a new understanding of today, time and space.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
3401

I see I haven’t posted on this thread in 9 days…

and why?

well, as quite often happens, life…between my shitty job, my wife having minor
surgery, she is fine, but I have been taking care of her for the last few days…
and life in general…

I have and we as a species, sometimes gets so involved in our lives, we
forget to stop and “smell the roses” as it were…who has time to think about
what it means to be human when life is rushing at us at warp speed…

I have been studying Heidegger… long before I had actually planned in
doing so…I just sort of fell into it… I am taking Heidegger as the
quintessential 20th century philosopher… now, should I?
I don’t know, but I am going to go for it…

but in thinking about Heidegger, I have been forced to think about
the “themes” of various philosophical era’s… for example, we can see
that the main philosophical “theme” of just about every philosopher from
Descartes to Kant, was the “theme” of epistemology, the theory of knowledge…
what can we know, how can we know it, what are the limits of our knowledge…
and if you think about it, then it makes sense… think about the time period
that Descartes lived in… he lived from 1596 to 1650… think of the scientific
advances that occurred before and during those years…if you live in a
scientific age like Descartes did, then understanding the limits of knowledge
makes sense…what can we know… so we know that Kepler lived from
1571 to 1630 and he was a key figure in the 17th century scientific revolution…
and one of the other key figures was Copernicus, who lived from 1473 to 1543…
he changed the ideal of the solar system from being earth centric to being sun centric…
and Galilei lived from 1564 to 1642… see how this revolution in science lead
to philosophers being interested in the limits of knowledge…and Isaac Newton lived
from 1642 to 1726…the turn in science lead philosophers to wonder about
the limits of knowledge…quite a logical deduction to go from the limits of science
to the limits of knowledge at large…

now the next fact to keep in mind is the next age in philosophy,
which was the “Age of enlightenment” and what the key phrase of
the enlightenment? It is “Sapere aude” which is “dare to know”

we can see with science that the concept of “Sapere aude” was front
and center… it could have been the motto of science too…

the engagement of philosophers in the enlightenment was to stretch the motto
of “sapere aude” from science proper to everything we consider to be human…

the enlightenment dared to know about everything from politics to philosophy
to economics to history to what we today would call sociology…

the enlightenment took the scientific belief in daring to know, into
fields never before explored…so in my mind, the scientific revolution
and the enlightenment are simple two sides of the same coin… one
went into science and the study of natural elements and the other
took the advances of science and applied that to human elements like
philosophy and medicine and politics and history and economics…
recall that Adam Smith published his book “The wealth of Nations” in
1776… during the “enlightenment”… it was an writing of the enlightenment
as was the Declaration of Independence… a political treatise…

the next theme we reach is the age of Romanticism…which was a
artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement toward the end
of the enlightenment, the end of the 18th century and was at its peak
from 1800 to 1850…

Romanticism has been considered to a be a reaction to the ongoing
Industrial Revolution, the scientific rationalization of nature
and the aristocratic social and political norms of the age of enlightenment…

for the most part those who participated in the enlightenment were
“Gentlemen” with the notable exception of Jean-Jacques Rousseau…

and one of the main reactions of Romanticism was the democratization of
ideals… the main figures of the Romantic era wasn’t the noble class of the
previous age… think of Shakespeare, think of the people who were in his
plays… kings, nights, royalty, the higher class of people… those who weren’t
in this high class played supporting roles in Shakespeare plays… they were never
main players, only the upper class got attention in Shakespeare…

for example, in the most famous novel ever written, Don Quixote,
the lead character, was a nobleman…and this was common…

the lead characters in plays, novels, poems, until the Romantic era,
was the upper class…

are there exceptions? of course, Tom Jones for example was about a youth who
wasn’t a a noble but in fact, does turn out to be the son of a wealthy Squire…
a squire was a country gentleman of wealth…the other very well known novel
of the 18 century was Robinson Crusoe…who wasn’t of the upper class…
but this was a novel of the enlightenment… and that is apparent by
his reaction to the native cannibals…read the book…anyway…

anyway, we are still living in great part, in the Romantic age…

More later…

Kropotkin

3402

sorry, dealing with wife is quite time consuming…

anyway, think about what I pointed about “themes”

we can clearly point out “themes” in different ages…
the 19th century, from roughly 1800 to 1850, was an
the age of “Romanticism”

but note, can we describe the “theme” of the years after
1850? I can’t really think of one…and think about the 20th century?

