Why the philosopher rarely turns out well

The word “philosopher” is pompous. Why use philosopher when you can say thinker? And if you want to differentiate yourself from inorganic thinkers, you can simply say you are an organic thinker . . .

Thinker: a man who thinks a lot.
Organic thinker: a man who thinks a lot out of genuine need.
Inorganic thinker: a man who thinks a lot in order to escape/deny his needs.

But there is this obsession, this inorganic passion, to write a book, a philosophy, with the aim to intellectually impregnate minds of future generations and achieve some sort of fame. Kinda stupid, this is. Rather inorganic, if you ask me.

This is what happens when people end up confusing consequences with goals. Fame is a consequence, it should never be your goal.

Magnus, let’s not go too far in depreciating the philosopher, or thinker, as You may, to soak some pomposity out of it.

Neverthe less such thinking may make a big difference in some people’s minds, even here , but what can be said of the past? That even if some philosophical notions actually bettered the fortunes, - not necessarily the famed of some, is indisputable.
The also effected infamy, as where certain ideas have caused great suffering and needless victims of philosophically inspired conflicts. This too,is indisputable.

The victims amount to hundreds of millions, based on this premise. Re: The pen is mightier then the sword.

I can not imagine seeing Nietzsche without the actual Nietzsche, the man who did what he did and was what he was, the philosopher or however else you wish to call the guy you know because you’ve read his texts. As if you can cut up a man into different qualities, and still be left with that man! What is the ground of this idea?

Transfigurative action; “seeking death” – going into the wilderness.

Even though this is not related directly, it certainly can be made to relate.

The philosopher has to be both extremely multifarious and completely single-minded.

The philosopher is both overflowing with a strange and overwhelming, yet sometimes almost invisible happiness - his sorrow is deep, but somehow it drive his happiness - they are part of the same elementary state which produces both the wisdom and the folly.

Exacting, absolutely; but to become a an, self-contentment must be feigned, specifically to oneself; one must become actor and enact a relaxed demeanor, so that the nerves can rest as the mind operates on a slightly lesser standard. Here I am speaking for myself; my ind is driven by intense nervous energy, I have no choice but to be an occultist, I needed to control this stuff, when it got out of hand. The exacting is a form of shaping circuitries in which the absolute questioning can become a thing in itself, an engine for producing thought on a specific level. I have machines running in my brain, and often I’m unaware how to interpret their data. …
( did I say that out loud? )

Another ‘both’ answer. The pathos for all of life is rather extreme, which due to the nature of life which is a conflict that is often benevolent but often enormously painful, forces one to become inhuman in conceptual reflection.
This intense difficulty has slain many young brilliant mens nervous systems and minds. The omnipresence of information about hell on earth and the knowledge of absolute absence of power to alter it plays a hard beat on the fine constitutions of ‘empathic extraverts’ which is a category to which the philosopher must belong, if he is to care as much as to reach as deep and to push as far his questions about what he perceives to be errors. Why would he care? Why write? To be famous after death?

Ruthless versus standing ideas and especially opinions, prudent versus method, high logic. In more earthly and affective frames, the philosopher will appear immensely brutish at times, when he is being prudent to some arcane principle of his own, and be prudent where all others rush ahead.

One wants to set a goal that will be a goal long after one is no longer walking the earth. Attaining a goal means perceiving new goals.

Or hated. It is always the aim to slay a certain branch of mankind, to incapacitate a certain breed of culture. In hate there is always fear.
To be despised means to have broken idols. There is no way of avoiding that. Respect is never an issue of want; it is rewarding but it also distract - unless it comes from people whose judgment one considers to be of very high value. But this is running into banalities.

A seducer, but not to oneself, but to a way of thought - and a tyrant in this same sense; to dictate ones values, a tyrant has to seduce. Hitler was a great seducer Napoleon even greater - who found the supreme seducer in Jesus - a reflection, in the context of philosophy at least, of Socrates the seducer-martyr. Plato is the tyrant who institutionalized Socrates - etc etc.
Where does seduction end and coercion begin? Is not the idea of hell, of eternal suffering as punishment for specific deeds that one wishes to perform, both intensely seductive and tyrannical? It seduces into fear. Using the same language, a philosopher must seduce into power.

It is strange to be proud to have suffered to a very serious degree all these things; but indeed I have, and they were all friends - pushing me into solitude, into which my highest happiness has always seduced me.
Indignation and self contempt, exile and suffering as means to happiness - this quite well sums up the way the god plays with the beast in the philosopher. My philosophy, pure and clean as it is, didn’t come from an immaculate conception.

I’d say that atoms have a sleeping, subliminal valuing, but yeah, they do a heck of a lot of work to exist. There’s no such thing as being, instead there is becoming and re-becoming. The closest thing to a being is a cycle that remembers itself as it gravitates around what it has the most to do with. I thought you were some kid I guess i thought wrong.

