We philosophers.-- To look somberly upon the history of man, to suffer inwardly and from the depths of one’s self the loss of so many things- God, justice, faith: that is a sign of nobility. For how much beauty has been sacrificed throughout the history of man on behalf of independence of the spirit? The heart has always been that little malinconica dignità adornano, [melancholy adornment of dignity] to use Giordani’s phrase, of every virtue or noble thought, and the desire for independence of the spirit has always been the very comédie larmoyante [comedy of tears] of mankind: one enjoys the right to contemplate the beautiful with a good conscience, to repose quietly within one’s own heart, only under open skies; yet when we have finally come upon our own little garden, like Epicurus, and our own solitude, our own freedom- how much beauty is left to us, how much beauty remains under these eyes of ours, newly chastened with that sobriety of conquest, victory, and freedom? So much beauty has had to perish to allow us this sojourn: God, justice, faith, youth, and love. Yet it is only in this way and through this loss that we come to respect ‘humanity’ as a virtue, not a given; only in this way do we come to understand that the riches of life which offer themselves to the man who has risen to the full stature of his humanity are always the product of a victory and a defeat, and never the luxury of some garden-god like Epicurus- or like any of us. If the word philosophy is to have any meaning at all, must it not designate precisely this comedy of tears?
Yea, probably. (–To answer the question).
If by ‘comedy of tears’ you mean ‘pursuit of independence’, and take that to mean from whatever dogmas maskerade under the names ‘god’, ‘justice’, ‘faith’, etc.
…I’m wiping my hands
But I don’t understand why you would equate ‘beauty’ with ‘god’, ‘justice’, ‘faith’, ‘love’. …I guess that’ll be for another “question”.
Hark at the wind.
Man saw beauty in those things at one time, a beauty lost to us along the path to independence of the spirit. That path is a comedy of tears because, while it is intended to lead man to a beautiful, rich, life, it in itself involves the renunciation of so many beauties. When a philosopher finally attains to his own little freedom, to his own little Epicurean garden, he finds that not much beauty remains to him. He finally understands that a beautiful, rich life cannot be the mere luxury of a garden-God like Epicurus: it always belongs to a victory and a defeat.
Where does this initial false perception come from, our childhood? Where Santa visits on Christmas morning with a sack-full of toys, the Easter Bunny brings chocolate? Life is great, new, and the highest stress is from not eating all your dinner or sneaking a few cookies or peeing in your pants? We’re sheltered from violence and the human emotion’s most grotesque “feelings” - you know those feelings that are invoked through the cursing or what have you. Or at least, even if we do learn about these things, we don’t experience the depths of human likeness yet. So we’re relatively cruising along with minimal damage to our ego’s and sense of well being, until we hit high school or so. Those who come across these earlier may not turn out so right in the end.
But even understanding this there is no stopping lamentation over how it is and how we think it should be or could be, or would be if certain beings had any iota of intelligence that we had. All the meanwhile ignoring our own flaws and ideologies that would cause many others to be in pain, directly or indirectly, had we had the power to implement whatever it is we wish to. Here’s where many reading this would likely start denying our own share of what our ideologies would cost society. Yet perhaps regardless it is true that a philosopher would make things better in general. Even if everyone had your mind, we probably might not have wars at all right? Or maybe we would but perhaps efforts would be focused on family and ensuring love as you do at your home or would at your home if most people or everyone shared your ideals and values and implemented them.
But of course at what costs there would be, well that is usually 20/20 in hindsight. Yes we know there are so many really fucked up people out there and fucked up things going on and usually we only see the end result but not their paths that lead to these things, their values, or their reasons. I think we can all grasp though is that many of these people who commit atrocities , political corruption, or what ever it is that causes this lamentation when you perceive from your holy eye, this world. Those being that they have experienced some unusual things distorting their views to be grossly “grotesque” perhaps from your own distorted views. Unless of course you do have the objective eye of reality. Of course the reasoning is that there are things that blackens and darkens the peoples minds and hearts of this world that occur due to the nature of this world, the nature of the laws of physics itself and the interaction of defunct genetic biological structures that act out in ways due to this natural world’s evolutionary methods… A method that lacks some conscious skillful crafting of the human being and brain patterns.
Here we lament over these things and yes I have lamented, my name isn’t WW_III_ANGRY for nothing… although I did develop that around 8 years ago or so… alot has changed and alot hasn’t, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and perhaps in this social sea of chaos you may be able to appreciate the grotesque perhaps or find beauty in your heartfelt loss of your values and ideologies as executed out in the global scene oppositely of what you desire. Maybe we should carry a “chip” on our shoulder, or perhaps its “chips”. How many “chips” can we take until we no longer have a shoulder? Is the weight of the world on our shoulders? Can we carry it? Do we accept it for what it is and try to change what we can? Oh well… at least we aren’t all the same, then what would we do with ourselves?
Again, I’m not sure why you equate your list of superstitions with beauty. You can still go to Church if you want to. Go ahead.
But as for the question of whether philosophy has to do with independence from dogma—since that’s what your exhaustingly dramatic window-dressing words are asking: then my answer is ‘yes’.
