Well, if we want to parallel panpsychism, panpsychosis must mean that psychosis is a pre-existing property of the universe.
(panpsychism = mind is a property of the universe or all things in the universe)
A Panpsychotic would be someone who holds this position about psychosis as a fundamental property of substance in the universe.
If panpsychosis is supposed to mirror panpsychism, then reality just is, in some fashion, psychotic. It’s not a defect, disconnect, or option but an inevitable feature.
[size=104]“Mind”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”. [size=104]“Spirit”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”. [size=104]“Ghost”[/size] = “Geist”, so: very much more than “Psyche”. [size=104]“Soul”[/size] = “Seele”, “Psyche”.
Not “mentally” (at least not necessarily), but of course psychically.
Yes, but - of course - psychically disconnected with reality.
It is possible to be psychically disconnected with reality and nevertheless be mentally connected with reality. When psychiatrists and psychotherapists speak about " psychosis", “psychotic”, and so on, the mind is included, and when they speak about “neurosis”, “neurotic”, and so on, the mind is not or less included. I know that they think so, but I think that they are probably wrong because a psychotic is not necessarily disconnected with reality (think of the borderline psychotic and the borderline syndrome).
Unfortunately!
Maybe in English - unfortunately -, but not in other languages, especially in German. In German there is a possibility to say - and thus: to think too - it in BOTH meanings. And that is an advantage, a benefit, a gain, a plus, thus a chance to choose is given by the language, so one can speak and think more differently. (By the way: there are two languages in history which are made for thinking: Ancient Greek and German.)
So if we have a look on Nietzsche’s biography again, we may add his “psychography” and his “mindography” and put them into his five stages:
(1) childhood and youth, (A) no psychic symptoms of disease, (I) no mental symptoms of disease,
(2) from his youth till his „terminated contact“ with Wagner, (B) little pyschic symptoms of disease, (II) no mental symptoms of disease,
(3) from his „terminated contact“ with Wagner till his „Zarathustra“, (C) psychic symptoms of disease, (III) little mental symptoms of disease,
(4) from his „Zarathustra“ till his collapse, (D) much psychic symptoms of disease, (IV) mental symptoms of disease,
(5) from his collapse till his death, (E) very much psychic symptoms of disease, (V) much mental symptoms of disease.
I think, Nietzsche was able to put all his physical / bodily pain, his bodily symptoms as semiotic signs into linguistic and philosophic terms, axioms, theorems etc., and when he later tried to do the same with his psychic symptoms he could not do it in the same way, and when he at last tried to do the same with his mental symptoms he collapsed because mental symptoms as signs are too much like linguistic and philosphical signs.
Those differences in word usage is why we need Definitional Logic. Ancient Hebrew was designed to be extremely logical such that every letter had its own concept and a word was a combination of the concepts represented by the letters. To form a word was to “cast a spelling” in the mind, which is how we eventually got the idea of “casting spells”. But their logic was based upon their premises/axioms. So today, Ancient Hebrew is useless for Science because the axioms in Hebrew are primarily pathos-spiritual rather than logos-material. Latin was largely logic based also, but led to Italian, Spanish, and French which are very pathos based, “romance languages”.
Language and thinking tend to affect each other. So is German Science what it is because of the language, or is the language the way it is because of the thinking? And did Science form the thinking or did the thinking form Science into the particular form that it took. It could have taken a different form and yielded the same results. Measuring is what made Science succeed and that could have been from any language as long as it included detailed math.
It is hard for me to separate “psyche” from “mind”. And “soul” doesn’t even come into the picture, for me.
The relationship between language and thinking is obvious, they affect each other. What effects the most, is an interesting question, but it is very difficult to answer.
Yes.
Yes, and that’s not only, but very much because of the English language, which is your first language.
The phonetics of a “soul” in English relates to the same for “sole” (as in the sole of a shoe) in English and means conceptually the same thing; “that upon which the body is built”. Scriptures often conflate “spirit” and “soul” because they seldom had a distinction between a concept (soul) and a behavior (spirit).
I live in Germany. The timestamp for your post shows “4:27 pm”. So you are 8 hours “back”.
So you are - chronologically - as far from me as the Japanese are.
And the Japanese are - chronologically - as far from you as I am.
Wow! ______________________
Yeah, sure, German is better than English–if you say so–but what does it mean to say that a language is made for thinking? What would a language not made for thinking be like?
But Texan is not a language, but a dialect of a language, and that language is - of course - the English language. Or is it by now and again the Spanish language (catchword: immigration) ?
I found this Exchange odd. Gib makes it clear that they mean the same thing to him, despite the Words meaning different things in his language, English. This seems to be used as possible evidence one cannot Think something, in particular, in English, which is a poorer language than German for thinking, supposedly. But you can Think of those two Words as referring to different things in English. For this reason atheists will often not use ‘soul’, for example, or use it as a no longer use of some now outmoded dualism. Whereas they will use mind, even though they do not Think this raises the dualism issue.