No, no, forget the word philosopher for a minute because there is too much stock put into a word (and a singular vision of the philospher) and less on the man himself and all his qualities. That is what I meant.

That is remarkably accurate.

Fuse - Of all humans that I know of, Nietzsche inspires the most love and respect in me. I cannot, like you seem to do, think of N as anyone other than the man who lived his life to disclose humanity to itself, the man who woke up each day to horrible pain and managed to produce the most joyful and liberating insights in recorded history. His courage and generosity are beyond normal human standards, which is why, for all his physical feebleness, it is right that he set the standard for our species’ brightest possible future.

Men of philosophy simply Are their thinking. It is their heartbeat and not for a waking second will they be truly distracted, which is why they have such taxing lives, are such failures in the eyes of those who judge them by social and societal standards.

Hey that was well said.

I wasn’t making a statement about Nietzsche - in fact I hold his work in the highest regard. I was trying to make a point about linguistic baggage and the role of the word “philosopher” in the context of this thread. “Strike out the word philosopher, who was Nietzsche?” I wasn’t saying - as I can now see it might’ve appeared - that Nietzsche was nothing divorced from philosophy. Nietzsche was Nietzsche - whether we label him ‘philosopher’ or otherwise. Instead, I was trying to suggest that the word ‘philosopher’ might be over-full with meaning that we (everyone) have imputed to it. For instance, Nietzsche’s vision of “the philosopher” entails quite a bit more than your average dictionary definition of the word. It gives the idea of the philosopher an air of tragedy, e.g. “qualities that usually destroy a man.”

Incidentally, I am also reminded of the notion that smart people (those with higher IQs) are more prone to depression/mental illness.

I can see your point better now. On the one hand, it’s a title he chose for himself, a word he used to describe his plight and privilege; on the other hand it’s a title attributed to very different types of men. And yes, I do love Nietzsche for being the philosopher Nietzsche, rather than for being a size=85 [/size]philosopher.

Na, this doesn’t destroy a man. Perhaps it destroyed Nietzsche, but depression is healthy. Could you imagine a person who never experienced it? Something must be wrong with them. Permanent depression however, in which it ends without overcoming it, well, something must be wrong with them. Balance of course. Wondering when the next time I experience depression. Will I? Will it be extreme sorrow instead? Devastating events throughout life are inevitable; the longer we go without one, perhaps the less prepared we will be. Philosophy prepares us for these events, we are aware of things, we ponder them. We ponder hypotheticals in our mind, keeping our minds “tuned up” for whatever may come, for whatever may not come.

It is interesting that there is no direct correlation between brain states and emotional attitudes. A person who has an abnormality in the brain, whether physical or chemical, can exhibit absolutely no depressive tendencies or behaviors, while a perfectly healthy person can be a miserable cretin.

How much of the emotional attitude is generated by language as if by some kind of magical property. How can a ‘happy narrative’ literally make a person who should be miserable because they’re wired wrong, quite the opposite? This happens all the time. What are the philosophical-psychosomatic implications of language use? How can thoughts affect emotional attitudes?

Discuss.

Language and emotions are representing the same fundamental reality, the “existential” reality of the subject, and through the manifestation of that reality by way of the construction of the experience of “being a self”.

It would be a mistake to too-greatly divorce language, or emotions, or thoughts from the “self-experience” as if these are to take on a reality of their own against the wider system. Man is an instantiations of processes and principles far beyond himself, yet the ways in which he instaniates thusly are particular, unique and “grounded” in a kind of self-teleological limit. And you can’t just reduce any of it to “brain stuff” and expect to understand what is going on. Brains, too, are also such instantiations of more general principles and properties. The mind has literally created the brain, the ‘universal’ has created the specific human-brain setup, not the other way around.

Perhaps, but not what I was wanting to get at. My question is about the correlation between mental disorder and language… how much of the language is responsible, if at all, for the abnormal behavior. For example, open any self-help, thinking positive book and find the precepts that are supposed to guide a person to happiness. Now take Mary. She’s wired to be bi-polar, manic depressive and suicidal, but she reads this book and repeats these slogans in her head all day. Think positive. Be grateful and optimistic. Etc., etc. You’d never know Mary was supposed to be a basket case according to the doctors, by looking at her behavior.

The question is, is that kind of narrative only epiphenomenal, and if not, what is working causally- the phonetic combination of sounds that make words, or the concepts that are about the words.

What about the language can keep Mary from feeling depressed, wanting to commit suicide, and so on. Why does thinking the sound sequence ‘I should try to be happy’ be any different from ‘everything sucks’ in its correlation to emotional behavior?

