You can't just expect a "life of pleasure". It is personal growth and social connectedness that is what most folk actually report as rewarding. So right there, that includes meeting personal challenges and making various social sacrifices - the kinds of things you regard as part of the intolerable burden of existence. — apokrisis

I understand this. A charitable interpretation of hedonism also recognizes this. What folk "report as rewarding" they are reporting what makes them feel good. Reward. Pleasure. etc.

Check out the neurobiology of the sympathetic nervous system some time. Arousal is arousal. Why do you think people pay so much to ride roller coasters or bungee off bridges? — apokrisis

Are you implying that I ought to read about the impersonal thing instead of just asking people what they feel? Or asking myself how I feel?

This just seems like a red herring. Of course there's adrenaline junkies. Of course people like being scared for entertainment. But it's not real, none of that is actually real. It's fun. These people are safe (ish). There is a harness. There were engineers who checked the rollercoaster for structural integrity. etc. The fear is kept in check.

Running from a bear that will maul you if it catches up with you is not fun. Fighting your friends in an online shooter game might be fun, but fighting enemy combatants in a firefight is not fun because it's really-real. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, and we typically see these exceptions as unstable or dangerous (who actually likes being shot at?).

The research of course shows a U curve of arousal. There is a case of too much as well as too little. But peak performance requires excitement/fear. Step on to the stage and your heart ought to be pounding as if you were running from that bear. — apokrisis

Yes, I understand that not-too-much but not-too-little stress is necessary for peak performance. But as I said before, an organism in an extreme environment will not have this perfect balance. It is as if the organism was not meant to operate in these situations (just as we are not meant to operate in the vacuum of space). In fact sometimes people in extreme situations will stand there in shock, unable to comprehend what is happening and die where they stand instead of seeking shelter (Vesuvius). Or they go off running in a wild panic and get shot by the enemy instead of waiting in position (war).

And try giving a public lecture or doing a TV interview. Or playing a sports match in front of a crowd. You need to be shitting yourself with adrenaline to give a top performance - intellectually as well. — apokrisis

What? My experience and the experience of many others would seem to contradict this. I would not give a good public lecture if I were shitting my pants in fear. Adrenaline might make me pumped up and excited but I may be too excited and stumble over my words. etc.

As you said, there is a right balance between the two that facilitates a smooth reaction. But I take issue with your equivocation of fear with excitement, adrenaline with panic. There is also very big difference between being confronted with fear but keeping it in check, and being overwhelmed by fear. For example, someone who successfully kills themselves may have successfully kept the fear of death in check, while someone who attempts to but can't bring themselves to accomplish the act may have been subdued.

Gawd, it must be true then. :roll: — apokrisis

No, but it points you in the direction of where I'm coming from.

Drop this. The problem dissolves. — Banno

Don’t follow you so far. Drop the part about a particular relation between sentience and reality and what alternative meaning remains for the word “truth”? Somehow came to believe that truth was an important thing for you as well (here thinking in relation to Trump and friends).

As for your question of what I’m going to do about the paradox I addressed, I’ll face the facts and pursue less trodden paths till I find something worthwhile. Since your question almost sounded sincere, here’s a crudely expressed working idea: truth (that which is true) is conformity to that which is ontic (such that to be true is to conform to that aspect of the ontic specified). This laconic phrase nicely accounts for all examples addressed by correspondence theory but doesn’t get limited by the latter—e.g. if the target as an aim is ontic, the arrow can then be stated to be true due to its path’s conformity to the ontic end it was intended for. Other examples can be given, like true to one's spouse (to the implicit yet ontic understanding held with one's spouse), and so on. At any rate, my given hunch doesn’t pre-judge any particular ontology as being true prior to accounting from what “true” is; it merely affirms that something ontic is—and the latter can only be rationally doubted via contradiction (e.g. there ontically is nothing ontic; hence, both A and not-A at the same time and in the same way). But it does require there being some sentience for truth to be.

If you have quibbles, would like to hear them.



Darth, am I hearing you right? All life that intends to live is cowardly? Including that which perseveres against what can nearly be insurmountable odds? There something in the way to this. At any rate, it’s not how I ascribe meaning to the desire to live, nor to what courage is all about. But maybe this isn’t at all what was intended in your last post after all.

