Contemplating my own philosophical awareness

Visions of the Rewilding Renaissance Rewilding Mind & Heart
#1

[hr]
Admin Note: This thread was separated from “The false image of privelege.” due to a change in topic.
[hr]

I have belonged to a philosophical website for about two months now but I am leaving it on the account that mostly my self sufficient,independent and individual philosophy seems to be an abomination amongst modern philosophy’s eyes.

[b]( I have been called a anti-human and anti- progress philosopher. :smiley: )

( By today’s standards of philosophy I shall like to take such words as a compliment. 8) ;D)[/b]

If Socrates could see what philosophy has turned into today the man would go stark raving mad. There was once a time when philosophy was a system of thought to question the very bounds of existance itself and if such questions were harmful to the establishment of men their sentiments be damned.

Today’s philosophy is purely a form of social conditioning and political sophism where only the right kind of questions are appreciated while all others are deemed heretical. What exactly are the right kind of questions?

The right questions are the ones pertaining to society that are the type of question that leads to the empowerment of civilization. The wrong type of questions on the other hand are the ones pertaining to the rebellion against society and conventional norms.

It just so happens that I am a philosopher who asks all the wrong types of questions. :smiley:

I am leaving that website for the most part and I have decided to make this existing thread to contemplate my own philosophical awareness.

I welcome all others to come and have conversations with me or maybe even a couple of friendly debates of opposing views.

It is my hope that I can bring some philosophical foundations for the wild primitivist at heart.

#2

[b]This is one of my favorite quotes of Jean Jacques Rousseau on the excerpt of freedom.

I thought I would post this and see what other peoples opinions were on the subject. It is from Rousseau’s book Emile. [/b]

Your freedom and your power extend only as far as your natural strength, and not beyond. All the rest is only,slavery,illusion and deception. Even domination is servile when it is connected with opinion to lead others as you please you must conduct yourself as they please. Never will your real authority go farther than your real faculties..... Take everything,usurp everything, and then pour out handfuls of money,set up batteries of cannon,erect gallows and wheels,give laws and edicts, multiply spies,soldiers,hangmen,prisons,chains. Poor little men, what does all that do for you? You will be neither better served,nor less robbed,nor less deceived,nor more absolute.

You will always say, " We want," and you will always do what the others want.

The only one who does his own will is he who, in order to do it, has no need to put another’s arms at the end of his own; from which it follows that the first of all goods is not authority but freedom. The truly free man wants only what he can do and does what he pleases.

#3

Now take the quote of Rousseau with this little neat Koan I found on the internet and combine them with the understanding of freedom.

Alexander the Great: "diogenes, you are a man of great repute yet you are a man without purpose and mission! All you do is sit about all day, untroubled, unperturbed, indulging in conversation and the pleasures of moment to moment life!"

diogenes: “So, what is so much better about the life of Alexander the Great?”

Alexander: I am a conquerer of nations!

diogenes: So, conquerer of nations, unlike my purposeless life what are you going to do next?

Alexander: I am going to conquer Greece!

diogenes: Yes . . then what?

Alexander: Then I am going to conquer Asia Minor!

diogenes: Alright . . then what?

Alexander: THEN I am going to conquer the WORLD!

diogenes: Alright, then what after that?

Alexander: THEN I will relax and enjoy life!

diogenes: Why not save yourself the trouble?

http://www.webmasterworld.com/foo/3332090.htm

#4
There was once a time when philosophy was a system of thought to question the very bounds of existance itself and if such questions were harmful to the establishment of men their sentiments be damned.

Going back to David Abrams’s book The Spell of the Sensuous again here, he postulates that the original Greek philosophy, especially the Socratic method of interrupting the fictional character in the conversation, was to break up the sensual, animist thought of oral culture and direct it toward the non-experiential concepts that only became possible after the advent of the Greek alphabet.

Whenever, in Plato's dialogues, Socrates asks his interlocutor to give an account of what "virtue," or "justice," or "courage" actually is, questioning them regarding the real meaning of the qualitative terms they unthinkingly employ in their speaking, they confidently reply by recounting particular instances of the quality under consideration, enumerating specific examples of "justice," yet never defining "justice" itself. When Socrates invites Meno to say what "virtue" is, Meno readily enumerates so many different instances or embodiments of virtue that Socrates retorts sardonically: "I seem to be in luck. I only asked you for one thing, virtue, but you have given me a whole swarm of virtues."

[…]

Socrates, however, has very little interest in these multiple embodiments of “virtue,” except in so far as they all partake of some common, unchanging element, which he would like to abstract and ponder on its own.

[…]

Socrates, then, is clearly convinced that there is a fixed, unchanging essence of “justice” that unites all the just instances, as there is an eternal essence of “virtue,” of “beauty,” of “goodness,” “courage,” and all the rest. Yet Socrates’ conviction would not be possible without the alphabet. For only when a qualitative term is written down does it become ponderable as a fixed form independent of both the speakers and of situations.

