Life Philosophy.

Yes. :wink:

Which verb comes semantically very close to the verb „instill“?

“Eine Würdigung Nietzsches wird immer stark davon abhängen, wie man den »Willen zur Macht« auffaßt. Ermunterung zu imperialem Zynismus? Kathartisches Geständnis ? Ästhetisches Motto ? Selbstkorrektur eines Gehemmten ? Vitalistischer Slogan? Metaphysik des Narzißmus? Enthemmungspropaganda?” - Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, 1983, S. 389.
Translation:
“An appreciation Nietzsches will always strongly depend on how one understands the »will to the power«. Encouragement to imperial cynicism? Cathartic confession? Aesthetic motto? Self-correction of an inhibited? Vitalistic slogan? Metaphysics of the narcissism? Propaganda of disinhibition?”

Although life philosophy wants to understand life by life itself, it should not be reduced to vitalism and biologism which are aspects of it but not more.

Although I extend the word to include physical installations:

And also:

And:

Basically it refers to making something more permanent.

One just has to wonder for how long she had to hold that pose:

:-k

One needs to ask himself as what comes first in order to determine what is a part of what.

Life always entail a whole-life within the whole of reality.

‘Life Philosophy’ [vitalism ++] would imply partial philosophy and will not cover whole-life and the whole of reality.

Actually it is philosophy per-se that will cover the whole of life and the whole of reality.
Philosophy per se is the management system that is effective to deal with one’s whole life, humanity and the whole of reality optimally.

Within philosophy per-se there are the various categories of specialized Philosophy which are the various tools to be used to deal with life optimally within whatever the existing constraints.

Pierre Hadot introduced his Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault

The above is something but I don’t believe the above is sufficient to deal with the whole of one life, humanity and the whole of reality.
What is needed is to approach the whole of life with a reliance on Philosophy per-se [as appropriately defined.]

“Himself”? Whom do you mean?

You have not read or at least not understood what life philosophy is, how it is defined. Life philosophy (by definition) does not have to cover the whole of reality. This is already said in this thread. Just try to read it.

And it is also not simply meant as “a way of life”.

Thank you very much.

Or he (?).

:-k

Is it possible to clearly define vitalism?

Here’s my attempt. Vitalism would be an idea that there is some kind of vital force that permeates everything. A sort of substance monism, I’d say. Or rather, substance monism regarding living beings. Non-living beings appear to be excluded.

I don’t know how true this is. So it’s someone else’s turn to correct me and/or offer better, more accurate, definition.

Unless we’re confining ourselves to philosophers per se and not thinking out of the box –

a life philosopher can also be an artist, a poet, painter - they too are life philosophers.

Baruch who wrote Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 was a life philosopher.

A Time for Everything
3 There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Anyone who observes, studies and portrays life in all of its subjectivity, objectivity, truth, meaning, can be considered to be a life philosopher.
I believe that existentialists are life philosophers.

Shakespeare was a great life philosopher. Van Gogh was one, Picasso was one…Dostoevsky was one…

Vitalism means that the organic life has a special vitality ("vis vitalis“) effecting life phenomenons that depend on that vitality. Vitalism rejects the exclusively mechanical and chemical explanation of life processes. The Neovitalism assumes that there is a teleologically effecting factor called "entelechy“, which is an Aristotelian term.

Isn’t vital force yet another name for mind, spirit, soul, consciousness?

Vitalism then would just be the idea that the immaterial (= mental) is more fundamental than the material (= physical.)

Solipsism in a sense.

The behavior/actions/spirit that defines a life versus anything else could be referred to as “vitalis”, “orgone”, or “life force”. Some still believe that the vitalis force/behavior that we call “life” is not an emergent force from more fundamental forces of physics, but an entirely separate force.

As an emergent force, it obviously exists. But as a physically separate force from the “forces” of fundamental physics (once properly understood), I don’t think so.

There is a branch within the vitalism (especially neovitalism) that claims that the phenomena of life are not explainable by physicochemical “laws” (rules) but have their own “laws” (rules) that can be put down to a psyche-like “force” (=> Psychovitalism) or explained by the “entelechy” (as I already said).

Yes.

It is at least hard to believe that such a separate force exists, but that does not mean that it is not possible. Compare it, for instance, with the Aristotelian “entelechy”, although it is not exactly the same. To Goethe entelechy was “ein Stück Ewigkeit, das den Körper lebend durchdringt” (“a piece of eternity that gets lively through the body”).

Would Marquis De Sade or Diderot count?

What do you think of poets, dramatists, and fiction writers?

Interestingly, the Fibonacci numbers show some noteworthly mathematical specific features:

Due to the relations to the previous and the following number growth in nature seems to follow an addition law. The Fibonacci numbers are directly associated with the golden cut. The further one progresses subsequently, the more the quotient of successive numbers approaches to the golden cut (1,6180339887…) - for example: 13:8=1.625; 21:13=1.6153846; 34:21=1.6190476; 55:34=1.6176471; 89:55=1.6181818; 144:89=1.617978; 233:144=1.6180556; … and so on). This approach is alternating - the quotients are alternately smaller and bigger than the golden cut (golden number, golden ratio):


The Fibonacci numbers are the sums of the „shallow“diagonals (shown in red) of Pascal’s triangle:

Maybe the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden cut are such a principle or force.

All life-philosophically relevant writers or tellers are also welcomed to this thread. :wink: