The Meaning of Philosophy.

Impious · January 10, 2009, 5:20pm

This is a misunderstanding, resulting from (dare I say it) your lack of knowledge. It’s more like this: once a tragic age has matured, philosophy becomes superfluous. One may as well talk at length about the various shades of blue in the sky.

EDIT: And with that, I’m off to bed.

MagnetMan · January 10, 2009, 5:28pm

Sauwelios:

e:

The satyr and the idyllic shepherd of later times have both been products of a desire for naturalness and simplicity. But how firmly the Greek shaped his wood sprite, and how self-consciously and mawkishly the modern dallies with his tender, fluting shepherd! For the Greek the satyr expressed nature in a rude, uncultivated state: he did not, for that reason, confound him with the monkey. Quite the contrary, the satyr was man’s true prototype, an expression of his highest and strongest aspirations. […] Here archetypal man was cleansed of the illusion of culture, and what revealed itself was authentic man, the bearded satyr jubilantly greeting his god. […] The idyllic shepherd of modern man is but a replica of the sum of cultural illusions which he mistakes for nature. The Dionysian Greek, desiring truth and nature at their highest power—he sees himself metamorphosed into the satyr.
[Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy, chapter 8; cf. ch. 19, and Nietzsche’s “bon sauvage”.]

With due respect to uncle Nietzche. IMO the satyr symbolized the beast and its base desires, graced by the intellect of a man. We have metamorphosed beyond that. The haloed saint symbolizes the human, graced by the inspirations of God. The beast is gone - or should be.

Impenitent · January 10, 2009, 5:50pm

the beast is gone? ha! the leviathan grows stronger daily

and freedom dies with thunderous applause

-Imp

Sauwelios · January 10, 2009, 7:02pm

“Base” desires? All man’s desires are forms of the will to power—regardless of how you delude yourself about it.

The death of God (by the hand of truthfulness, mind you) heralds a new Age of the Beast (a new Tragic Age—the word ‘tragos’ meaning “he-goat”).

Impious · January 10, 2009, 7:38pm

Nice work Sauwelios. Now let me have a go…

Not base desires, but rather deep, primal desires. There’s a big difference. And of course, the satyr is also the one who seeks to satisfy those desires. For example: Lucifer (the one who tempts to knowledge) is the actual satyr of the man of knowledge.

This ‘we’ you speak of has become mediocre and rotten to the core. The saint is a spiritual criminal of the highest caliber; Paul, Augustine, Luther- all world ruiners. But here’s a good litmus test regarding the spiritual progress of mankind: as long as people are experiencing stigmatas at the height of their health (whilst breathing tragedy no less), we still have a long way to go…

Merlo · January 10, 2009, 7:47pm

And to complete the rolling thunder may I say: Man has become almost entirely sheltered and timid. A single bad dream disturbs him for days on end. The vision of the Saint allows him to feel holy despite being so very pathetic. Let us give him a new image to replace this spiritual slave: the image of the spiritual conquerer.

MagnetMan · January 10, 2009, 8:07pm

You guys need to graduate into the Nuclear Age. You are studying and quoting prophets of an old testament,most of them cynical, which is reflected in your world view. You remind me of theologians stuck on the bible.

uglypeoplefucking · January 10, 2009, 8:39pm

“Graduate into the nuclear age”? - what’s that supposed to mean? We live in a nuclear age whether we like it or not. That’s not cynical, it’s a fact.

Impious · January 10, 2009, 8:53pm

Yes, upshot nuthole style.

Zealot · January 10, 2009, 9:03pm

Tragic philosophy is essentially evil. It’s only redeeming quality is to help man become more enlightened to himself. Know thyself, for it allows one to properly discipline oneself. May I add that the Saint is indeed holy, and even the saint. With God’s blessing he shows the greatest love to man.

Sauwelios · January 10, 2009, 9:22pm

You have missed the point. The “beast” is still just below the surface (though in most, it’s sick).

That the beast “should be” gone is idealistic, in the negative sense: it negates reality. It’s like saying there “should be” no bad weather.

The cynic (from the Greek ‘kuon’, “dog”) is simply the man who sees himself and his fellow men as they are: as “beasts”. And when cynicism is combined with innocence, it becomes greatness (but to the tender-hearted, even innocent cynicism will taste bitter).

spyderjoe · January 10, 2009, 9:42pm

The art of Philosophy is a transformative act, like a move in the martial arts of Akido or Tai chi, all the inertial mass of an evil opponent is deflected, and by the slightest and subtlest moves, the enemy is sent to the ground to find his own center.

MagnetMan · January 11, 2009, 12:46am

It will always be below the surface. For many it remains untamed. The philosophical dynamic of the sophisticated man is in learning how to domesticate it. And, as spyderjoe says, with extreme tact it can be transformed and allow us to stare at the bright face of God without shame. We have evolutionary imperatives working for us - forcing us Age by Age to become ever more God-conscious.

The problem I have with most post Hegelian philosophers is that few found their theorems on previously established truths . Loa Tse remains closer to atomic dynamics than any of them. The Buddha understood nihilism better. Confucius is closer to social ethics. Aristotle is dwarfed by Plato. And Christ pointed directly at the ultimate cosmic unifying principle.The moderns represent an era of protest, most of it ill-bred. It is alright to question ancestral wisdom, but not to deride. It dishonors us. If they had analyzed the human condition so perfectly, why is the world still so fucked up?

Sauwelios · January 11, 2009, 1:36am

MagnetMan:

Sauwelios:

You have missed the point. The “beast” is still just below the surface (though in most, it’s sick).

