Alright then. So what does separate life philosophy from other kinds of philosophies?
You can deduce it from the term “life philosophy”. It is a philosophy not only of or about but also within life, thus also a practical or empirical philosophy (more or less also including existential philosophy and cultural philosophy, for example), which is not like but merely close to empirical science.
To me, the best example for a literary form of a philosophy of life, existence, and culture is Goethe’s “Faust” and Faust the best literary character of a life philosophy. Goethe was not mainly a philosopher, but all what he did can also be used as a philosophy, especially his knowledge about morphology (cp. for example his “Die Metamorphose der Pflanzen”), his novels, for example “Die Leiden des jungen Werthers” or “Wilhelm Meister …”, his tragedy “Faust I and II” (as I alraedy mentioned) or his books “Aus meinem Leben - Dichtung und Wahrheit”, “Maximen und Reflexionen” and others.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, …
Arminius wrote
Myself.
Our intrinsic knowledge of life would be as strenuous as living it’s existence. Yet life on the topic of what it is and how we perceive it is just our own interpretation. Nietzsche could have absolutely been teaching us of correct life philosophy as in he did teach us of the consequences of being here living within the grasp of actual life. Yet, only he succumbed to life’s brutality as well and saw nothing but an ugly life within his path.
And (by the way): Goethe lived in a time of two philosophically and scientifically important Occidental eras: (1) Enlightenment, (2) Idealism/Romantic.
Yes.
Which verb comes semantically very close to the verb „instill“?
“Eine Würdigung Nietzsches wird immer stark davon abhängen, wie man den »Willen zur Macht« auffaßt. Ermunterung zu imperialem Zynismus? Kathartisches Geständnis ? Ästhetisches Motto ? Selbstkorrektur eines Gehemmten ? Vitalistischer Slogan? Metaphysik des Narzißmus? Enthemmungspropaganda?” - Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, 1983, S. 389.
Translation:
“An appreciation Nietzsches will always strongly depend on how one understands the »will to the power«. Encouragement to imperial cynicism? Cathartic confession? Aesthetic motto? Self-correction of an inhibited? Vitalistic slogan? Metaphysics of the narcissism? Propaganda of disinhibition?”
Although life philosophy wants to understand life by life itself, it should not be reduced to vitalism and biologism which are aspects of it but not more.
Although I extend the word to include physical installations:
And also:
And:
Basically it refers to making something more permanent.
One just has to wonder for how long she had to hold that pose:
One needs to ask himself as what comes first in order to determine what is a part of what.
Life always entail a whole-life within the whole of reality.
‘Life Philosophy’ [vitalism ++] would imply partial philosophy and will not cover whole-life and the whole of reality.
Actually it is philosophy per-se that will cover the whole of life and the whole of reality.
Philosophy per se is the management system that is effective to deal with one’s whole life, humanity and the whole of reality optimally.
Within philosophy per-se there are the various categories of specialized Philosophy which are the various tools to be used to deal with life optimally within whatever the existing constraints.
Pierre Hadot introduced his Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault
The above is something but I don’t believe the above is sufficient to deal with the whole of one life, humanity and the whole of reality.
What is needed is to approach the whole of life with a reliance on Philosophy per-se [as appropriately defined.]
“Himself”? Whom do you mean?
You have not read or at least not understood what life philosophy is, how it is defined. Life philosophy (by definition) does not have to cover the whole of reality. This is already said in this thread. Just try to read it.
And it is also not simply meant as “a way of life”.
Thank you very much.
Or he (?).
Is it possible to clearly define vitalism?
Here’s my attempt. Vitalism would be an idea that there is some kind of vital force that permeates everything. A sort of substance monism, I’d say. Or rather, substance monism regarding living beings. Non-living beings appear to be excluded.
I don’t know how true this is. So it’s someone else’s turn to correct me and/or offer better, more accurate, definition.
Unless we’re confining ourselves to philosophers per se and not thinking out of the box –
a life philosopher can also be an artist, a poet, painter - they too are life philosophers.
Baruch who wrote Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 was a life philosopher.
A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.
Anyone who observes, studies and portrays life in all of its subjectivity, objectivity, truth, meaning, can be considered to be a life philosopher.
I believe that existentialists are life philosophers.
Shakespeare was a great life philosopher. Van Gogh was one, Picasso was one…Dostoevsky was one…
Vitalism means that the organic life has a special vitality ("vis vitalis“) effecting life phenomenons that depend on that vitality. Vitalism rejects the exclusively mechanical and chemical explanation of life processes. The Neovitalism assumes that there is a teleologically effecting factor called "entelechy“, which is an Aristotelian term.
Isn’t vital force yet another name for mind, spirit, soul, consciousness?
Vitalism then would just be the idea that the immaterial (= mental) is more fundamental than the material (= physical.)
Solipsism in a sense.
The behavior/actions/spirit that defines a life versus anything else could be referred to as “vitalis”, “orgone”, or “life force”. Some still believe that the vitalis force/behavior that we call “life” is not an emergent force from more fundamental forces of physics, but an entirely separate force.
As an emergent force, it obviously exists. But as a physically separate force from the “forces” of fundamental physics (once properly understood), I don’t think so.