophy was that of the triumphant Phoenix, a metamorphosis from a bad life to the search for the better. I don’t think any would of accepted your “cynicism” you have of desiring men and society to turn perverted and collapse as a result if it’s own vices. They didn’t seek a Apocalypse, but rather a betterment of man in a living philosophy, a superior orientation in life by carefully studying the impulses. Love isn’t anthetical to this outlook, it’s one of the few things that is consistently good in life. I’m not talking about predatory eroticism, but just love… like we have instinctively for close friends, or small children, or puppies, or a long allied city/country. That desire to see them succeed, and norlt fall.
Its why I kept looking for you when you were homeless, after falling out on the forum. I didn’t want you to do something paranoid or sick. You claim to be a nihilist, but your not… your far too pessimistic. Cynicism is optimism unbounded, The Plentiful Utopia we never took the time to notice before.
It has a telelogy, but it’s very loose. Your expected to figure out what it is as you go. Your expected to test your presumptions, and be changed by them, so a universal doctrine isn’t really possible. Cynics aren’t even consistent, even with money… the disavow money, but everyone seems to be begging for it, getting it somehow… like you with your $5000 bucks you claim to be waiting for. This aspect of consistency really stumps the modern academic… some go nearly so far as to rule out any Cynic as being a actual Cynic… or that Cynicism isn’t a philosophy. Not true, just doesn’t hold emphasis on principled consistency, but rather a understanding of impulses and motivations. Wealth was put very far down on the list of priorities, but everyone… including you, suddenly finds need for it.
The greatest novel in Antiquity, Pertronius ‘The Satyricon’ was written as a Cynic buddy travelogue… the two Cynics in it worshipped Priapus (eros… whatever makes your dick hard) and were more nihilistic than you… the transgressed against every vice possible to imagine. However… it often turned badly for everyone involved… even one of the main characters died… the Menippean Satire seems to of had a similar structure to slow enlightenment past a negative, hendonism oriented nihilism towards something more purgative, getting rid of the vices through exposingbthe individual case by case, scenario by scenario, until they arrive at a more enlightened mindset. It seems to me to be similar in structure to Monkey/Journey to the West, or to a much lesser extent The Conference of the Birds.
The current text (doing two actually, Plato’s Seventh Letter too) I am doing is The Tablet of Cebes, which is a direct ancestor to Dante’s inferno. It has elements of Cynicism in it, I’m not the first to note this.
Your experiences aren’t exactly original. There isn’t such a thing as “Nihilism” as a blanket term, there are many differing, separate forms that are hastily smashed together into a synthesis… but it’s unreal. What you are… that’s the Satyricon… your just a bit more militant and angry than even them, filled by the revolutionary rhetoric of the Young Hegelians, like Stirner. You know damb well it doesn’t go anywhere historically, it’s very unlikely to go anywhere today… but you hope for it telelogicallu, on faith, to justify yourself and your history. It ties your hands, make you narrow minded, and keeps you pissed.
Satyricon, made for Nero… clearly fucking failed to have a positive effect on him, cause he had it’s author commit suicide (as suicides go, his may of been the best in history, he went on his own terms). However… it made a massive impression on Thomas Jefferson… I held one of TJs Latin texts in the rare books room of the library of Congress… he owned four editions. It profoundly shaped his and John Locke’s outlook, it’s reflected in our constitution you piss on.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=QnaBx5mM2yQ
Thats my favorite version. I think you will get a kick out of the cannibalism scene, it’s a considerable build on your own position.
If only that post had a few sentences less, I’d be willing to read it.