– David Abrams, The Spell of the Sensuous, pp. 110-111

#5

[quote=“WildeRix, post:4, topic:230”][quote]There was once a time when philosophy was a system of thought to question the very bounds of existance itself and if such questions were harmful to the establishment of men their sentiments be damned.
[/quote]

Going back to David Abrams’s book The Spell of the Sensuous again here, he postulates that the original Greek philosophy, especially the Socratic method of interrupting the fictional character in the conversation, was to break up the sensual, animist thought of oral culture and direct it toward the non-experiential concepts that only became possible after the advent of the Greek alphabet.

[quote]Whenever, in Plato’s dialogues, Socrates asks his interlocutor to give an account of what “virtue,” or “justice,” or “courage” actually is, questioning them regarding the real meaning of the qualitative terms they unthinkingly employ in their speaking, they confidently reply by recounting particular instances of the quality under consideration, enumerating specific examples of “justice,” yet never defining “justice” itself. When Socrates invites Meno to say what “virtue” is, Meno readily enumerates so many different instances or embodiments of virtue that Socrates retorts sardonically: “I seem to be in luck. I only asked you for one thing, virtue, but you have given me a whole swarm of virtues.”

[…]

Socrates, however, has very little interest in these multiple embodiments of “virtue,” except in so far as they all partake of some common, unchanging element, which he would like to abstract and ponder on its own.

[…]

Socrates, then, is clearly convinced that there is a fixed, unchanging essence of “justice” that unites all the just instances, as there is an eternal essence of “virtue,” of “beauty,” of “goodness,” “courage,” and all the rest. Yet Socrates’ conviction would not be possible without the alphabet. For only when a qualitative term is written down does it become ponderable as a fixed form independent of both the speakers and of situations.

– David Abrams, The Spell of the Sensuous, pp. 110-111
[/quote][/quote]

Never quite looked at it like that before.

Well maybe my own philosophy is unique to the world. :smiley:

Who knows? Maybe I will make a different type of philosophy that is built upon the premises of freedom,individuality,self sufficiency and independence.

My philosophy also deeply criticizes the influence of language and other abstracts.

" Deep faith in literalness is a lack of belief in reality." -Smithson.

#6
" Deep faith in literalness is a lack of belief in reality." -Smithson.

ha ha. i like that.

#7

ha ha. i like that.[/quote]

;D I figured you would.

It seems human beings are so disenchanted by reality or by their own internal forces of survival that they feel compelled to loose themselves in their own creations.

#8

Lately I have noticed everyone cutting their grass in the summer time through the various spots of suburbia.

In a way I have always thought it to be ironic since there is virtually no reason to cut grass beyond the aesthetic appearance.

Another way I have come to see this is that psychologically speaking cutting grass along with other aesthetical systems of managing a outside area of a enviroment around a human dwelling is a manifestation of civilized dominionism.

It is because human beings feel the need of seperating themselves as a seperate entity psychologically that habitual actions of cutting grass becomes prevailing.

In civilization we feel some need to be a seperate entity with a different importance towards all other things in existance around us.

( I know this post sounds random but I did create this thread to be of random thoughts. :smiley: )

#9

Yes I know that previously I said I would quit the philosophical website and yet here today the website is in the link of my signature clear as daylight.

I guess one could say that I came to the realization that arguing with other people helps me formulate new ideas for myself.

( Oh well.) :wink:

#10

[b]I now know that I will probally never publish a single book on the account of myself lacking a good imagination since I am a materialist person in thought not to mention my poor writing skills of grammar and lack of contacts with a actual book publishing company.

I have made peace with that these last couple of days so I have chosen to do the most ultimate form of self sacrifice in that I will write down everything I know about philosophy that can help out the primitivist movement in this thread alone in which people can learn from or completely ignore my sentiments telling me how much of a fool I am.

( Any sentiments won’t bother me as I will be enjoying the crisp air of 1000 miles of wilderness in a couple of years.)

Let us first start discuss about the conceptions of what people call reason:

These quotes are from the wonderful book “Freedom And The End Of Reason By Richard L. Velkley.” and I would suggest any primitivist interested in constructing a intelligent foundation of thought to read it.

The instrumental conception of the role of reason in such a project is ultimately self defeating for modern employment of reason as a instrument to liberate man would, by it's own account, result in greater human independence and self sufficiency, yet instead it brings about the opposite:

In deeper enslavement of humanity to it’s own artifacts and creations.

" Humanity itself, through the development of reason, inflicts on itself all the forms of alienation tending to destroy both freedom and virtue."

Rousseau- Witty Remark.

If the sciences improved our morals, if they inspired us with courage and taught us to lay down our lives for the good of our country the Chinese should be wise, free and invincible, But what advantage has that country reaped from the honours bestowed on it's learned men?

( Remember that China is one of the oldest state civilized societies in the world.)

Rousseau-

Arts,literature, and the sciences stifle in men's breasts that sense of original liberty, for which they seem to have been born; cause them to love their own slavery, and so make of them what is called civilized people.

Rousseau-

Those who have neither disposition or the ability for higher learning to give themselves over to it are no good to themselves or to others.

Those who achieve their works without lavish praise or prestige being attached to their: theirs is a true gift that if anything thrives on obstacles.

