Jakob wrote: Three Times Great wrote:
I just came across this line in Heidegger that well touches upon what I perceive to be at the heart of my objections to your stated perspective here, at least in how I conceive of that perspective:
"Whatever our judgments may turn out to be, they are all baseless as long as it is not clear by what they are supported."
To me, absent such a grounding position or at the least a beginning and genuine attempt as establishing such a 'by what they are supported', everything becomes suspect and can be attributed no essential or authentic value... if all we care about is utility, then sure, there is no problem at all... and yet philosophy, and not only philosophy, is pointed toward and has its essential character in so much more than a contingent utility of the moment, more even than an all-pervasive utility of a prevailing and indeed perhaps otherwise important or unavoidable context.
I think it is supported by love.
Or by what we call it, including lusts.
No self respecting philosopher talks about this but its nontheless kind of obvious. That is where you get occultists, who state the obvious obfuscated by system so for it to look at least complicated. That turned out to be pretty cool, actually - but not something you need if you don't have an obsessive need for storytelling and imageblending and don't spend your time making films.
I guess that isn't me, then. I like movies and stories, but they are not centrally important to me.
I agree about love, however -- in a wide understanding of what "love" means to us.
All reason is ultimately grounded within sentimental-experiences, emotional needs, biological desires/drives. It is important to understand how reason is in fact constructed if we are to use it properly, else we end up like all the wittgensteins of the philosophical world.... just making shit up because we can't see the relationship between reason's constructs and the limits of reason as such... what's going on below the immediate surfaces..
EROS is what holds the will together. Love under will means: will supported by love.
When I interpret the words "will" and "love" in a certain and quite general manner (in terms of evolutionary biology, psychology and subjectivity) then I agree with this.
I am not sure if you interpret these words in the same (non-ideological, non-closed) manner, however. Or maybe you do.
Basically here its not all that difficult when we see will as man, love as woman. Nietzsche made that unnecessarily complicated but said the same thing.
Lesbianism is fine - for them - but woman needs to support man as man makes life possible for her.
The two will always fight, this is their will and love.
Okay, it is clear we are not speaking of will and love in the same sense or meaning, then...
Getting caught within gender labels and gender dichotomies is one of the most harmful, false and personally limiting traps a thinker can fall prey to. After all some of the greater minds in philosophy did get stuck there -- but we can and must do better.
Will as honesty - Love as the subtlest irony.
Will is often nothing but dishonesty, with oneself, a willing-away... name one will-toward that is not also a willing-away, and primarily a willing-away.. The impetus for overflow of energy comes from the catharsis such overflow affords to a pent-up excess of energy. We learn to run when we first encounter the predator, so to speak... yes it is more complicated than that, I know. But the point needs to be addressed before we can explore those areas of "will" that are somewhat less dependent upon such a prior reactionism... if indeed we are to find such a space at all.
To me, the drive to self-honesty does not arise from what you (or Nietzsche, or anyone else I know) calls will. This drive (or impulse, or mechanism) toward self-honesty with onself is a necessary product of the subject's self-encounter. It arises as an emergent need from within sufficiently developed (self-aware) subjectivities themselves, it is their mode of action, so to speak (their mode of action in so far as they form consistent and deep self-relations).... this is why self-honesty is often at such odds with the "willings" of both body and mind.
Love as subtle irony... can you expand on what you mean by this?