Okay, you get Me. Let’s start there. Now, given that, what do you think I am articulating about nihilism [and Nietzsche’s passive/active distinction above] insofar as it is not “on a schematically conscious level” in regard to, say, the points I raise about dasein in regard to, say, conflicting value judgments in regard to, say, any actual existential context of your choice.
I can only presume that a choice appears as non-available to you, because the very nearing to what being and time interferes with Your decision to restructure Your schematic ordering.
Analogies help clear up terminology here, passivity entails a minimum engagement of the will of a overbearing reliance upon determinating factors , or contextual refrains. In other words, you may be thinking or not, most probably not, from how I read You, that You may as well stay put, without restructuring or destructuring yourself, because a passivity leads to the unintended epoche-condition within situation, from which any attempt to move to either side, appears by now senseless, or doutfully beneficial.
This senselessness is not tantamount to having no sense, to try to understand and figure out ( quantify) the pros and cons of movement either way, but it does tend to move You along determinate ways, since nihilism is also relative movement, albeit umpreceivable.
To be clear: everyone’s situation merits a relative analysis, and in Your case, only an existentially founded examination is appriproate, with a good faith application of self disclosure.
For instance, in terms of ethical/moral conflict related to specific issues dealing with abortion: would your ethical views differ if, the family of resemblances required You to be more , or less objective ; as it pertained to Your daughter, if You had a daughter and if she became pregnant?
A very apt example to be had here is risk management. Most everyone, agrees with viewing life in general to be contingent my loaded with variable amounts of inordinate risk. Most people , literally conduct their life according to their own estimation of this variability, within the context of their everyday life as it stands in contrast to an obsessionally willful reaxemination of levels of risk.
Most of this day to day living creates the choices by which we are obliged to navigate with, hence mist will turn into automatic reflexes, like an auto pilot , where common sense will overtake the need to willfully engage.
Most actions will disengage to become aware of why we choose to do this or that.
Such a process will determine a course of action, short and long term. Its not like yeah, I really base my decision on the latest census, or my need to go along with the crowd, so I don’t think about it. No, we constantly assess the quantitative risk of any decision.
However most people will garner a demotive aspect behind the need to take unnesecarry risk.
Case at hand the gambler. For most people who tend to think of themselves as 'unlucky in life’s, are the sort the feel bad, not only if they loose at gambling, but if the look back and develop negativity up in discovering that they had won, only if they had seen the opportunity to take advantage of a past situation.
For this kind of person, who can not realize that one cannot read tomorrows paper yesterday, as will as they can: risk taking will become a tremendous wrought by the famous Marxian notion of ‘diminishing returns’
I was going to tangent another philoso-psychological truism- as it pertains to social flow, but thank God , was able to stop myself.
Your Me, my “I” here, neither passively nor actively, sees any reasonable manner in which to move beyond dasein, in order to pin down a “new world” – for the ubermen? – that would be necessarily/inherently either better or worse than the “old world”.
Until “I” am able to come upon an argument and/or experience that persuades me [schematically or otherwise] to see myself as less fractured and fragmented, I am likely to sustain my current frame of mind [about abortion] given what I presume to be an essentially meaningless world that ends for all eternity in oblivion.
How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?
For me, Nietzche is preempted by more current thinkers, whose thought is implicit in their own use of language:
‘For Karl Jaspers, the term “Dasein” meant existence in its most minimal sense, the realm of objectivity and science, in opposition to what Jaspers called “Existenz”, the realm of authentic being. Due to the drastically different use of the term “Dasein” between the two philosophers, there is often some confusion in students who begin with either Heidegger or Jaspers and subsequently study the other.’
{Again , fitting to Your suggestive narrative as to the distinction between psychology and philosophy, although there was overlap between the two thinkers.}
If it was me who had a decision like this to make, I never had to face such a possibility, for although I have And have had daughters, the moral and ethical disjuncture would be or would have been merely based on a field of possibility, not even rising to the level of the probable.
I would venture on a very different issue, that I am reluctant to raise here, and if I were to tell You, You would probably agree.
Therefore I’d rather pm that , in the event that You may be interested to the point where You may be of help.
Any issue involving any particular “I” at the existential juncture of identity, value judgments, conflicting goods, political economy and the part after death works for me.
Others either understand the points I raise in my signature threads here or they don’t.
And to the extent that they do understand them, they either concur or they don’t.
All I’m interested in though is that the discussion revolves either around personal experiences or around an issue “in the news” that is likely to have generated conflicting goods. And is likely to be widely known about. Abortion being just one of those.