As for philosophy, I hear even David Hume had to play billiards as a diversion every now and then. I’m imagining with a little bit of beer and a good amount of laughter. Maybe it’s not the best example, point being The Truth can and does a/wait with or without us philosophy interested people; life not so much. If we take a breather from philosophical topics they’ll still be there after we recharge our allegorical batteries, if we find we’re still interested in philosophical topics afterward.

This is so because truth, as it’s commonly understood, is a relation between one or more points of view
— javra

Drop this. The problem dissolves. — Banno

Don’t follow you so far. Drop the part about a particular relation between sentience and reality and what alternative meaning remains for the word “truth”? Somehow came to believe that truth was an important thing for you as well (here thinking in relation to Trump and friends). — javra

I can't see how you got "Drop a particular relation between sentience and reality" from "Drop truth, as a relation between one or more points of view".

With that level of misunderstanding, why continue?

Darth, am I hearing you right? All life that intends to live is cowardly? Including that which perseveres against what can nearly be insurmountable odds? There something in the way to this. At any rate, it’s not how I ascribe meaning to the desire to live, nor to what courage is all about. But maybe this isn’t at all what was intended in your last post after all. — javra

Some of the most inspiring individuals were those who didn't care if they died in the process. Why do we admire these heroes? Because they were not afraid of death. Imagine this kind of radical detachment towards your own existence - does not everyone wish they could simply let go?

When we think about those who have died, we often think about them as resting peacefully. They are better off, even if at the immediate moment of their death we mourn. Why should we pity them? Secretly we are all jealous of the dead, and we regret our own inability to throw off our chains to join them. In my view, to love living is to be ignorant of the alternative.

The challenge is to transcend our own desires and ask why it is that we desire what we do. We are not the authors of our own desires. We desire things - but why? Why do we desire to live as opposed to die? Could desire be a form of manipulation, in the same way that pain and fear manipulate us into certain courses of action? This manipulation is what Ligotti alludes to when he describes the conspiracy against the human race. When Cioran calls life a state of non-suicide, he is illuminating the idea that suicide is a natural and rational course of action that is perpetually frustrated. The idea is that without repressive and oppressive mechanisms, a human might immediately kill themselves and be done with it without a second thought, and without vertigo, as if we were blinking, or tying our shoes.

The challenge is to transcend our own desires and ask why it is that we desire what we do. We are not the authors of our own desires. We desire things - but why? Why do we desire to live as opposed to die? Could desire be a form of manipulation, in the same way that pain and fear manipulate us into certain courses of action? — darthbarracuda

“Our desires” are part of us as social beings in our society. It is not a form of manipulation, we desire things not because we are victims of commercials or brainwashing. For example innovations, desires to have a better product or service are reciprocal, shared by producers and customers. After been taken up by media and numerous experts, the desire starts looking as familiar and natural. If we want to transcendent, we need to escape or to stay alone, cutting off some social connections.

I can't see how you got "Drop a particular relation between sentience and reality" from "Drop truth, as a relation between one or more points of view". — Banno

I’m surprised beyond belief that this needs to be stated. The conjunction used was “or”, as in “between X or Y […and...]”; not “and”, as in “between X and Y […and...]”. Not taking half a sentence to be a full sentence, but instead interpreting what you’ve quoted within the context of the full sentence I originally wrote is, well, just common sense grammar skills. The issue of charitability—or of the lack thereof—doesn’t even enter the picture.

With that level of misunderstanding, why continue? — Banno

Well said.

Some of the most inspiring individuals were those who didn't care if they died in the process. Why do we admire these heroes? Because they were not afraid of death. Imagine this kind of radical detachment towards your own existence - does not everyone wish they could simply let go? — darthbarracuda

The person who said “It’s a good day to die” right before charging into a very perilous battle didn’t commit suicide on the spot due to his conviction. He struggled, endured, and fought. But those who live by not being afraid of death—be they aikido practitioners, samurai, of Native American tribes, firemen that run into burning buildings to save a life, or your run of the mill altruist (to list a few)—can all be said to give their life if needed for some less egotistic, greater good that they believe themselves a part of. Sometimes it’s spiritual; sometimes it isn’t, e.g. for the sake of humankind, the species, or some such.