Psyche referred to earlier in the same post is a very complicated Word in English, because it came out of the myths, but then got used in new ways by, well, Germans, amongst others, and so the Word can mean different things in different contexts (contexts including different users). Sometimes it is used as a fancy ass way of saying mind. Often not.
Differences in languages do affect how one Thinks, especially given that one gets the Culture at the same time one gets the language, and the Culture sets tendencies and limits and biases. English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side, hence a huge range of registers and adjectives, at least compared to other languages that are more singular in their roots.
One could even argue that the difference in grammar between English and German leads to tendencies in thinking…Different thoughts…
Therefore it is a plus, if the meanings of words are stretchable and refer to the language they hisorically belong to. Too many influences by foreign languages are probably advantaged when it comes to the so called “lingua franca”, but in other cases they are more disadvantaged.
Yes. English has been more and more a “lingua-franca”-language since England became an empire. That was the price. The Englishmen lost parts of their language and language tradition and won or gained a lot of vocables from foreign languages. They lost cultue and won civilisation, especially in an economical and political way. A “lingua franca” (Sumerian, Ancient Egyptian, Mandarin Chinese, Ancient Latin, Modern English) has always been very useful for international economy and of course other international affairs.
That’s right. But not only “English has Germanic and Latin roots, with a lot of Greek thrown in on the side”, other Germanic languages as well. English is as well a Germanic language as the other Germanic languages, but these have less foreign influences than English has. And that’s the point.
If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc…
At that time Ancient Hebrew had an advantage over the neighbouring languages, but when the Greek, who were the first ones with vowels, put the vowels into their alphabet, it was like a “language revolution” because the Greek language got not only a different quantity, but also and very especially a different quality. This different quality gave the Greek language a Level, which never before had been reached.
And after that the Greeks stopped the borrowing of lexemes from other languages and kept their language clean. Well done, Greeks.
I don’t Think this is the case. 1) having more options allows for more nuanced Communication in general. 2) Having more influences puts on the table cultural biases and more checking must be done, less assumptions can be made. The way the language creates a lens is more complicated and two fluent native speakers still must carefully check things. Illusions of 1) good Communication and 2) lack of cultural bias are harder to come by.
It didn’t lose parts, it gained. It has a larger vocabulary than German. And you’ll have to demonstrate somehow why it does not work for, say, philosophy, as well as other languages.
That’s right.
[/quote]
So here I was saying different thoughts but not more in one language than Another and it seems you are agreeing.
When it comes to to strengthen a culture communication is not the most important thing of the language, but Information is the most important Thing of the language, of sciencde etc… Communication is more (but not most) important when it comes to civilisation in order to get the Information, which is neverthelless most important. Elsewise communication is talk, only talk. … Talk, talk, talk …
It did lose parts. Of course. Very much. Look into your dictionary! And I also said: it gained (cp. vocabulary). Though not the quantity, but the quality is important when it comes to culture. When it comes to civilisation - okay -, it seems to be the reverse -, but civilisation is not what a culture startes with. A culture startes as culture ( ). That what we nowadays call civilisation is perhaps in later or even latest times of a culture more important. A civilisation is not a “motor” for a rising development, but for the organisation of a declining development, of the decadent times.
Amongst others, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler argued in a very similar way as I do.
I have alraedy demonstrated, e.g. here, and in this post I there is also demonstrated why it does not work.
If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or a high frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or a low frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc…
Each language has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on. But language in general has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its „laws“, its rules, its grammar and so on - just like - for example - mathematics and philosophy. You can hardly explain e.g. mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. physics or chemistry; and you can also hardly explain mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, „laws“, rules, grammar by using e.g. psychology or sociology. But you can do it very well, very effectively, very successfully by using mathematics or linguistics.
So you can hardly explain what thoughts or words about by using psychology or sociology.
Nietzsche used thoughts and words in a regular way, although he was “psychically” ill. According to the English language, which can not seperate psyche from mind, this would not be possible ( ). Though it is possible ( ). I can guarantee you.
_______________________| Geist |
______________| Psyche ____|
_______| Biological Body ______| | Anorganic Things ___________|
Above you see four layers as levels. Aristoteles thought of a fifth one, which he called “Hyle”. However. Except the Anorganic Things, each of that levels is relatively free and supported by the level / levels below - according to the positions. The more a level is up the more it is free, but no level is generally free, but relatively free. And the more a level is up the more it depends on the level / levels below. So Anorganic Things “stem” Biological Body, Psyche, and Geist (mind etc.). The Biological Body is more relaively free than the Anorganic Things, the Psyche is more relatively free than the Biological Body, and the Geist is more relatively free than the Psyche. When it comes to that what the levels are by theirselves, they do not depend on on any other level - exception: Anorganic Things, which depend on no level anyway.
So for example the Geist, which means the most relatively free level, does not depend on the other levels when it comes to that what the Geist is by itself.
That is one of the reasons why one can be mentally healthy and pschically ill, but not menatlly ill and psychically healthy. Nietzsche has shown how he was able to be mentally healthy and pschically ill even in very extreme situations. He had the best thoughts when he was ill.