what “themes” can we place unto the 20th century? we have two, if not more,
underlying themes of last 120 years… the technology theme, which is inescapable
in our modern times and the opposite theme, the anti-science, the anti-vaxxers,
which are really just a Romantic theme…Romanticism is about inspiration,
subjectivity, the primacy of the individual…I saw a sign a while back that said,

“my individual rights outweigh your right to safety”

that is pure Romanticism…the individual over the state/society…

Romanticism rejects restraint, and rejects rationalism…

emotion/feelings over logic and rationality…

conservatives are fighting a rearguard action against our modern,
technological, scientific, rational modern age…

our technological world needs science and rationality to make our
modern world function…

perhaps our modern world theme is the conflict between the scientific
and rational era of the enlightenment and the irrational of the Romantic era…

we can see the irrationality within the two world wars and the Holocaust
and the cold war… and we can see the rationality and science in
the hold science has over our actions and our politics…the conflict
which is quite apparent in the battle over mask… the individual values
vs that which is beneficial for the society as a whole…wearing mask and
listening to science is rational and logical but listening to an idiot like
IQ45 is irrational and illogical…IQ45 promotes magical thinking…
recall he said that the “virus would go away like magic” yah, that
was months ago… and yesterday over 50,000 people tested positive for
the virus and over 900 people died…that was yesterday…

magical thinking is what Romanticism is all about…

and that is accepted by a large part of the population in America today…

while the other part of America, the liberal believes in science and technology
and logic…the conflict in America between the left and right is nothing more
then the 300 year old battle between the enlightenment and the Romantic era…

kropotkin

3403

in thinking about the “theme” of the last 120 years, since 1900,
one might, might take as the “theme” of the last 120 years being

“the banality of existence” what does banal or banality mean?

as an adjective: devoid of freshness or originality; hackneyed;
trite… these are words that do describe the last 120 years…

in seeking our “Modern” age desires, how much more trite can we get when
all we seek is money, fame, power, titles… the ideal for an American
household is to be able to buy a house in the “burbs” and live with a spouse,
two kids and a dog name spot with a BMW in the driveway…

that is the height of the American way of life… we couldn’t be more
trite or banal if we tried… seeking the house in the “burbs”
with a white picket fence? and anyone who attacks this is called,
a communist or a socialist… as if that is the point…

in reading words that are related to banal… we see this:

mundane, hackneyed, vapid, stupid, dumb, corny, trite, bland, blah,
common, conventional, everyday, flat, hokey, humdrum, insipid, nothing,
old hat, ordinary, pabulum…

the height of the American dream is listed in the dictionary as being
banal or mundane or vapid or…

does this mean we must accept a “Romantic” vision of the universe to
regain some magic or something the opposite of banal, which is intelligent,
new, original, sharp, smart, uncommon, fresh…

we must find some path out of the “banality of existence”…

we can begin by seeking that which is not banal or trite… by seeking something
that isn’t as mundane as a home in the “burbs” or the BMW in the driveway…

to change our goal from being material orientated, seeking money, material goods,
fame, titles to seeking something intangible like wisdom or values like love, hope, peace,
justice…the search for peace or justice is a lifetime search… a life seeking
wisdom or justice is a life well spent… far better spent then seeking the
“American dream”… …

perhaps the path to the opposite of being banal is to seek beauty…
we can seek beauty in the poems of yesteryear… we can seek beauty in
walking the fields or in walking in our forest… we can seek beauty in
the act of creation… what can we create that is beautiful?
why, everything…

we can still hold to rationality and logic, but we can also, also
seek beauty and love and justice and other values that aren’t just
functional use…

the modern world is driven by “Functionalism” which is the doctrine that the
design of an object should be determined solely by its function, rather than
by aesthetic considerations, and that anything practically designed will be
inherently beautiful…

