Well that’s debateable, that ‘self help’ is or is not precisely what philosophy’s objective amounts to , from beginning to end, an end incidentally can not be proven to end, and that in Turn implies, a no beginning circularity even Nietzche was capable to think up.
No, not “debatable”…you wish.
Nihilism is any theory, any ideal, any objective that wants to negate the real, the actual, the existent.
Any hope based on unprecedented, irrational, fantasies is a nihilistic pipe-dream…like your brain, hollow with a thick, hard exterior…and when strong gusts push through it, it is known to produce mysterious whistling sounds it believes are spirits.
Ok, everybody would/could deal with this, using the pride mentioned elsewhere, becoming their own judge and jury, by simply adopting the middle, the rainbow one if so wished, not that such is not unlike the singular aspect cut doubly(for appearance’s sake), so that it would be reasonable to suppose, even seeing the parts as remodeled structurally.
Then the rest, may live perhaps happily ever after
Language makes creation.
Without language, we would not know anything about creation and what creation does. And who or what makes language? Development (evolution or history).
So there are two aspects for this matter:
(1.) Language, (2.) development (evolution or history).
Lorikeet would say: (1.) Memes, (2.) genes.
Memes belong to language, genes belong to evolution.
It all comes down to words/symbols and their referents.
Are they independent interactions, or other words?
The majority desire words to refer to other words…as you may have noticed, despite their hypocritical complaints.
You can tell because no matter how often it is repeated they refuse to connect their words/symbols to actions, all can independently falsify or verify.
They like to be “fractured and fragmented” or comfortably delusional - they prefer words to remain defensive nihilistic codes of armour against a world they cannot stomach.
We’ve seen what they’ve done to words like ‘god’ or ‘morality’ or ‘value’ or ‘love’, ‘race’.
Having succeeded, in the Americanized west, they’ve been inspired to go further down the rabbit hole and are now disconnecting words like ‘woman’, ‘man’, ‘gender’…if they succeed again the next batch of words will be ‘species,’ ‘human’, ‘age’…
Further and further down the hole until they bury themselves alive…well, they will have become walknig-dead by then.
Zombification is already rotting away their flesh…and they gladly tear it away to become pure spirits, or so they hope.
This AI is part of it.
Replace the body with an non-biological exoskeleton of their choosing…which will become part of the fated since they’ve also stripped themselves of all free-will.
This is a religious process, you see?
Human words/symbols gradually being replaced by divine words/symbols; god’s logos.
They are fulfilling its will.
Salvation.
That’s actually quite insightful. The universe is God’s fart! (must have had indigestion)
Which is why if you’re in trouble, you’re fucked.
On the contrary, philosophy is the oldest self-help practice on the planet. Though I get your meaning… ILP is not intended to be a self-help forum… there are actual forums out there other than ILP that are meant for precisely that purpose. But don’t you find it interesting that the most busy philosophical minds can be described as the most obsessive? That is, if you think so much and so hard that you have to write a book just to purge all your thoughts, isn’t that just a hang up? Isn’t it just the ordinary process of trying to work out issues in your own head? Aren’t you trying to “get over” something? Why else would you be so driven, so passionate, so OCD about getting it right? Take it from me, once you put it behind you, you not only start to lose interest in philosophy, but it starts to seem like a waste of time–except perhaps as a form of idle recreation to kill the boredom.
^ See? Meno knows.
OUCH!!! Why so harsh on Meno? (Though I will admit that was funny.)
What would you say about empirical knowledge? Knowing based on seeing, rather than on being told (with language)?
Shut up Lorikeet.
Said it before… genes & memes is a false dichotomy, because genes are codes.
The statements you made appear to express a critical perspective on the use of language and its relationship to human thought and behaviour. Above all, I find your statements as overly pessimistic or conspiratorial, questioning the extent to which words are truly disconnected from their referents and whether this process is as deliberate or ominous as suggested.
I suppose some people might agree with the statements, sharing the perspective that language and words can be manipulated or disconnected from their original meanings. They could see this as a concern, particularly if they believe that clear communication and understanding are essential.
On the other hand, I’m sure there are others who disagree with your statements, because language is a dynamic and evolving system, and the redefinition or reinterpretation of words is a natural process as society and culture evolve. You could argue that such changes are not necessarily negative but can reflect progress and inclusivity, but your statements are somewhat abstract and cryptic, which make them confusing and challenging if you try to discern the specific point or argument you are making.
In other words, you are out of your mind!
The use of this tool - language - is motivated…
Nihilism’s primary motive is to protect the ego - ego = lucid part of consciousness.
Words are used to disconnect from their external referents and reconnect to other words, or to other mind - intersubjectivity.