Why do most depressives think the phrase ‘everything sucks’ more than happy people, and why/how can a person who should be a nervous wreck act perfectly normal by thinking the phrase ‘be positive’ over and over again.

I don’t think there is any metaphysical content in language. I think it’s all tonal. It’s why Germans are always angry and act constipated; listen to their language. They struggle to get out a single sentence. Why hispanics are always festive and happy… listen to that silly ass music of theirs with the tubas and accordions in every song, and how they talk with that latent rhythm. Why the French are so sexy. Ever talk to a hot French girl who speaks english with a strong French accent?

That is an impertinent prejudice / bias - and an ad hominem too. I know many German, French, Spanish, and other European humans, and I can absloluetly not agree with your false statements. They are based on an impertinent prejudice / bias.

German, French, Spanish, and many other European humans have not much differences compared to other humans. And, for example, the Germans are often more “French” than the Frenchmen, and the Frenchmen are often more “German” than the Germans, … and so on. And please do not forget that the most US people are Germans. Are you an US citizen?

Yes.

I surrender.

Of course it’s both. But thanks for bringing up this question.

As an aside (realizing this is hardly the point), that’s not an effective phrase, mind you; the book, if any good, will prescribe “I am happy”.

On what ground should anyone be a nervous wreck? I mean specifically.

This would mean that they can not be translated into each other, and that they can not be used conceptually.
But I don’t think you don’t understand this…

so yes There is a lot of it that is tonal.

Definitely. I am a radically different entity when I speak French, German, English, Italian or Dutch - I am capable of wholly different emotions (this is the reason I learned French and Italian - to increase my potential for emotion), but conceptual insight remains quite constant across the languages.

The tonal aspect of language addresses emotions very directly, which means it addresses the persons self-image, his experience of himself.
The metaphysical aspect of language addresses abstract thought processes, which to many humans do not exist.

Yes. And in this way we can understand the languages of animals as well; their self-experience is expressed in sound, these sounds are recognized by similar experiences; the sounds of birds is akin to the tonal aspect of human language; it contains ‘concepts of emotions’ - emotions are like proto-concepts; the split of emotion and proper concept is analogous with the inception of gods, or spirits; these are in effect such proto concepts; half emotion, half concept; and in as far as they remain ‘divine’, they must remain indefinite, more emotional than conceptual.

The struggle over the Christian Trinity conception is informative; the division of the feeling ‘god’ into three conceptual entities was very difficult to emotionally accommodate; this is why the greatest Christian fervor is aimed these days at the still “holy spirit”, which has taken the place of the original mysterious “God” - that to which the emotions can cling without having to deal with the higher frequency brainwaves of conceptual thought. Conceptuality is reflected in terms of brain frequency as the difference between alpha and beta waves; from We can indicate the ‘substance’ of pure conceptuality to begin to be possible at roughly 12 Hz. 12 beats a second in order to sustain a concept in the mind. Lower, it will dissolve into the alpha layer emotive inner-sensory state in which we dream and fantasize. I imagine we could actually work this into an artificial intelligence; perhaps computers are too fast to be conscious; or - in as far as they are consistently fast, they are not conscious; yet when they ‘suffer’, when their life and environment produces obstructions and private routines that seem to serve no purpose, perhaps what it is doing is sometimes somewhere akin to what we might call thinking. Maybe. Interesting thought. It is certainly true that in as far as a thing can be identified as fulfilling a purpose external to itself, it is not self-valuing; the reverse does not follow, of course. But let’s not assume that there is necessarily nothing experiential going on within a computer just because we didn’t intend for it to be there. SO very much electricity and structure; so many symbols; I am sure there are some short lived self-valuings within the collisions of code-blocks very much worth(y of) being.

From that…

…to that is likely to be too much for most readers - I do however agree with both of the statements.
the mind is indeed the core of the instincts; the ‘intelligence’ that has survived these billions of years is what had to find all these forms to be ‘intelligent’ - i.e. to succeed,to prevail, to produce a future in the image of a past;

‘cosmic intelligence’ simply means ‘de facto reality’, holding in mind an understanding of the abysmal quantity of possibilities that did not come about, that were ‘defeated’ because of ‘interventions’ of what in retrospect is called necessity, but in the moment itself is called will to power, and leading up to the moment, self-valuing.

The question is at what level we imply our consciously doctored interventions. We have these three levels;
the necessity in retrospect is rather the camel,
the will in the present is the lion,
an the self-valuing advancing upon the world as time itself is the child.