(in social sciences) the theory that all aspects of a society serve a function
and are necessary for the survival of that society…

perhaps, perhaps one way of saying “the banality of existence” is the way
we have lost the value of ART in our lives…does it serve its purpose?
is it functional? we dismiss anything that doesn’t serve a function, that doesn’t
have some value in our lives… perhaps we should seek beauty before we seek
the functional… and that might, might lessen the “banality of existence”
if we begin to seek what is beautiful…not what is useful…

isn’t this some type of return to “Romanticism”? no, because we can still
seek the intelligent, the rational, the logical… and still see the beauty of life…
and not only see the beauty of life, but we can begin to seek it out and
hold it just as dear as we do, the BMW in the driveway…

to those who only seek the functional, we can still hold to the functional
and, and we can seek the beautiful as well…but Kropotkin, beauty,
aesthetics is expensive… it cost money to create beauty… yes, yes it does…

to you who the price of everything but the value of nothing… you seek
baubles and trinkets of consumerism…I merely point out another path…

the path that is more costly, in terms of money… but life isn’t judge or
based upon how much something costs… life has higher considerations besides
money… … blasphemy, blasphemy… my god, this Kropotkin has committed
blasphemy in the eyes of the lord… nothing has higher value in modern America
then money… and that is why we are engaged in the “banality of existence”…
we can only see the cost of things… instead of beauty or seeking justice or love…

I challenge you to read a poem or seek out a museum or simple stare
at the beauty of the sunset… just simply bask in the sight of beauty and
behold it…

how many of you even have poems in your home library?

few if any, I would guess and that defines the modern world’s
“banality of existence”…

Kropotkin

3404

This is because values are more important than money.
However, money is just an idea.
The world runs on public opinion.
Ownership is also just an idea.

What are the best ideas?
What are the worst ideas?

3405

not to ignore you Dan but I have other fish to fry this morning…

think about the “formula” we live our lives with…

you are born… that there are books such as the most evil man
in the world, Dr. Benjamin Spock…who wrote “Baby and Child Care”…
evil, yep, but I will leave that argument for another day…
anyway, that there are books that tells us how to raise a baby/child…

and then we go to school, most to pre-school, then Kindergarten
and then to regular school, we go to school with a set list of
programming, school lessons… which teachers must follow…
school is a set, unified, place to learn what society wants it future
citizens to learn… then we go to high school, then some go onto collage
where we learn more lessons in how to become producers…
then we go to work, and then we, most of us, get married, have children,
hopefully buy a house in the burbs and have a BMW in the driveway…

and then one day, after 40 years or so, we can retire and then, according
to statics, we die roughly 12 years after retirement…

our lives, our well regulated and oh so by the book lives…

the list that I gave you, birth, school, work, retirement and then death,
that is a formula by which we live out our lives…we live out our lives
in a “formulaic” pattern…

Formulaic: produced in accordance with a slavishly followed rule or
style, predictable…

so what is another way of thinking of our existence besides “formulaic”
perhaps banal?

perhaps, the “banality of existence?”

Kropotkin

3406

so, our lives, a formula to be lived… just another
way of saying, “the banality of existence”…

and how do/can we escape our “formulaic existence?”

I have already suggested as one possibility to be ART…

but look at our lives… we see many different attempts to escape
banal/formulaic lives…the so called Rock and roll attempt…
“drugs, sex and rock and roll” or the escape into fantasy by D&D or
our obsessive need to watch such escapist movies and TV shows such
as “Lord of the Rings” or TV reality shows like “The Kardashians”

by losing ourselves into these escapist shows, we see our need to
try to escape our “formulaic” or “banal existence”…

we cheer the ones who have escape the formula… the Pirate, or the
criminal, or the people who inhabited the wild west…we escape out lives
by recreating or showing sympathy with those who stand outside of our
banal existence…the cult surrounding IQ45 is one such attempt to
escape the banalities of life…but every attempt to escape via the cult,
is doomed because by its very nature, it is trite and banal…

or as Shakespeare said,

“it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”

IQ45 is an idiot telling a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…

and to escape their formulaic and banal existence, people believe him…

and to escape their formulaic and banal existence, people will do
all kinds of things…as for me, I escape into philosophy…

and what do you do to escape your banal and formulaic existence?