Iambiguous said:
“How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?”
Therefore, any existential inquiry forfeits essential connections, per discussion above, constructing mute, as such connection may connect personal moral analysis with ethically transcending overlap.
In other words You are formally right ex-cathedra( since a personal-existentially signified issue was not disclosed by You) to abstain from an unexistentially form of involvement, and heeding to my own familiarity to what I view as my existentially transcendent issue, …
At the very least I abide by such lack -overlap, however that points to an unassailable to ground , or unwillingness to form existentially derived formulations.
Even without presenting some kind of relational component strove by the above mentioned, over and above that of Nietzche’s , displays the very conditions whereby You are trying to figure out how to change the very personal conditions alluded to.
I for my part will point to Nietzche’s nihilism as the very display of the kind of analysis which ( on Nietzche’s part) proves only that lack of knowledge of future analysis may have not crossed N’s mind-to either validate or argument to confirm his definition of Dasein-as differing in kind .
On Your part, that claim would not appear similarly., For you were not born in 1844.
By a similarity I mean the sort that is the essential part of the signified narrative within Wittgenstein’s ’ family of resemblances’
In other words, whether You are speaking from life experience, that you did have a relative who had a problem with moral/ethical issues over abortion, or not, it makes little difference , whether to disclose that or not- except to retain the doubt that is fueled into what appears as an ex-cathedra construction:
It has nothing to do with good faith, as in a reductive effort to ground somewhere else sans god, then in a hotly contested Dasein. ( again referring to the psychiatrist Jaspers.
When it was Your specific question based on deliminiting the way Nietzche used { Dasein} withertall the mentioned dame question You posed.:
"How about you? Schematically or otherwise how do you react to Nietzsche’s distinction in regard to your own existential leap to abortion: rational or irrational, moral or immoral?
Report this post Reply with quote "
and even more specifically:
“So, my aim is less in regard to “ushering in something new” and more in grappling with how to communicate “I” as I know it – broken, splintered, cracked, – in a world that is still largely nestled in one or another rendition of objectivism”
and most poignantly this:
"
Then [for me] that truly enigmatic relationship and interaction between the psychological self and the part where any particular “I” chooses to pursue this philosophically."
Asking about the distinction between the ontological and the ontic, where the ontic begs familiarity with relationships, generally, then, resisting familiarity , but excluding the principles behind it by excluding linguistic analysis based on the idea of ‘family of resemblances’ - appears as if the essential was reduced to a prior level of primary logic.
The logic of the excuses middle, the logic of the either/or- Descartes vs. Kierkegaard.
But lets not stop with Jaspers, Ricoreur and Gadamer may also shed a light of how psychological analysis differed , and the possible over extended analysis of Laing may have exceeded the portals of what philosophy may contain of modern psychology, substantively.
However, formally, the conclusions drawn are really hard to argue, even for die-hard Nietzcheans.
Sorry, but I had to stop reading after this. It being what I construe to be intellectual gibberish.
Note to others:
Was it a mistake to stop?
Yes? Please explain.
I have read You long enough to realize, one thing though.
Philosophy, is abstract for a reason, and cannot be simply addressed as if …were someone’s prerogivtive to set the rules, as how language games are or should be played, and it should never be played for effect or even affect, to have how or when an inquiry should go, or conclude.
It never is a matter of ego, and that should be left at the door.
The fact is, there should be an overlap between what is addressed and received, by the token that maybe early dismissal of a structural difficulty, may be engendered by a common.charge : based on the primary defense, of projecting fault in the other person.
Let’s say I was your student, and am trying to learn how you think, in what I still think : by a method, such as is described by Descartes.
Let’s also suppose that I paid some kind of tuition, and was not the kind to cut classes or withdraw.
If such a position would entail the kind of interaction which predisposed one to learn, I would seriously remind myself of Meno’s dialogue, where the exposition leads one to believe in the strength of argument that eventually became an a-priori type of ontological reality.
Which it did.
Now, if I quit, then it would not absolve me from the charge of failing in that argument, whereas strangely, the overwhelming case to be made for Dasein, in all it’s forms, and that it continues in the vein of a holding for some kind of transcendence.
If, I can transcend the ego-baggage we all come equipped with, and realize that student and teachers are interrelated and their roles easily interchanged, then it may possibly become for me less of a problem to answer a typical question such as: maybe the obtuseness of the answers to the question is the result of cutting off interrelationships and communication -not on the ground that obtuseness is a sign of written narratives, and appealing to public opinion to assert it, or, that the ideas are thus false, but maybe the contrary, that I can not accept a possibility that it has things to teach, but I cannot learn them because I can’t accept that I may be wrong or mistaken.