The person who believes that death is in an instant get-out-of-suffering card can well construct their valid logical reasoning for pursuing death. But the premise is just as silly as that of it being “an instant beam me up to a suffering devoid heaven” premise. Death is both experientially and rationally the ultimate unknown. But we don’t like the unknown, do we; we feel antsy with unresolvable mystery; so we then impose a known truth upon it. By analogy: Dark energy and matter that composes most of the universe and most of us; phooey; we all know damn well that we’re made up of atomic billiard balls darn it (with nothing spooky or mysterious about it, to boot); and we certainly don’t have time for the unknown constituting most of what is physically real. Just so with the nature of death: an unknown what happens after a life takes its last breadth in this world? Horse manure. Right?

I’ll take the bull by the horns and acknowledge the unknown as being unknown. But to each their own, I guess.

Just one thing, though. Those who risk their own life without fear of personal death are not to be mistaken for those who are suicidal. Everyone from warriors to pacifists, they didn’t—and still don’t—go into some state of mind where the intention is to engage in self-murder.

I just know that I dont get any enjoyment from philosophy anymore. It feels more like a very tense and nervous imperative to organize thought into some arrangement of leakproof compartments. — csalisbury

Well, there is the ancient skeptical approach. To paraphrase, the awareness of leaky compartments leads to ataraxia, in which one suspends work on leakproof compartments. After which, the leaks are no longer bothersome.

Well, there is the ancient skeptical approach. To paraphrase, the awareness of leaky compartments leads to ataraxia, in which one suspends work on leakproof compartments. After which, the leaks are no longer bothersome. — Marchesk

Darn. That’s quite an accurate paraphrase. Giving credit where it’s due.

Btw, been working on better addressing the subject of skepticism, this since it’s such a big deal to so many. I think I’ve got global skepticism nailed down to three distinct and conflicting categories that I believe are comprehensive as a set. Here also paraphrased:

• negating infallibilism*: when you doubt everything that isn’t proven to be infallible in order to at last arrive at infallible truths and knowledge--because you faithfully believe infallible truths and knowledge can be proven to be via your methodic doubts. This mindset makes you an infallibilist, hence the name of the category. Exemplified by Descartes’ use of Cartesian Doubt.
• negating fallibilism: when you denounce all beliefs upon discovering they’re all fallible because you don’t ever want to run the risk of being wrong. Exemplified by Pyrrhonian skeptics.
• positing fallibilism: when you discern that everything epistemic is fallible (including the affirmation that nothing is infallible), take a deep breath of relief in so discovering, proceed to posit conclusions drawn from experience and reasoning with this discernment in mind, and confidently hold onto these conclusions till something comes along that evidences you wrong via experience or reasoning—because, until that time, as far as you know you could be perfectly correct. Exemplified by people such as Cicero, David Hume, likely the Socrates/Plato duo (the two never called themselves skeptics so I guess whether or not they were is up in the air), and, maybe, Charles S. Pierce, the guy who came up with the term “fallibilism” (I’m thinking he might have been a closet skeptic of this third ilk, because his take on epistemology nicely speaks to this (though I have yet to finish reading my collection of his works)).

* the fourth category that’d naturally fit into this set would be positing infallibilism—where you posit instances of infallible truths and knowledge—such as that of “The Truth”—that you neither substantiate to be infallible nor even try to so substantiate, but insist are infallible all the same (likely on grounds that this is self-evident to you and because you don't give a shoot about all the evidence against it being infallible). However, this category wouldn’t be a distinct type of global skepticism.

Yea, thought I’d share. Maybe it’ll help to make better sense of this taboo topic of skepticism. If not I’m sure I’ll hear of it. I think it also better speaks to the issue of fallibilist accounts of the Truth v. infallibilist accounts.

Well, there is the ancient skeptical approach. To paraphrase, the awareness of leaky compartments leads to ataraxia, in which one suspends work on leakproof compartments. After which, the leaks are no longer bothersome. — Marchesk

Like this?

That's good. One other possible distinction occurred to me. What about things like Humean causation or Kant's things in themselves? We can't help but talk of causation or think there is something out there responsible for our sense impressions, but neither are part of our empirical data, according to those skeptical accounts.

Hume, who was a global skeptic, believed in causation just as we all do (it’s why he was a stringent causal compatibilist, for example; he only illustrated how our knowledge of causation is inductive. This wasn’t an problem for him in terms of acknowledging causation, but it did make sense of things such as purported miracles not being outside the spectrum of ordinary causation. I distinctly remember his example of ice being given to someone who'd never seen it before in some desert; to them it would be a miracle, but it would still be bound bycausal processes--as the British (and we) know it to be. Same thing, he argued, with any so called miracle that occurred in the West). Kant, on the other hand, was not a global skeptic—not that I’ve so far heard of at any rate.

Part of the problem with skepticism is it’s commonly used current connotations: that of being dubious about. When addressing global skeptics such as Hume or many of the ancients, they weren’t dubious about things; at least not any more or any less than any self-proclaimed non-skeptic is. Tracing the word to its origins, in Ancient Greek where it was first used it literally meant to be thoughtfully inquisitive. It had absolutely nothing to do with being doubtful about things. For example, even Pyrrho—who’s reputed to have been quite extreme in his suspension of all beliefs—was not a dubious person. For instance, he held a firm, though obviously to him fallible (not infallible), conviction in how to best attain happiness; he had no doubts about it.

To cut to the chase, Hume was tied into many an ancient Academic in his skepticism, a mindset which does not in any way rely upon the presence of doubt. This may be hard to be believe for some, but historical records attests to this form of skepticism being a different thing than that of a dubious disposition. Kantian skepticism (don’t know of the extent to which Kant might have used this term himself) is however tied into Cartesian notions of skepticism, for which doubt is quintessential. Though, again, Kant to my knowledge was not a global skeptic. His skepticism was particular to a set of gives; in this case, what things in themselves actually are.

Maybe this is novel to some. :grin: Know all too well it's not to others. :cool: Anyways, was just shooting the breeze. Didn't intend to make a thing out of it unless there's a need or an interest.

--------

At any rate, thanks for bringing up possible discrepancies. Its among the best things that a philosophy forum has to offer: others' perspectives.

:grin:

Like this? — Andrew M

Certainly describes my attitude toward work some days.

Like this? — Andrew M

Certainly describes my attitude toward work some days. — Marchesk

I picked this lyric up from my stay in boot camp (was in the army reserves for a while a whiles back, to be precise): “If it don’t make money, it don’t make sense.” OK, to be fair and put it in context, the song was about it not making any sense to kill, harm others, or otherwise engage in criminal activity just for the hoot of it (because without these activities making you any money … ) Ethics from another corner of the world. What can one say.

Still, it reminds me that there’s something to be said about work.

Placing this on a philosophy forum I sort’a feel that there might be a shark frenzy of argumentation soon to unfold. Hopeful the humor intended is just understood.

But yea, work. Man, one of the funnier t-shirts I came across as of late simply read in all places till there was no more space, “work, work, work, work, work, work, work”. I instantly got it. But, yes, work does “make money”.

(Late night humor of a SNL “Deep thoughts by Jack Handy” variety. That said, unless there'll be a need for me to reply to my previous posts, I'll be away for a while)

hey thank you. I've been mulling over your post for a while and still am.

Given what you've said though, I'm interested in your answer to where do you see the boundary between philosophy and art. How do we distinguish between the two? — Baden

I think I'm on board with what both you and apo have been saying. The nuts and bolts of of realizing that kind of change are another matter tho. so, yes, in the meantime I'd love to take a stab at this:

I think ( faintly echoing Deleuze) that philosophizing means understanding how concepts interact. Its understanding both the intricacy of particular concepts and the conceptual space in which they're nestled. Proper concepts are all loaded, hyper-implicate. So the way they relate to other concepts - and the relation of these relations to other relations and so forth - requires some broader background sense of conceptual space. So you have to have some feeling for how toying with one aspect of a concept ripples and affects the other concepts. Its almost aesthetic but not quite - its a sort of understanding of how making this or that philosophical move has ramifications for the other concepts, and the whole web. Most bad philosophy involves advancing certain claims while being unaware of the broader conceptual consequences.

like: making some conceptual claim
in one particular argument --- then, later, making use of other concepts youve implicitly shaken in your earlier argument with no awareness of how that argument, if taken seriously, compromises those concepts. (crude atheism is a great example of this. Husserl on psychologism is a great example of forcing ppl to confront this kind of confusion)

Something on the border of logic and art.

