Hey, kids! Got any aphorisms?
Here’s one. I think.
The half-smile - to wear one so that the observer does not know if you are trying to smile, or trying to stifle a smile - or both at once. Should we have as many enemies as we have friends? Should they always know which they are?
Aphorisms are hard.
I’ve got a couple…
“Those who live in glass houses should change in the basement.”
“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras.”
“Air goes in and out, blood goes round and round. Any deviation from this is bad”
cheers,
gemty
It is not the philosopher’s task to fix ideas, but to set them in motion.
We know that Nietzsche claimed that the best thoughts were had only while walking. This being the case, before you go walking to ponder and contemplate the grave philosophic seriousness of the absurdity of existence, tie your shoes.
-Imp
A materialism for politics does not depend of moral certitude in order to be sufficient for an explanation, however disagreeable it might be to our anthropomorphisms. That God probably doesn’t exist, that there are no otherwordly consequences for deeds done in this world, that everything is temporary and eternally recurring, and that therefore all values are no more than the deeds which are done in their name, is not only the simplest and most efficient explanation but also one which alienates man from any possibility of diplomacy; without a sense of guilt or remorse there is no dissonance in breaking a contract. The idea of sin, guilt, remorse, in order to be ideological…all require that necessary third eye, that watching and judging God, who without which, all nihilism results.
But what was already in place for this error to occur? What was it that produced the feeling of sin and guilt, even where there was no God watching. What was it that, regardless of the unique circumstances of each and every case, had to be eventual and necessary? The contract.
Man was already diplomatic when he invented God; belief in God was not necessary for a material economy and politics. The sense of guilt and sin were natural sociological effects of conflicts within a discourse of production modes-- breaking a rule meant neglecting one’s position or one’s role in a society. The punished didn’t ask how or what granted authority to his punisher; it was a natural power.
God had to be invented not to maintain control and rule over the masses directly, for that was taken care of by pure military force, but indirectly to subordinate intellectually the masses so that any possible plot of military resistence to the ruling class would be countered by punishments beyond the field of battle; that God would revenge the ruling class if it fell.
Despotism is the polar opposite of a material politic. As all civilization is centered around its production modes and its citizens which cooperate in such, the value of the society is not ideological nor moral in the “philosophical” sense of the word; it is simply the measure by which production is accomplished and the general democratic consensus of morale in the masses.
Here, the original function of religion, which wasn’t necessary to start society, and which isn’t necessary to run it, follows its natural course through the shedding of parasitic skins and political revolutions. The major religions of the world have a component which, despite the numerous differences in doctrine, is crucial to making them work as a moral deterent; the idea that judgement transcends the rule of man and that God is watching, is the effect of religion in the intellect.
The Priest is to the Capitalist as the Peanut Butter is to the Jelly Sandwich.
That time is no longer, my comrades. Today is the day we begin packing heaven with fresh souls. We will get our historical materialism if its the last thing we do.
And I quote a one “Madonna”: “We are living in a material world and I (well she is, not me) am a material girl.”
Imp - can’t I wear loafers?
Detrop - Marx - ideology-in-motion.
Stillborn philosophy - Kant:
In Duty we see all of Kant’s epsitemology and all of his morality crystallise - and disappear!
Duty - finally a thing-in-itself that we can, that we should, that we must see!
only if you bake bread… besides, everyone knows that philosophers loathe butchers and wax workers in general but specifically candlestick makers… brain dead wick dippers…
-Imp
Imp -
True. Better to be a cautious - Oh! Wick dipper. I read that wrong. Thought I was in the “Caution” thread for a minute.
So what’s the moral of the story detrop? Is america becomeing athiest like the former USSR?
Or do i even have to ask?
If you ever notice that a girl has changed her hair, then compliment it. Even if you are mistaken then you will still be moving in the right direction.
If a rose rose then stem the stem
Drink water in the morning, it makes for a more fluid day.
Capitalism without morality and religion shackles the body - Morality and religion shackle the mind - All Capitalists are in bondage.
Philosophers have always set the highest standards of all. It’s time we set new ones - the lowest of all.
History is subject to bipolarity.
Kiss your world powers goodbye.
that that is, is. that that is not, is not. is not that it? it is!
“Origin of the logical.-- How did logic come into existence in man’s head? Certainly out of illogic, whose realm originally must have been immense. Innumerable beings who made inferences in a way different from ours perished; for all that, their ways might have been truer. Those, for example, who did not know how to find often enough what is “equal” as regards both nourishment and hostile animals–those, in other words, who subsumed things too slowly and cautiously–were favored with a lesser probability of survival than those who guessed immediately upon encountering similar instances that they must be equal. The dominant tendency, however, to treat as equal what is merely similar–an illogical tendency, for nothing is really equal–is what first created any basis for logic.”- Nietzsche
This does but does not make sense. Fritz is trying for a Dawinian explanation by suggesting that the less skeptical hunter/thinker had a higer survivabilty rate, since not hesitating to measure and contemplate the differences between easy and difficult prey, coupled with the probability of a man overcoming a dangerous predator, resulted in more successful hunts.