watch soap operas? escape into music? read sci-fi books?
commit crimes?

excessive focus on some aspect of existence is
to attempt to escape our formulaic and banal existence…

excessive focus on sex, drugs, the Kardashians, video games,
booze, whatever… all attempts to escape our formulaic and banal existence…

I would suggest that people’s focus and attachment to religions
and god, is just another attempt to escape our formulaic and banal existence…

think about the hierarchies of the middle ages… they are nothing more the
a formula of/for existence… that the strictly enforced hierarchies of the middle
ages were met by resistence…in the form of the ugly behavior of the middle ages…
to hold to a formula/set/hierarchical existence means that we must
act out is some way… and in the Middle ages, drinking and violence were
rampant… the first pogroms against the Jews were happening, the strange
diseases called St. John’s dance and St. Vitus’ dance… each disease were
often the result of the stress force unto people by the enforced formula’s
and hierarchies of the age…

to be encaged by such formula’s and hierarchies meant people had to
release somehow…and violence was often the means of release…
a cathartic release of strong emotions…

our formulaic and banal existence doesn’t offer us any formal release that
people must have…and yet, we have our football games, our movies, our
political rallies…meant to have a cathartic release of emotions…

our formulaic and banal existence leads us to stress in our lives…

“going postal” isn’t just about being psychotic, but about some form of escape
from our banal existence…

I work in a factory lite situation… I am a checker in a supermarket…
I scan and weigh thing all day long… I know codes for produce, 4088 is the
code of a red pepper for example…we hold to a strict enforced hierarchy,
where the worst crime to commit is… insubordination…

this formulaic and banal existence I have, I must find some escape
and release from it…

and how do I escape? I work out chess problems on my phone, I read and think
about philosophy, I am continuing my ongoing study of philosophy with my study
about Heidegger, and I am engaged in my just beginning study of music… I have
a keyboard, I am learning to play it… I am right at the start… but this is another
attempt to escape my formulaic and banal existence…

in the old days, I would have just drank my way through it…

so, once again, how do you escape your formulaic and banal existence?

Kropotkin

3407

Peter,

You’re selling yourself short.

To be interesting and to have an interesting life, you need to set an impossible task for yourself.

If you do this, all roads lead to the same place:

Trying to send everyone to heaven forever.

This doesn’t mean we don’t have boundaries until this is accomplished. But it will give you an exceedingly interesting flora of thought. It will make you and your life interesting.

3408

K: very nice post Dan…values are more important then money…
now try to convince everyone of that?

what are the best ideas?
what are the worst ideas?

that is what we are trying to find out right now…

Kropotkin

3409

K: you have made several assumptions, ONE: that an interesting life is the goal…
I don’t think so… TWO: going to heaven is the goal of existence…

I have already stated on more then one occasion that the myth I most adhere to
is the “Icarus” myth…

Kropotkin

3410

so the question is, as I have stated, how do we escape our
mundane and banal existence?

the first point is, as always, recognition that we lead mundane
and banal existence… becoming aware is always, always the first step…

what dreams do you dream? are they further dreams of banality?

dreams of money, fame, power, titles, of material goods?

these dreams reek of being mundane and trite and devoid
of freshness and originality… banal, in a word…

I dream of being one of the 5 best philosophers ever…

when they talk about philosophers, they will talk about
Kant, Hume, Socrates, Plato and… and Kropotkin…

it doesn’t matter if I make it or not and I will be long dead when
they make those decisions, but I want something to aim for, something
that is above mundane and trite and above lacking in freshness and originality…

my role model is Icarus… and I want to fly to the sun and above… perhaps,
perhaps to crash and burn… but oh my, what a sight that will be…

if you are not reaching for greatness, then what are you reaching for?

Kropotkin

3411

in reading some more about Heidegger, I see that Barrett has
the “I” the ontic, the individual aspect of being, of attitudes and
of decisions as one part of existence and we have the ontological
structures, the possibilities, as possibilities, constitute the very
nature of human existence… in other words, ontic is the individual
understanding and ontological is the universal, all of us, understanding
of the universe…so we can see our individual possibilities, the ontic
and we can see our collective possibilities… the ontological…

and so what are you individual possibilities and what are your collective
possibilities?

we have the “I” and then there is the “we”… how do we connect these
two possibilities? the “I” and the “we”?