Art, imo, is just conveying something felt urgently by whatever means necessary. At essence: Producing an effect that best transmits how you yourself have been affected. The trick is the stuff we most need to convey is very simple, and anything stated simply is already cliche, or advertisement. So there's a necessary element of destruction and disruption just to clear a space and get through. Art involves an intutive sense of how to both effect this necessary destruction and how to make use of the cleared space. (also obv it requires technical knowhow to make that all work)

thats really unsatisfactory to me but its a start

What's unsatisfactory about it?

Echoing Wittgenstein here, I suspect you might best confront your issues in working through the question "What more do I want?" and understanding the nature of your felt need.

In any case, really glad to see you feel like you're making progress! :up:

Yes, well put, art is an act of disruption achieved through the use of intuition and technical ability (in the mode of communication used), and its success lies in effecting some affect. Philosophy is more about creating concepts and relationships between them that form a stable pattern that inevitably is beholden to ideas like truth and logic etc. as these are considered to be the roots of stability of such patterns. And so philosophies insofar as they are built to last are inevitably big Ts, more or less stable patterns of concepts, competing with other big Ts in meta-conceptual space whereas art doesn't need to be conceptualized at all. In fact, good art is the most efficient way to disrupt layers of conceptualization and problematize them in order to allow for change and development and avoid stagnation. Philosophy can do this too, but it's more about laboriously replacing one pattern of concepts with another. So, art is anti-big T in an important way—it aims at its best to directly shake up our truths, to get us to rethink them without having to play on truthy territory, so to speak, so, I don't know, but maybe one cure for philosophical big T ennui is a trip to the art gallery or some creative exercise in that area.

Another way of putting it that just occurred to me is that to do good philosophy you really have to know what you're doing whereas to do good art, you don't, you just have to be what you're doing.

(Of course, art and philosophy bleed into each other on one end just as philosophy and science do on the other, so you can get "arty" philosophy that's less big-T orientated, but still must attempt some level of conceptual stability (to be able to be coherently expressed in terms of concepts) to be philosophy at all.)

@apokrisis

As I said I've been thinking about you post. I do indeed identify as 'broken' in some ill-defined way. &, irl, I usually feel like its immediately apparent to other people. I'm told by others it isn't, at least at first. But I have an internal self-image that's always playing in my head that makes me feel ridiculous when I try to do normal social things. Its not that I don't know how to do them; its that I feel...prohibited? Or that to assert myself, or speak and act like someone worthy of respect, is to assert something morally and aesthetically distasteful. (I like Mishima bc this is his big theme. A sharp awareness of beauty and draw toward it, combined with the feeling that oneself is not beautiful....leading finally to a hatred of beauty)

So in social situations one of three things happens

(1) I try premptively to side with those would mock or disparage me. Self-deprecating humor, but laid on really thick. And sort of being a caricature of a 'weird' person. I think this makes me feel like I have control over the situation. it allows me to manage and direct the mockery.


(2) If I feel smarter than the other person, or people, i take a cynical, ironic tone. Not overt assholishness, but a kind of quiet mockery and undercutting of anything discussed seriously. This is also a kind of form of control bc it wards away the possibility of any intimacy (intimacy in the broadest sense.)

(3) bona fide dissociation. A deep feeling of fogginess, a sluggishness of thought and action, total lack of spontaneity. It feels a little like being stoned or sedated. The function of this I think is to dull the impact of the shame and humilation I feel.


In all three scenarios tho I'm shutting off any form of actual emotion connection. I'm bracketting my emotional needs. But the thing is these all only work as stopgap measures, to protect against temporary social pain. At this point tho theyve so calcified that theyre all I do to the point where its hard to figure out what I actually am besides these defenses.