That was something I had to learn when I started to think as a prerequisite. Otherwise the name I have chosen myself could not. be possibly sustained as ‘Meno.’
Ah, now I get it. Thanks.
Do You? Could You expand on that?
No irony of any kind will be read into it.
,
Now that it ain’t broke, let’s leave it alone.
Ok. Here is my answer to Your original question.
I do not think that the superman idea is merely a Nietzchean one of based on overcoming by brute strength. there are supermen among is presently, who have been able to ensure almost unending challenges ofnthe worst kind.
And how? Because even if, God is dead, they understand evolution to have a.purpose, a god inspired purpose to overcome doubt, without whithout which the jungle would swallow recapture us.
The seeking of the light . of the implicit struggle to achieve superman status, is primordial. We should become god like. God minded. to overcome the evil of Satan’s doubt.
This redeeming quality in man separates men from animals, and this isn’t he example incam offer to show, that this overcoming is what has always caused the continuation of human life.
Without the ideas andntje ideals of the good, the beautiful and the wise, inherent even within our gene, all this, life as we got to know it, would have been impossible.
I challenge anyone here to connect the dots between these points and the ones that I am making above.
As that relates to passive/active nihilism in confronting conflicting goods in a particular context we might all be familiar with.
And, no, not just abortion.
I am up to the challenge, if the simplification I’d the circular argument referring above:
Passive in any context means relegating to a determinitive power, overcoming the Will, as per its opposite.
As such, the source of determination relegated to an extrinsic source, may compensate to the waning of am undeterminative power to will.
How can a will to power arise indeterminatively sans an extrinsic source , if not from an already arrived nominal Superman?
A developmentally ideal , evolving through the transcendent ideal, powered by a intentionality spelled out through the ages-makes sense.
On the other hand, almost every attempt to passively expunge the will to power has been fiercely met by those hell bent instead on actively espousing indeterminate power — even among those Bernie Sanders supporters who reject Nietzsche’s will to power as synonymous with those K Street sycophants that Biden is counting on.
Or would you argue that once new world ubermen confront the old world facsimiles, neither passive not active nihilism will uproot Donald Trump’s own sycophants?
Besides, what’s nominal about the money being poured into the big banks clearly determined to sustain crony capitalism as the only inherently extrinsic antidote to anarchy?
Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?
Really, just go to the fucking dictionary and look up the word “gibberish”!!!
Iambiguous said
“Also, what does that make you then, the last of the idealists among those here I have always contemptuously described as “serious philosophers”? You tell me: how are they not basically Satyrian pedants?”
Not really, but in all due earnestness, whichever party You insist on belong ing to, please take note of eternally recurrent repetitive phenomenal cycles of alternating epochs, whereby the many stills develop through constant motion into a simulated movement.
Various descriptions of nihilism from Nietzche’s preceptions through Jasper’s psychoanalytic applications, the nihilism change, descriptively.
A good analogy, iambig, could be the feeling of stability and lack of movement we experience here on earth, whereas the earth rotates and revolves around a sun, a star among trillions of stars , belong ing to numerous galaxies, which also move at tremendous velocities.
Besides the probable idea that there may be innumerable parallel universes.
With that in mind, anything, or everything may be a potential ground for a unique possibility. St.James proved that there are at least two identical copies.
Have You read him ? If so, could You comment on that? I will try to dig it up, but it seems like an endless chore.
The above is merely an extension on Das-Ein as the hidden perspective on the Vedantic influence on Heidegger.
Besides, Bernie Sanders bowed out.
Unbelievable.
Google Alan Sokal: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair
That’s what I was doing here. Fairly or not, I construe much of what you post as intellectual gibberish. So I just strung my own words together as well. None of it was meant to be taken seriously.
Or again [as I still suspect] is that what you are doing as well: poking fun at any number of “serious philosophers” that spew out worlds of words here that have almost no relevance to the lives that we actually live.
Actually I am not doing that. Philosophy, serious, or not must have truth in it, truth that can, and have to be backed up by referential authority.
It may be strung together, yes, in a ‘postmodern manner’ but still it is a re-construction, at a place of deconstruction, or a partially differentiated place-where the phenomenal reduction settles in an epoche.
So far ok?
All the elements of the phenomena, then, may become strange, like Kafka’s bugs, Sartre’s Nausea.
Back will finish the answer below. Needed break.
Ah, now I get it. Thanks.