Kropotkin

3412

You can connect multiple free-floating atoms (or an arbitrary set of I’s) into a cohesive universe of atoms (or a singular we) by…

Replacing the idea of: Many independent copies of the laws of nature existing at the locations of each particular atom…

With the idea of: A singular application of those laws, directly to the configuration of the universal set itself.

This would mean that it is some characteristic of the composite “shape” of the synthetic unity of the material parts that alone determines the possible states of the natural order…

As opposed to any other sort of reductionist methodology, e.g., those that only take into account purely local interactions between point-like bits of matter (such as electrons, quarks and photons).

Thinking along these more holistic lines would have major consequences for those kinds of moralistic questions that deal in, e.g., individual freedom vs. causal determination.

3413

K: I thank you for your reply, however, what you are talking about is physics,
and I am talking about real, live human beings… please, connect
your post with real, live human beings…how does what you say, connect
with me, for example? or even with a human being like yourself…

make your post real, by making it about what is possible for human beings…

Kropotkin

3414

You previously said, ontic is the individual understanding and ontological is the universal, all of us, understanding of the universe.

When you spoke here of “the universe”, you too were speaking in physical terms, i.e., “about physics”.

I was trying to describe a vision of that same universe… a vision that could be called ontological in character, because an idea of primordial connectedness between its (the universe’s) constituent parts is contained inside of its very nature. This idea of primordial connectedness may be further used as a building block in a sort of philosophical framework (such as the kind begun by Heidegger in Being and Time), that can be used by real, live human beings to better communicate with each other.

My usage of the term “atom”, should be understood in terms of being a conceptually fundamental element of thought, rather than something that has been detected by some massive machine within some humongous institution such as CERN.

When we are trying to convince each other over forums like this, it is sometimes necessary to invoke the spectre of the harder sciences (like physics), if for no other reason than to demonstrate that those ways of thinking are not necessarily completely contradictory to the main point under discussion.

3415

K: ok, thank you…I understand that a bit better…

Kropotkin

3416

ok, so I have been working a lot lately and I have nothing to show
for it, the banality of existence, hard at work…

Banal: Trite, bland, mundane, stupid, vapid, cliched,
devoid of freshness and originality…

so in our world of banality, our everyday life, we are faced with other
questions…

one such question is finding the meaning of life? how are we to find meaning and
purpose in such negation that is our current existence…the banality of
existence…

does existence even have a point considering this negation of existence…
the banality of existence…

another poster, Mia, I believe complained about the “why is everything so
boring”… that is the banality of existence…and in this banality, we seek
out ever new and “exciting” moments or experiences…

A long time ago, I lived in the Midwest, near Chicago, and how people would create
soap operas lives for themselves…who was sleeping with who and
who was married to who and who got divorced?

“oh what a tangled webs we weave/when first we practice to deceive”

we seek out such complications, but what does that say about our lives?

if our lives had value, meaning, purpose, would we seek out complications?

we live closer, much closer to lives of banality then we do to a purposeful existence…

what is another possible solution to the banality of existence we face?

the drive to excellence is one possible solution and the drive
to overcome is another, but I have stated another, the drive
to reach for the stars… to strive for greatness in all our actions…
to become what is possible for us…I seek that which is possible in
me in terms of what I can reach in philosophy…I try to achieve greatness
in philosophy… to become one of the greatest philosophers of all time…
it is irrelevant if I make it or if I simply disappear into history… the point is
to reach for the greatness that is found in our possibilities…

who are you and what is possible for you?

that is one possibility to escape the banality of existence…

Kropotkin

3417

This is a philosophical question that is quite often asked:

“Why is there something instead of nothing?”

as a philosopher, I must admit I couldn’t care less…

for me, the question is about the here and now…

“what are we do to here and now?”

and the second part of question is, “what is next?”

