Life Philosophy.

Work with Goethe’s works, for example (?) .

:laughing: ?

I good?

Great post Arc.

Incidentally, Nietzsche wrote that Dostoyewsky was the only psychologist from whom he could learn.

We studied the music but not the man, but studying the music meant that we had to delve into the man’s psyche… but only enough to understand the music.

Are you asking me or telling me that you’re good/well? :confusion-shrug:
:laughing:

…so many influences/so little time, sayeth the current urban demographic… rendering them near impossible to unravel in thought or feeling.

I am asking you: "What are you talking about?“

“You good yeah?” is a very casual urban way of saying “How are you?” and how is Arminius these days?

A, yh., I so. Thks. I fine. :slight_smile:

It is impossible for it to exist outside of RM:AO, but then the modern standard forces in physics don’t exist in RM:AO either. Forces don’t actually exist at all except as emergent, aberrant appearances.

Compare: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=186832&hilit=forces+or+farces.

Just because there is such variety of interpretations as to what constitutes a life philosophy, one could say, that it is tantamount to philosophy of life. Elan-vital implies a surge of energy of the force of life toward higher Being, and it subscribes in its technical mode into what has come to be called philosophy of
mind.

The Elan Vital concept was popular at a time when magnetism, either were given substantial credence.

In its wider context, life philosophy can include all aspects of life, as well as the most poignant.

I guess you mean Mesmerism by “magnetism”, invented by Franz Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) in the 1780’s. So magnetism occured very much earlier than Bergson’s “élan vital” who coined this concept in 1907. But besides the magnetism and the later concept of “élan vital”: Life philosophy means more than that, as I already said several times.

[tab]Mesmer’s gravestone in Meersburg:

[/tab]

Merci beaucoup. How could anyone not mention him in this Life Philosophy thread.
Dostoevsky used to be my favorite writer. I loved him. Couldn’t get enough of him. lol Somehow i greatly related to him.
I agree with Nietzche there. One of the reasons I also like Nietzsche is because I also find/found him to be or to have such psychological leanings/insights within his writing, aside from his beautiful poetic writings. TSZ for one. I suppose that the poet in me is just so drawn to his beautiful pearls of wisdom.

You great star, what would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine?

Not referring to myself of course, thoughts like that reach into my very core. That’s a wonderful insight.
We tend to forget that we are not 'islands unto ourselves" and that we co-exist and create because of others. After all, can something come from “nothing”?

Of all that is written, I love only what a man has written with his own blood.

I affirm his words above and I think you might agree with this. You are a bit of a narcissist Jakob :evilfun: but I rather think you’re brilliant (not the most brilliant of anyone everywhere as you think lol) but you are and you’ve accomplished with “your own blood”.

This is practically the basis for all the understanding of this case study. Perhaps it’s that vitality that thrives in all lives (i.e. animals, plants, & organisms). Actual realism is knowing there’s a corresponding consciousness parallel to ours. Henry David Thoreau & Ralph Waldo Emerson knew these topics all too well, inside and out. That principle of (Vitalism) or as it does pertain to fundamental functionality that, in us, is in complete accordance to being aware and understanding. Don’t mistake the spirit for the living, yet only for one’s own true perceptive operations. That I have no idea, whether it has a background consciousness of it’s own or if it continues throughout denoting more than just one presence. The mind used to determine these situation’s best answers is that substance which causal as it it remains prominent in the control of life itself, partially divine in my opinion. To think about that for a minute, as substance and material is related that substance to have spawned from it’s own matter the being living now. Vitalism than proves to be more relatively accepted through-out the inclusively physical state.

Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás, known in English as George Santayana… I have found him to be inspiring over the decades, with his provocative quotes and almost Eastern air about him.

Wiki, on Santayana:

Moreover:

It is not much satisfiable to explain life by accidence, by coincidence. Right?

For comparison only: “The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?”.

According to Schiller there is an ideal human (as something like the last guideline of each human’s will) in each human.

In a sense, there is an ideal Man, but not an ideal human.

I guess you mean “Mensch” here, thus not “Mann”. Is that right? If yes, then I agree.

I meant the order of all mankind, “Man”, rather than of any individual hue-of-Man.

It is possible that Schiller meant both an ideal man and an ideal human (both as something like the last guideline of each human’s will) in each human. Accordance of both reason/morality and freedom is the task/purpose.