Actually, philosophy has no independence from dogma. People can turn it into dogma and make their favorite philosopher a guru with the force of divine revelation if they so wish. They can even turn Aristotelian logic and Cartesian dualism into memes carrying the force of the ten commandments, if you get my drift. I could make the philosophy of Tweetybird Flinkdoodle my bible if I wanted to; and I could post on it and quote from it in order to make it support my own agenda as well. People do this kind of thing all the time.
You can make “the philosophy of Tweetybird” your dogma—but then you would cease to be a philosopher. Doesn’t that seem obvious to you? Don’t you agree that “questioning” is the basic skill of all philosophers from Socrates to Nietzsche to …Myself.
Vanitas;
— If the word philosophy is to have any meaning at all, must it not designate precisely this comedy of tears?
O- Not always. Sometimes sophia concedes upon those that love her repose, a consolation, and sometimes it becomes theodicy (Hegel), thus it recognizes the tears, but it is not content to call it a “comedy”.
Well, Tweetybird Flinkdoodle was just my generic term for any actual philosopher that someone might make a guru out of, and then assign Flinkdoodle’s work the status of divine revelation on a par with biblical authority and dogma. For Flinkdoodle, one could substitute Plato, or Aristotle, or Nietzsche, for example. Then when the philosophical groupie decides to use that philosopher’s writing to support an agenda, he or she can claim rightness no matter how crazed or wrongheaded that agenda might be.
That is not even close to what I am asking.
That was exactly what you were asking, when you shave away the frosting.
Man saw beauty in those things at one time, a beauty lost to us along the path to independence of the spirit. That path is a comedy of tears because, while it is intended to lead man to a beautiful, rich, life, it in itself involves the renunciation of so many beauties. When a philosopher finally attains to his own little freedom, to his own little Epicurean garden, he finds that not much beauty remains to him. He finally understands that a beautiful, rich life cannot be the mere luxury of a garden-God like Epicurus: it always belongs to a victory and a defeat. The “question” I posed begged an alternative: not striving for an Epicurean garden. I asked if it was possible to strive rather for a victory and a defeat. That is what I was asking, you irreverent buffoon.
And about a philosopher striving for war, for victory or defeat, instead of disinterested contemplation, read this exchange:
objet petit a wrote:
Check out Marcus (Aurelius) Arianus and Achilles. The show similar symptoms. Also: the evil general from ‘Heart of darkness’. It has to do with needing to step beyond the subjective (what things are to you) to come to an honest estimate of what the things in themselves are. Thereby being able to form a real idea of the enemy and the own possibilities. Remember that victorious generals win first and then go to war, while defeated generals go to war first and then strive to win.
Vanitas wrote:
A much better example of this is Alexander the Great. He had a vision of a united world, a Greek world- his whole campaign was inspired by his youthful, romantic desire to spread the tales of Homer and the Greek philosophers throughout the whole world, the things Aristotle taught him. That was his ambition: to unite the world in the rich, beautiful Greek culture. But it is through the very act of conceiving this magnificent vision that his victory was guaranteed: the kind of culture that could unite all the world did not exist before the Greeks, before their democratic philosophies, or the true national identity which Homer cultivated for them. This vision of a united world is what gave power to Alexander’s campaign, without it he could not have become a victor.
Not to mention that only one thing, God, on my list of losses was involved with dogma. They could also be personal losses incurred along the path to independence of the spirit- it involves the renunciation of much beauty, one must keep his heart often as a prisoner.
whatever floats your boat.
Instead of seeking spiritual independence as an end in itself, a philosopher should seek it only because that path alone can lead to a new conception of the world (Like Alexanders, his conception proved victorious)- a conception in which a philosopher should stake his life, in which he should stake that heart which he has had to refuse so much along his pursuits. A philosopher learns that humanity, and the riches of human life, do not offer themselves as the luxury of some Epicurean garden God: one must practice humanity as a virtue, one must stake his heart upon something in the same way that man once did with God, justice- with all of those things which the philosopher has had to leave behind. This is why, when he looks into history, he experiences sadness at the loss of God and all of those things. He knows best of all the immense payment that must be made for having “humanity” and the philosopher’s real independence is proven by either victory or defeat, not by the hopeful anticipation of the disinterested, the free eye.
That is your question. It’s what comes as the conclusion of a whole bunch of bullshitting. But it’s quite a simple question, when you replace ‘comedy of tears’ for what that stands for.
And btw, ‘god’, ‘justice’, ‘faith’ and ‘love’ are all intimately related to dogma. Faith is what sustains it. And the rest are dogmas because what people take the word to stand for simply doesn’t exist.
Feel free to ask a new question.
You ignore everything I just said, that’s alright. And it stood for "… how much beauty has been sacrificed throughout the history of man on behalf of independence of the spirit… " Here’s a bit of advice. Your interpretation of a text is not the end all.
Doesn’t it make you feel sort of ugly to just ignore everything I just said and continue to interpret my writing based on your own premises, completely obscuring it’s point? It had nothing to do with dogma. You may associate “Love, justice, etc.” with dogma, but I do not, and to interpret my passage here in any other light is dishonest.
Does it make you feel ugly to say to me what I would have every justification to say to you?
You initially contrasted “God, justice, faith, youth, and love” with freedom–those are the things that come at the expense of our having “freedom to sojourn” as you say. I just replaced those terms with a single word opposed to freedom: dogma.
Perhaps you had something in your head that’s not reflected in what you wrote?