I have little interest philosophically in terms of this question
of “why is there something instead of nothing?”

most of medieval philosophy has little to no interest for me…

and questions of knowledge, what is the limits of knowledge,
how can we know… questions of epistemology just don’t interest me…

my engagement is with who we are and what is possible for us…

present and future…

I see the current partisanship of politics as being some attempt to
overcome the banality of life… we need something to wake us
and allow us to escape the banality of existence and this hyperpolitical
world we live in is such an attempt to escape…

if we were more balanced and level as people, we wouldn’t need
to have such hyperpolitical/partisanship politics…

or said another way, this banality of existence is/did make us soul sick…

how do we find salvation from being soul sick (which is the symptom) to
the banality of existence which is the cause of our soul sickness…

the answer could lie in a couple of different means… an
increase attention to the Aesthetics of our life… seeking what
is beautiful… the act of creation is one possible answer to being soul sick…

we could find release from our soul sickness by engaging in reaching for
the stars in our becoming… to become a great artist or to become a
great philosophy or becoming a great person…any one of those could
be the path to salvation…

to be saved… much of what we do in life, either rationally or irrationally,
we do to be saved… from what is different for everyone…

I am soul sick…I have had it with working… I have worked for over 40 years
and frankly, I’m done with it… but I can’t stop working, I can’t afford it…
so my soul is being crushed by work and there isn’t a whole hell of a lot I can do
about it right now… I am just too young to retire, I am 61… If I retire right
now, It would be a short walk to living on the streets… I simply can’t…

so, I lose myself in other aspects of my life… my study of philosophy which is
my main priority in life… I am learning to play the keyboard… I have some
books coming to teach me how to read music…I am trying to save myself
from my soul sickness with my engagement with other aspects of my life…

so as you can see, the question, “why is there something instead of nothing”
just has no meaning for me in my current stage in life…I am struggling with
what it means to be human and what is next for us, individually and, and
collectively…

as I study Heidegger, I just don’t have a connection with his thought
process about the importance of “being”… as of right now, I just don’t
see his question of “being” as important to me… it might be to you, but
it isn’t to me…

as of right now, it isn’t the answers that matter but the questions I ask…

what does matter to me? what is the point of existence?" Is what is wrong
with America really the “banality of existence?”
and if so how do we escape it, both individually and collectively?

Kropotkin

3418

one, one way to think of human beings is this:

we exists as individual atoms… just like a free floating atom,
not connected to anything… but we feel this freedom as some sort
of punishment perhaps…anyway because of evolution, my guess,
I think people want to connect to something…instead of being a free atom…
people want to try to connect with people, places, things, ism’s, ideologies…

we feel separate and apart from people, places, things, ism’s and ideologies,
to name a few…

this feeling comes from weakness, not strength… look at people who are strong,
they don’t feel the need to connect in the way most people do in becoming something
more…

look at, say MLK… he didn’t feel the need to connect, he felt the need to connect
people but he didn’t need to connect himself or perhaps think of Gandhi… his vision
was a vision of connecting other people… he was quite accepting of who he was
and he didn’t feel the need to connect with other people from weakness…

think of others who were “great” perhaps a Da Vinci or Goethe…
neither one needed to be part of something… they were quite self
sufficient…they were individual atoms unto themselves…

they didn’t need to connect to others in the way most people need to connect…

as far as is know, Da Vinci didn’t have a great love… and Goethe once said:

“I love you, and what does that have to do with you?”

Goethe loved a lot of women but he didn’t take the route that those women
“completed” him… they were simply women he loved…he wasn’t a individual atom
with these women looking to complete himself, to make himself whole…
no, that wasn’t what Goethe was looking for…

so are you an individual atom looking to complete yourself by having
a spouse or having an ism like conservatism or religious completion of one’s soul?

can you exist outside of being part of something like an atom that is part
of something… like an atom being part of a dog or being part of a cell phone…

are you looking to complete your life by being a part of something?

is that strength or is that weakness?