Reason is replaced by emotion.
Words can be re-turned to their original role as mediating, connecting, noumena to pheneomna…of the idea to the real.
Words like ‘woman’…like ‘morality’…like ‘free-will’…like ‘god’.
Among the insane sanity is a form of madness…for them.
And what if the majority in a sanatorium disagree with me?
Does this disprove my reasoning?
I didn’t say words were menaingless…or useless…only that they’ve been corrupted by a specific ideology/dogma and are used defensively, to shelter ego from an indifferent uncertain reality.
I ask for nothing from you…
I simply say…begin with the act, not the word.
The ACT…reconnect the words to actions.
Like ‘love’…and the words I mentioned above.
Do I will?
Is there an act of will…an act of choice?
Never mind the rest, for now…start there.
What did ‘god’ originally refer to?
What is ‘morality’…an idea…words in books?
No…we see moral acts in many species.
We see acts of love in many species…
See the pattern…what kinds of species?
If you see the pattern you see the utility of the act…its objective…the reason it evolved - the advantage it offered.
The cosmos is full of meaning, if you define meaning by reconnecting it to actions all can falsify or verify.
Meaning simply refers to their relationships, their interconnectivities, their ongoing ceaseless interactivities…creating matrices of patterns…meanings.
If for you “sane healthy minds” the cosmos is meaningless, and you demand something outside existence give you meaning, then so be it…let me be the ‘mad one.’
Who cares?
Believe in invisible beings, or the meaningless of existence…who cares?
Believe morality was created by some being and given to man…
Your delusions are your defence.
It achieves its goal…it protects your ego.
Strictly speaking, you cannot start with the ”ACT“, because without language there are no acts at all, also never can exist, because every act must be interpreted, in order to be able to be act at all.
What acts are, plants and animals as well as little children, who do not master the language yet sufficiently, cannot know. For them, what we call ”act“ is part of the situation, which is largely interpreted as a whole. The interpretations and meanings are pre-linguistic, i.e. related to plant and animal language, which is completely semiotic but not yet linguistic, and to toddler language, which is only partially already linguistic and otherwise also semiotic, in any case for the word ”act“ not yet knowing the meaning we as the others know.
Two ways have to be taken into account when talking about act: (1.) the way from language (a) to act (b), i.e. the way on which the semantics for the word ”act“ is developed or acquired; (2.) the way back from act (b) to language (a), which can only be taken if the semantics for the word ”act“ is already developed or acquired (=> 1.).
Thus, it is not at all possible to determine precisely whether what is pre-linguistic and concerns something that means ”act“ for linguistic beings can already be interpreted as ”act“ at all. And because one cannot do this, one cannot start with the ”act“, but at best with an overall situation.
If it were otherwise, we would already know everything. But we do not know everything, and that is why for what we do not know yet and for what we will probably never know, we have only faith.
Humans have by far never been as decadent as they are today, and now of all times - in their most decadent hour - they are supposed to be able to love each other?
Great jokes you make!
Try to do away with grammar, and you will see that it cannot be done, because a core grammar always remains, because without it understanding is impossible. We will see how far our language confusionists will get: the end will be like all previous ends of a language confusion. Language confusion is degeneration!
Grammar is everywhere, even in pictures, in everything and anything, because everything and anything can be interpreted.
We use verbs as nouns, and construct ontologies.
So, ‘love’ referring to actions, is made into another word for ‘god’ and ‘god’ is made to refer to something that contradicts existence- is immutable, indivisible…a singularity.
We begin by using symbols/words to connect our ideas with actions.
Begin with the observable act…and use the word to connect the mind’s abstraction to it.
Try it with the word ‘god.’
You will return to the ancient gods, representing natural phenomena, natural, dynamic, interactive energies.
Then base your subsequent terminology on this foundation.
Do the same with the words ‘morality’…or ‘will’.
Begin with the moral act, not the concept…as you did with the act of love, loving, not the abstraction, the theory, the words on a page.
Love is not love without demonstration.
ex agape, agape fit
creator begets co-creators
The source of being (Being), the good, the beautiful… is not made. It always is.
They are the eternal-in-time to which every true, good, and beautiful statement/representation refers/anchors. All else is nihil.
Choosing & multiplying self=other love co-creates (stores up) toward the eternal. The old evernew.
This living masterpiece was/is complete before it started. We either “add” to the beauty or become contrast—either way, our free contribution is already factored in before our time comes to contribute it.
Yes. All of contingent being gets its being from Being that is complete—our “adjustments”/“contributions” inclusive in that eternal Being. We didn’t make Being… Being just includes our making/contributing. Whereas we adapt (as contingent), Being (as necessary) made space.