It will always be below the surface. For many it remains untamed. The philosophical dynamic of the sophisticated man is in learning how to domesticate it. And, as spyderjoe says, with extreme tact it can be transformed and allow us to stare at the bright face of God without shame. We have evolutionary imperatives working for us - forcing us Age by Age to become ever more God-conscious.

The problem I have with most post Hegelian philosophers is that few found their theorems on previously established truths . Loa Tse remains closer to atomic dynamics than any of them. The Buddha understood nihilism better. Confucius is closer to social ethics. Aristotle is dwarfed by Plato. And Christ pointed directly at the ultimate cosmic unifying principle.The moderns represent an era of protest, most of it ill-bred. It is alright to question, but not to deride. If they had analyzed the human condition so perfectly, why is the world still so fucked up?

This correspondence is closed.

MagnetMan · January 11, 2009, 1:52am

Duck out by all means. Sad to say, perhaps it is your mind that cannot countenance a challenge to your philosophical heroes.(Dare i say deities?) Now you know what religious feel like when they are put down.

Impious · January 11, 2009, 2:12am

So are you going to defend your precious saint from attack or not? I think I smell a hypocrite…

MagnetMan · January 11, 2009, 3:13am

I am not the one ducking out. I am just warming up. I am sick to death of sophism and scam it has perpetuated on the planet. You guys need to be grilled and I am just the man to do it. Forget the “meaning” - the purpose of the philosopher is to see the good in man and encourage it to express itself. This cynical nonsense has got to stop.

spyderjoe · January 11, 2009, 4:33am

How one sees our ideas of philosphy is also how one wishes to see the future of humanity.

Radiohead629 · January 11, 2009, 6:07am

I disagree. The purpose of the philosopher in my mind is to seek to know the truth, whether that truth be good or evil.

IrvingWashington · January 11, 2009, 10:24am

Sauwelios:

IrvingWashington:

What kind of meaning are we looking for here? Are we looking for something linguistic (as in, sitting is the act of placing your arse on a surface of some sort) in which case we’re going to have to look at the etymology of the word, how it is generally used today etc. Or are we looking for something more personal i.e. what meaning do you find in philosophy.

Are those your only two options? I already picked the applicable entry from Merriam-Webster, above.

As for the etymology: I suspect the phrase “the meaning of life” is a translation of the German, ‘der Sinn des Lebens’, which in English would be “the sense of life” (but note that ‘Leben’ is a nominalised verb meaning “to live”: so it literally means “the sense of Living”). Compare the word ‘Unsinn’, “nonsense”. The etymology’s definitely interesting:

prob. a fig. use of a lit. meaning “to find one’s way,” from PIE base *sent- “to go”
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=sense

Compare Nietzsche’s description of nihilism (which in WTP 55 he describes as the feeling of meaninglessness) and his way out of it:

We have discovered happiness, we know the way, we have found the exit out of the labyrinth of thousands of years [Christianity, which he designated as a nihilistic religion]. Who else has found it?—Modern man perhaps? “I have got lost; I am everything that has got lost”—sighs modern man… [Thus Nietzsche elsewhere says that the question as to the meaning of life would become the most urgent philosophical question in the near future.] This modernity was our sickness,—lazy peace, cowardly compromise, the whole virtuous uncleanliness of the modern Yes and No. This tolerance and largeur of the heart [compare the notion expressed by drifter above that everyone can have his own meaning of philosophy…], which “forgives” all because it “understands” all, is sirocco for us. Rather live in the ice than among modern virtues and other south winds!.. We were intrepid enough, we spared neither ourselves nor others: but for a long time we did not know where to turn with our intrepidity. We became gloomy, we were called fatalists. Our fatum—the abundance, the tension, the damming of strength. We thirsted for lightning and deeds and were most remote from the happiness of the weakling, from “resignation”… In our atmosphere was a thunderstorm, the nature we are became dark—for we saw no way. Formula for our happiness: a Yes, a No, a straight line, a goal [‘Ziel’]…
[The Antichrist, section 1.]

What Nietzsche’s goal was is evident from the next three sections;

The Superman is the meaning [‘Sinn’] of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman shall be the meaning of the earth!
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Prologue.]

The word ‘Sinn’ is closely related to ‘Zweck’,—and ‘Zweck’, in turn, to ‘Ziel’.

I think searching for any kind of ‘universal meaning’ over and above the linguistic is useless, and someone is free to get just about whatever meaning they want to out of philosophy.

“Liberalism leads to nihilism.”
-Harvey Mansfield

I mean, what would a mathematician say to the question “what is the meaning of mathematics?” He could either give an account of how we use the word and maybe a few examples of the definition in practice, or he could talk about how much he enjoys doing it. Why should the philosopher be any different?

Well, for one thing, as Heidegger says, science does not think; only philosophy does.

That the meaning of life is joy, I agree. This joy, however, is what Nietzsche called “the eternal joy of Becoming […] which also includes the joy in destroying” (Twilight of the Idols, Ancients, 5). The proper aim of philosophy is to realise this.

All that can ever give something an intention is a person speaking. If philosophy is to have any meaning in the sense that you have identified then it would come from the intentions of individuals practicing philosophy, not from philosophy itself. Heidegger said a lot of things, in what sense does philosophy think? I see philosophy primarily as a method, or rather a set of methods, that help us to think properly about the world around us. Conceived in this way, the meaning that philosophy has will be determined by how philosophers use these methods. But then we are working with very different conceptions of what philosophy is, I think. In which case we are hardly going to agree on the meaning of it, ‘it’ being a different thing for each of us.