Kropotkin

3419

over the last 300 years, you have had two distinct and separate
ism’s that have fought over domination of the intellectual world…

one was the “Enlightenment” and the other was “Romanticism”…

we see vestiges of both in the modern world…the “Enlightenment”
with its focus upon science and facts and “Sapere Aude”… dare to know…

and the “Romantic” world where they dared to know the emotions
and feelings and explored what it meant to be an individual…

liberals tend to hold to the “Enlightenment” as their goal and
conservatives tend to follow “Romanticism”…

so, “what is the truth?” depends upon whither one follows the
“Romantic” vision or the “Enlightenment” vision…

the exploration of what it means to be human can follow either track,
the “Romantic” or the “Enlightenment”… ART follows the “Romantic” track
and explores what it means to be human by the various explorations of
ART, via painting or plays or literature or sculptures or even performance art…

the exploration of what it means to be human by one guided by the “Enlightenment”
means one explores humanity by science or philosophy or history or economics…
it is not a creative act that is in the exploration of who we are in the “Enlightenment”
mode…we seek facts and use logic and follow the science to discover who we are
and what it means to be human…

Are these two modes, the “Enlightenment” and the “Romantic” opposed to each other,
are they antithetical to each other?

One who tried to tie the two sides together was Nietzsche… N used ART as a means
to discover who we are, which was incased in philosophy… his Zarathustra was
an ARTISTIC attempt to discover who we are by philosophical means…

perhaps the issue of our times is to combine the two, combined the “Enlightenment”
with the “Romantic”… can it be done?

I might be able to believe that another attempt to combine the two, Nazi Germany…

It seems to me that the Nazi’ are “Romantics” par excellence… look at their beliefs,
to hold that the “Aryan Race” had some special purpose in life is nothing more then
a “Romantic” vision of one’s race…to hold that one people is higher or lower then
other people is sentimental crap… there is no proof in the hierarchy of races…

now Nazism tried to be “scientific” by banning religions and faith based ideologies…

but Nazism is an religion… and Religions are always “Romantic” in vision…

think of the statement in the “Declaration of Independence”…

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”

a statement of equality is a statement of the “Enlightenment”, of science
and the exploration of who we are by such disciplines as history, economics,
science, philosophy…the very founders of the United States were followers
of the “Enlightenment” and their founding document, “The Declaration of
Independence” is an “Enlightenment” document…

but the clash in America today is the clash of the followers of the “Romantic”
and the followers of the original intent of America which was to be an
“Enlightenment” state… so we clash over such things because a large
portion of the population follows the “Romantic” vision of who we are
and a much larger portion of the U.S follows the original intent which
was the “Enlightenment”…

so such matters as the death penalty and Gay marriage and abortion are
simply clashes between the the followers of “Romanticism” and the followers
of the “Enlightenment”…

so what is the solution?

we find a way to combine the two into one… we can hold to such a vision
of man found within both the “Romantic” vision and, AND the “Enlightenment” vision…

or we engage into a new understanding of who we are… we supplant our current
complex vision with a new understanding of what it means to be human…

we might think of the 20th and the 21st century as being an engagement
with finding such a new vision of what it means to be human…

this new vision began with, as it always does, with Nietzsche…

and we have explored what it means to be human with two competing visions
of who we are…

One vision is called the “Continental Philosophy” which includes German idealism,
phenomenology, existentialism, hermeneutics, structuralism, as well as branches
of the “Freudian” “Hegelian” and “Western Marxist” views of who we are…

and oppose to that is the “Analytic philosophy”…this branch of philosophy
focuses on language, linguistics, formal logic, and mathematics and to a lesser
degree, the Natural sciences…it is important to note that “Analytic Philosophy”
didn’t arise until the 20th century… although some were engaged in the language and math
aspects after the American Civil war like Charles Sanders Peirce…and others who were
engaged in “Analytic Philosophy” was Frege, Russell, Moore, and of course, Wittgenstein…

in Philosophy itself, we can see the battle between the “Enlightenment” and
“Romanticism” in the various schools of philosophy…

the clash between the two dominant affiliations, “Romanticism” and “Enlightenment”
have lead us to where we are now… but we can begin to overcome these
two different understandings of who we are…

we can either combine the two or we can find a third path…

so, now what?

Kropotkin

3420

The required truth.

To disguise all of chosen

lies.