And thats where you get resentment. I hate feeling like I can't respect myself, and I hate my defenses (tho for a while I liked the ironic, cynical one) but the reflexive feeling is that the presence of other people is what activates these defenses. So in a twisted way I hate them for making me abase myself. Its a fucked up logic: I project onto other people the negative self-image I have of myself, I imagine them seeing me like that, so then I feel humiliated, and humiliate myself, then blame them for feeling the way I do.


And this makes plenty of space for a fetishization of philosophy, and a can't-be-touched persona on a philosophy forum. Thoughts and concepts felt like they offer d total control, and if since thats all I really could control, then systems become a kind of fetish. A thing I could turn over in my head at home, untouchable by the world and feel safe.

(The bonus with the continental approach is you get a side of aristocratic sneer as part of the deal. Zizek in particular is the master of a particular form of rhetoric that is so sneery and shaming that you enjoy siding with him and feeling part of the club. Its easy to be seduced by this when youre young. And, as with all strong voices, its easy to let it infect your own voice)

But anyway, after a while the fun stopped . Its an addiction. The world got fuzzier and fuzzier and reduced to what I could make of it philosophically. To the point where major life events would be happening and I'd be only half-there, thinking about how I could analyze this and fit it into my philosophical preoccupations, or weaponize it argumentatively. Its not a good thing. I read some author somewhere recounting being at the hospital while his wife was in labor, and how he was thinking of kafka (i.e thinking of himself as a writer in the constellation of literary writers) like this was a neat detail and it made me feel really bad, especially bc I can remember myself thinking stuff like that was neat, instead of very sad.


Anyway long story short: all these habits developed in school, when I was a weird-looking overprotected precocious kid. Strictly survival. You bully yourself so you wont get bullied for real anymore.

The thing is I'm pretty normal & nomal-looking now. Like you suggested the defenses and habits id developed lost their use loooong ago.

I know my warped self-image and my current habits are kind of a mutually sustaining mobius strip. I do think I have the capacity to break out of it buts its so engrained its hard to figure out how

Another way of putting it that just occurred to me is that to do good philosophy you really have to know what you're doing whereas to do good art, you don't, you just have to be what you're doing. — Baden

Yeah! I like this distillation. @John Doe this is the heart of what I found dissatisfactory in my account. My discussion of art focused on the conditions of possibility, and felt like it was describing to intentional a process, whereas its the being - the creative flow, or trance - which is whats essential. Of course thats the thing where theres not much you can say about it.

Following on that David Foster Wallace, with whom I had a long love affair, is, imo, an example of someone who gets the destructive/creative dialectic but struggles to acess the creative flow (imo). So you have this sense of total control: he wants to tell you exactly hows he destroying, and then creating. He wants to make sure there's no room left for misinterpretation, or mockery. And how this plays out is a a kind of solipsistic trap where the dialectic of destruction and creation becomes the content itself, and the actual moment of creation is lost. Not that he didn't know this; he did. and thats why his books are so sad, and frustrating. And ultimately something that isnt quite Art (except for the one story about the boy on the diving board) in the same way very good seducers aren't actual emotional partners.

Which, again, he knew. But it didn't help.

@apokrisis one last thing. The feeling I get when I try to play a normal role as a healthy adult male is a lot like the feeling of trying to tell something meaningful to a judgmental, mocking presence. I begin to feel like everything I'm saying is ridiculousness, and my words stop flowing, and I begin to feel like I'm bluffing in front of someone who's a master at reading tells. So all of a sudden what I actually feel and believe seems like a lie, and I feel this weird intense shame. (whatever you would infer about my dad here is probably eaxctly right)

Is depression also apart of your identity about yourself? Speaking as a fellow depressive, although not clinically. It sounds like you have to restablish a new identity...

Edit: The issue is that depression often keeps on nagging even if you move on with a new identity of sorts about yourself

Yeah depression is definitely part of it. I feel weird being joyful in front of people. When it happens usually some other part of me kicks in and says 'tone it down man'

But it isn't only depression is it?

Sounds a fair deal of anxiety and social anxiety lumped in there too.

Not for me. I think of clinical depression as something that descends upon an otherwise normal person, like any disease. Depression, for me, is tightly wrapped up with a broader shame issue. My depression waxes and wanes, but always alongside the other problems, as a symptom.