It is probably true that such a tendency might result in stronger breeding since food sources are increased. However, to use such an example as a representation of the first uses of “logic” is quite another story. There are several behaviors and social patterns that are already in place before any emphasis is made on food sources or hunting techniques. I think Fritz is stretching a bit here.
“In order that the concept of substance could originate–which is indispensible for logic although in the strictest sense nothing real corresponds to it–it was likewise necessary that for a long time one did not see or perceive the changes in things. The beings that did not see so precisely had an advantage over those who saw everything “in flux.” At bottom, every high degree of caution in making inferences and every skeptical tendency constitute a great danger for life. No living beings would have survived if the opposite tendency–to affirm rather than suspend judgement, to err and make up things rather than wait, to assent rather than negate, to pass judgement rather than be just-- had not been bred to the point where it became extraordinarily strong.”- Nietzsche
He is saying that risk is what advances man. Again, yes and no, and if so, it is not because of one man believing in a “flux” and another who sees things logically. Even the idea of “flux” must be logical or it wouldn’t make sense. What we call “substance” had existed long before we ever made any inference, and man’s appropriation of the physical world was occuring long before language existed. Logic is a characteristic of nerve activity. Logic happens when response happens. A paramecium is acting logically when it reverses its direction after bumping into an object. He is not the least bit concerned with “substance” and/or “flux.”
The days are long, but the years are short.
detrop - what N is saying is that it is only by treating that which is merely similar as equal that we can allow the idea of a class. That the idea of a class is, strictly speaking, erroneous, but helpful in survival, especially for a species that must live by its wits.
We hunt all wilderbeasts in the same way, even though all widerbeasts are different. They’re just not different enough for it to matter. If every encounter with a given prey species were a brand new learning experience, we would not get much hunting done. It’s the lack of meaurement of individuals - it is treating them all as the same when they are not, that has allowed us to flourish - it is the ability to generalise. Not specifically easier or more difficult prey.
It is the ability to generalise - the propensity to, that allows logic. That allows Aristotelian, or categorical, logic. This is his use of “substance” - he is referring specifically to Aristotle - to A’s specific use of that word. N is not saying that it has been risk, but the propensity to “freeze” a world in flux, with categories, classes, artificial ideas, and therefore logic, that has advanced us. He is speaking on the level of the species, and not the individual. That is is the dullness of our senses that has allowed civilisation.
Ideology does not exist for this reason. A meaningful statement has no logical value and it can never at the same time call itself empirically sufficient for anything other than indicating itself through a spoken language for acting as evidence for logic. The meaning of a word is in its sound and structure, a meaning which is unique to the speech of a word or in the least a context that is necessary to determine which definition is the right one for a word that can sound the same but be spelled differently. Sound is a form of empirical data and it is through sound combinations that meaning is made in hearing language. An executive function of the nervous system processes visual memories and sound memories when in experience; between the sight of objects and the sound of objects, we recognize them.
What else, if not the sound which reaches the ear, can carry the significance of a meaning for something said? The visual context, perhaps, but this is nothing new…this is a way of recollecting what is familiar; we generate the meaning by adding to it the situation imagery. The alternative to this would be to suppose something else carries the understanding within it as it crosses the distance between speaker and listener. Telepathy? A remote transmission from somewhere else? I doubt it. Language is not metaphysical nor does it make value. The intent of what is said is the only transcendent quality of the meaning of the thinking and/or speaking.
Value is an intentional idea that can never be expressed or exist, or better still, demonstrated. There are only actions in existence; consciousness and intention is not an action. “Meaning” means only “is such and such…” It signifies nothing but an existential quantity no matter how many classifications are made, or sub-divisions. There is never a quality to an existential. It can be composed of particulars and concieved as a model, but its accuracy has nothing to do with importance. There is no importance in this universe. That is an anxiety only in consciousness; to expect and fear are probably the original two conditions of the psyche that evolved this state. First, the experience of another’s death, and second, the anticipation of pain.
The evolution of language always has at its base a set of conditions where these two issues are dealt with, and man’s politics centers around this point. Crude and small groups of people organized themselves with signs and behaviors. The primary purpose was to enhance their chances of eating well, and mating well. The primal conditions were herd like and the moral structure evolved from maintaining the rule of charity. It can be said that the actuality of utilitarianism is an expression of this natural inclination to accept the two extremes, with specific attention to the charity of comfort, the Epicurean favor clear of all metaphysics, to not only want pleasure oneself, but another to have pleasure. The realization of death, if I might explain in a metaphor, is the public truth of your existence. The mutuality of this rule causes diplomacy between men. It now happened that along with the two best virtues of this compassion, the best would be the satisfaction of pleasure without the exploitation of another. The path of the least resistence is always the first choice. For this, language evolved.
Perhaps the first words spoken between man and woman was pillow talk. It is sex, of course, that is always the most significant and intimate encounter between genders.