The tonal aspect of a language is important but not as important as some people think. The Germans are the people of poets and thinkers, scientists and philosophers, technicians and engineers, musicians and inventors, also of sports and work, okay, and, for example and not to forget, of the real Faust as well as the concept “Faust”. No surprise that the German language sounds more abstract, distant, accurate, and perfect. German is a language for science and philosophy and other abstract aspects. French, for example, expresses more emotions, if one compares it with Germanic languages (German, English, Duch, Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, … etc.). … But why should we value this like we value money, cars, books, or Music (for example music from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Zappa)? If one shows emotions while speaking and has not the suitable language for emotions, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because “it is said” that this one is not allowed to show emotions because of this one’s language. If one has the suitable language for emotions and does not show emotions while speaking, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because “it is said” that this one must show emotions because of this one’s language.

And one more point:

Europe has a miserable demography, and the people from other continents, especially people of afroasiatic languages invade and intrude Western, Northern, and Central Europe. So maybe that the Europeans will experience something that the Indians experienced a very long time ago. And the economic development in Europe will probably become disastrous and end in a tragedy with Europe as a Third World continent. We should value this in the first place.

I find German to be strongly emotional, strangely childlike in its sweeter ranges. It is less thick, it is more airy, Hyperborean - concepts are able to dwell more comfortably and richly in German. There is much space to address what one wishes to address, there is no necessity to relate it to one’s own state of culture or mentality - it is closer to mathematics; but if you have ever seen a mathematician, you now that this does not mean an absence of emotion; they are stranger, less common emotions; again more airy - the ‘nerd’ is a German, (granted also Jewish) phenomenon; but many great composers were of such material - the mathematics of emotion, this is what Bach has been attributed. And is his music not as real as French music? I say it is realer, because mind and matter are not separate. It is nice to speak French if one needs to become more human. It is good to speak German if one is feeling like ones humanity needs a cool shower of reason. One will feel more human after that.

It is clear that all languages possess secrets that make them worth being born into. Otherwise they would not have survived. But the difference between German and French is the center of post-modern philosophy as it was of scientific politics; The concept-driven thought of Germans and the context-driven thought of the French; it is good that the Germans lead the way, but it is not good that the French do not also lead the way. How, that is the German task. What to create? Where to build? Why to cultivate? Those are all more universal; and it is universally known that the king of France is in a position of all eclipsing privilege. This kingship, this inheritance of God - which now that he’s dead, we’re entitled to - this is what is missing from the conception of Europe. Austerity is the very antithesis of what we are. We’ve always been the horn of plenty, our unity is threatening to quench this well. Let wars become friendship but keep the beacons at the borders burning; this place used to be mysterious.

Sounds are merely construction points for words, like notes to a piece of music; words (and music) are simply tectonic formulations on which ideas, concepts, meanings, perspective are capable of taking form and taking flight. Saying that someone is “wired” for depression, suicide, bipolar etc. is a naive view, because these states are only reflections of underlying schemas of consciousness which has become bound by this or that unapproachable limit, by certain pains and impossibilities to experience; therapy and self-help can work because they inspire active capacities for overpowering those kinds of limits and thus forcing a larger integration, for example an integration into a dominant personality-type available to a given person based on the kinds of experiences possible and likely to them.

You are essentially asking ‘what is thinking?’ and how does it work. You would need a much subtler and developed point of view here, a more comprehensive philosophy of mind, which does not really exist in traditional philosophy, to begin answering that question with any satisfaction.

Because words are merely signs pointing toward concepts, and “concepts” are merely fragments of lived subjectivity, perspectives, feelings, meaningful experiences. The ‘magic’ of language is that it acts as a ground on which consciousness can attain more varied, higher and deeper, configurations and self-encounters. We call that kind of activity “thinking and feeling”. Language itself is simply an externalizable logic grid build from an adequate middle-ground combination of hard and soft points of reference, objects possible to communicate stable realities while also disperse and open enough to be essentially limitless in what, how and why they can become used.

Because language-use follows from deeper consciousness including what are called feelings, motives, and our expectations of pleasure and pain, reward, punishment, etc. Our use of language and certain words over others does not exist in a void, somehow disconnected from those things it is referencing or those causating factors that have compelled that language use.

Repeating a mantra to oneself can simply cause the extant locus of consciousness to compress itself with respect to everything outside of the spaces evoked by the mantra’s meaning, it basically forces consciousness to live a more limited, narrow existence for a while. In such a state it becomes much easier to act without regard to certain pains and understandings which otherwise would have impelled that consciousness differently, in the case of your example toward more “depression” and “negativity”.

Language is tonal, yes. It is also much more than mere tonality.

Why do you insist on seeing it as either-or, in only a black and white way?

Consider that you merely have cause and effect backward. Putting a word for “hiccup” into a language doesn’t cause cause those people to start having hiccups. But if those people begin to have hiccups, it is very likely that they will find or make a word for it into their language on their own.

Reminds me of this from TSZ:

Also, it’s worth noting that Nietzsche called TSZ the “…entrance hall to my philosophy, I will have to start again and not grow tired until the main building also stands finished before me”…Quote lifted from “Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Before Sunrise”