Just to be clear, what I said was that they refer to the same object, which is subtly different from saying they mean same thing. Mind (to me) means these inner subjective intangible experiences I call “thought” and “emotion” (maybe memories, dreams, intuitions as well), whereas soul (to me) means roughly the same thing with a few connotations added–namely, independence from the body (thereby implying the possibility of being freed from the body) and immortality. But these latter connotations aren’t (to me) essential to the definition of the soul–what’s essential (to me) is the soul’s being that which is internal to my very being and existence, which is also the essential aspect of the “mind” (to me). Thus, what they share in common–the soul and the mind–what is essentially the same, must make them the same object. But strictly speaking, the “soul” carries certain connotations that I don’t particularly believe in (i.e. independence from the body and immortality), but as these are not essential to what a “soul” is, I can still maintain that souls, being the same as the “mind” (which I believe exists), also exist, and are one and the same as “minds”.
I guess it’s the same as the concept of “witches”. I don’t really believe in witches (except for our good friend Maia, of course), but supposing some ultra hardcore Christian fundamentalist decided to put Maia on trial for witchcraft, claiming that she was involved in a pactum implicitum with the Devil, I’d say that the “witch” which our Christian fundamentalist friend, in his fanciful imagination, thinks exists really doesn’t, but that doesn’t mean that the object that he’s referring to (i.e. the person Maia which we all know and love) with his use of the word “witch” doesn’t exist. Of course, Maia exists! I believe in the object denoted by the term “witch” in this particular case (and in a sense, Maia is a witch–she practices the way of life of the Wiccan–which could be said to be more essential to what it is to be a watch than, I guess, the occult or being in league with the Devil). So the “witch” which our Christian fundamentalist friend is persecuting exists (we can all see her there), but the “witch” which he thinks exists (the one who signed a pact with the Devil) really doesn’t.
Long story short–there is a difference between semantics and referents.
A person’s native language shapes the way s/he sees the world. At least, that’s what I believe. I’m not sure I want to compare German with English other than to agree that English, particularly US, or American, English is more heavily nuanced than is German, in my opinion.
Language is sound, isn’t it? As Germanic tribes moved and spread throughout Europe, they picked up the sounds of other civilizations. Those sounds took on shifts, not only in pronunciation but, also, in meaning. Ancient Roman and Greek verb tenses were reduced to two–the past and the present. As the world changed, so did its language. The umlaut was dropped when the Germanic tribes went north, and finally occupied England where they met and mingled with the Celts and the Danes–another Germanic tribe.
What does this have to do with the German language as the language of philosophy. Probably nothing at all.
Is Armenius ‘guilty’ of confirmation bias? Has he moved backwards from Nietzsche to German as “the” philosophical language?
Was Nietzsche a ‘panpsychic’? Did he have the ability to ‘predict’ the future of mankind through his philosophy? Could that philosophy only have come from a German?
Perhaps, to answer this, one needs to look at Nietzsche, the man–and apply our collective amateur/semi-professional psychology brains to the mystery of Nietzsche, the man. He was born at a time when Germany was at its pinnacle of modern cultural achievement. Germany, in trying to maintain that achievement, became extremely Nationalistic, which led to WWI and WWII.
His father died early on, so he was raised by women. One of those woman was his sister, Elizabeth, an avowed anti-Semite who ‘edited’ his work for publication after his death. She was his companion and care-taker until his death. Despite both earlier and later editions of his work, he’s mostly known for Elizabeth’s edited version. (My opinion, only.)
How did he die? Was it the final stages of syphilis? If so, there’s no evidence; there’s merely speculation.
His father had died of “brain disease.” Does this mean a massive stroke? Did Nietzsche die of stroke? He collapsed, twice, while comforting an abused horse. Did Nietzsche die because of massive stroke?
He was always “sickly,” yet no one has documented his illnesses and infections throughout his life–at least, not that I can find. Y’all can help me with this. He had migraine headaches and impaired vision in his right eye; he suffered from intestinal disease.
I guess what I’m asking is whether or not Nietzsche was a recognized poet/philosopher in his own time or if it took the publication of his work, as edited and arranged by his sister, Elizabeth, to be so recognized. Just how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche and how much of Nietzsche is Nietzsche myth?
If only someone long ago invented Poetry and Thesaurus’ long, long ago, we could of avoided this pointless discussion. I blame the Peisistratids. Oh wait… they fucking did, so argument collapsed in on everyone’s head.
Little pieces of history can wrench a discussion on linguistics, and even Nietzsche, out of its pre-conceived socket if only one looks.
And we have this thing called a Right Hemisphere in English. It deals in facts, and they follow not the dictates of language but ontological prerequisites. Language is but a approach to facts, but is hardly exclusively the only means. A hunter doesn’t pursue linguistically.
Its why we have such emphasis on psychology in America, and use anatomical terms to dictate functional from cytoarchitectual regions of the brain.
Besides, Nietzsche during his time intern fluxuated from outright mad to reading and writing. His writing, including poetry, continued after the collapse for some time. It fluctuated.