Hmm…
Nevertheless, a meaningful statement that is not immediately followed by another meaningful statement or a physical action cannot be said to have caused anything, and even that is a stretch. Two people in a conversation are either about to do something, just did something, or are doing something. And to suppose that anything said was not caused by a neurological event, which, in turn, was caused by something else in the world, is to assume that a meaningful statement started it all and/or caused the first movement. Clearly this cannot be.
I therefore propose that an ideology does in fact not exist, as it must involve intentional value which has no signification in language (only signifies more language, etc.) and that a scientific materialism, maybe something Dan’s got cooking up, is the final and only possible foundation for world politics. The goal, obviously, is to stay alive as long as possible and play the music of Frank Zappa.
Where is Future Man? Bring him to me. He claimed twice to know everything, so I could sure use him.
The point is that philosophy must be abandoned, folks. I’m sorry. Find something else to do.
…
In history I see coincidences which are interesting. Notice how industry and Hegel bloomed in more or less the same period. The damage dealt by Marx, Engels, and Feuerbach, that I know of, and the interogation of Kierkegaard on the side, completely exhausted the Hegelians. What is interesting, if you’ll notice, is that the metaphysics of Hegel did not become suspicious until Kierkegaard introduced existentialism, especially contrasting the Hegelian version of Christianity and the contrary version of Kierkegaard. In the present time, Kierkegaard was not noticed publically, but his effect in the chain of ideologies was indeed noted by academics following that period.
I am watching dialectics being criticised with quite convincing arguments, yet in honesty I believe that the concept is but the first showcasing of an exclusive law in logic, probably documented by Aristotle, and that basing a system of logic on the use of binary truths such as “true” and “false” in language are going to literally cause dialectics to happen, even while arguing against it, or what ever you might call it. But perhaps it is an over-exaggeration to call this some kind of glorious revelation. I am reminded of Spinoza for a moment; God is everything.
I ask myself: “Okay. Now what?”
Kierkegaard called Hegel a “man who constructs ivory towers…but lives in a wood shed beside them.”
The shock to metaphysics, my friends, was charged by Kierkegaard. The world was not concerned with the accuracy of Hegelain metaphysics. It was concerned with religion and what role that should play in the new industrial political circumstances that made life both personal and public.
With this in mind I say that Kierkegaards theme in Fear and Trembling dropped the final bomb. Presenting God in a situation where his will is directly incapable of being considered rational by a thinking being, given the terms of Abraham and his sons, and the absolute necessity of the embrace of the absurd in philosophy. No, it is not the metaphysics of God that we are bothered with, but the psychological implications within certain moral concepts, and the total folly it would be to suppose that a “good” God would create such situations. All social problems occur from incidents where there is a division of personal and public interests.
…
Think of doing something totally absurd…like driving your car up and down your driveway all day, non stop. Alright, now you would ask “so what, why would anyone want to do this in the first place,” and you’d be done with it. But that is not the point. The point is that you could if you wanted to. There is nothing stopping you.
There is no “enough is enough” absurdity gauge in this universe.
…
I’ve just realized what life is like. It is like that drawn out scene in the movie where the person is looking back through the window of the car as it drives away, waving goodbye to a special person who they will never see again. A drawn out “goodbye forever” is what life is.
…
You cannot trust anything that claims to be a written proof of man’s origins because man was around long before he wrote anything. All genealogy is scientific and for lack of something eternal, it is all we have to investigate with. I say what Nietzsche said of fake people; people are timid of religion and creationism because its waters appear deep-- the truth is it isn’t even shallow.
…
Internet forums work like this: it will begin, many members will join, many members will quit, new members will always be joining meanwhile. A group of roughly three to eleven senior members will maintain a membership for three years or longer. When this happens, a secondary relationship occurs that isn’t apparant to new members who converse with senior members. What happens is the senior members respond to new members so that other senior members can watch them respond. Each senior member who posts knows he’s “being watched” by the others, and a large percent of posting in the latter part of a “career” is probably for that reason only. Oh how I do love to read the senior members posts when they are fresh and introduced to a new member in a conversation. Let them know this, my friends. Put them, as Queen said it, “unda pressha.” And you know what else? I like it when members take shots at each other while trying to win the favor of a new conversant: “don’t listen to him, he’s such and such, etc,” is great to see. It shows a sort of family orientation which begins to resemble a sitcom or something. I think of Archy Bunker when I see Kropotkin’s posts.
…
How to treat the death of a forum member: I will deal with this issue since it is inevitable and it needs to be addressed. If and when a forum member dies and a thread is posted to inform the site, it would be better if we didn’t engage in a long string of last words, respects, sentiments, and the like. I say this because I would most likely say something inappropriate and sarcastic since I am compulsive and neurotic. These measures are preventive so that I don’t have the opportunity to do so. I’m sure you understand. For example, if TUM died I would say something like, “well, what can I say about him other than that he is the under-ground man, literally.”
That is the longest aphorism I have ever read.