#11

As you can see the very concept of reason is not a prime liberator of man and for whatever reason our world seems obssesed with the constraints of reason,science or thought.

The biggest assumption that humanity has fallen onto is that we need a straight line or progression to attain freedom and salvation but through those processes we overlook the freedom that is already constant in the world before us.

This is largely the fault of two things in the world:

  1. Transhumanism- A system of thought that believes in a arrow of time perspective with a firm belief in the concept of progression or human obligation. It is the very philosophy that motivates the modern world and economics to take great leaps at all costs even on the account of human beings suffering on the way.

  2. The perspective of symmetrical time. A large part of physics has shown that time doesn’t exist yet human beings cling onto it for dear life due to the fact that it brings a false sense of certainty as uncertainty is horror to the rational mind.

A good way of describing the utter flaws of reason,time,obligation and the ideals of progression can best be described by these Nietzsche quotes:

[b]The universe is " neither perfect nor beautiful,nor noble, nor does it wish to become any of these things; it does not by any means strive to imitate man."

Beware of saying there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one to command, no one to obey, no one to trangress.[/b]

[b]Do you really believe that the sciences would ever have originated and grown if the way had not been prepared by magicians,alchemists,astrologers, and witches whose promises and pretensions first had to create thirst, a hunger, a taste for hidden and forbidden powers?[/b]
[b]Assuming that one estimated the value of a piece of music according to how much of it could be counted,calculated, and expressed in formulas: how absurd would such a "scientific" estimation of music be! What would one have comprehend,understood,grasped of it? Nothing, really nothing of what is " music."[/b]

Now one would wonder what would happen if we estimated each expression and value of life using the same standards.

He then goes on,

[b]Do we really want to permit existence to be degraded like this- reduced to a mere exercise for a calculator and an indoor diversion of mathmatics? An essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world.[/b]

In short, as Hume would say

[b]You can not presume a "ought" from an "Is."[/b]

[b]The world just " Is" and a mere mortal creature like man even though he may try to establish a “Ought” is only fooling himself.

Progress is nothing more than a judgement relative to the desires of people and isn’t factual no matter how many times we try to create a “Ought.”[/b]

#12

Other Nietzsche quotes that are worth to take a look at:

" The lie of the ideal has so far been the curse on reality; on account of it,mankind itself has become mendacious and false down to it's most fundamental instincts- to the point of worshiping the opposite values of those which alone would guarantee it's health, it's future, the lofty right to it's future."
" Knowledge for it's own sake" - that is the last snare of morality: with that one becomes completely entangled in it once more."
The inclination to depreciate himself, to let himself be robbed, lied to, and taken advantage of,could be the modesty of a god among men.
Whoever reaches his ideal transcends it.
Having a talent is not enough: one also requires your permission for it- right, my friends?
Madness is rare in individuals- but in groups,parties,nations, and ages it is the rule.
#13

Richard L. Velkley quotes on Rousseau and various subjects:

Modern man assumes original man's feature was of passionate nature.

Thereby the passionate individualism of modern life received a blessing from an erroneous view of a primordial human passionates- natural fear of death,greed,violence, and love of glory and victory. But the modern account of the origins is only half true; the original human condition was indeed individualistic but it lacked the malignant passions, and indeed all passion.

The consideration that social life is acquired, one concludes that the chief causes of social life, the passions, are also acquired and not natural.

Original man lacks all interest in his fellow humans, which could give rise to fear, envy , and competition.

The passions have at most a latent existance, for they eventually arise through the awakening of capacities that surely distinguish men from other animals- capacities for speech,self awareness, imagination of the future, and for comparison of oneself with others. But even these compacities are problematically natural and do not themselves define a concept of “human nature.”

Therefore on a both a practical and theoretical level, the modern development may point to an overcoming of the ills it has instituted. It may do so through a combination of theoretical insights that establish the possibility of a prepassionate form of individualism and of practical exigencies that awaken longings for such a higher form of individualism.
#14

Hey Joker,
How are you fairing with your studies.
I don’t know where to begin to add to your notes here.
Faith in an actually determinately uncertain ontology. ( I have yet to come across an ontology that seems to be good.) (In th platonic sense.) Even Science does not have me convinced. This was a post I made from pf. It essentially posits that the epistemological root of evil is a conclusive ontology.

"Thanks for responding Tobi. You raise an interiesting point positing that I turn the question around. Is it possible that the crystal is actually not symmetrical? You think that this would lead to a contradiction, in that “we need to call an object like a crystal symmetrical, but somehow we would have to assert that it is not symmetrical at all.” I would say, “we need to call a crystal symmetrical, but at the same time assert that it might not actually be symmetrical at all, thus we don’t need to call a crystal symmetrical. The “need to call” a crystal symmetrical is no need at all, because need implies a function, whether utilitarian (e.g. producing pharmacuticals) or non-utilitarian (e.g. producing ‘knowledge’) - when knowledge of a crystal is in fact independent of the crystal-in-itself. Knowledge of the crystal pre-supposes understanding through an a-priori concept, which the crystal may, or may not posess.
This is the position I am taking on all ontologies I come across. Determinate Uncertainty. (e.g. The crystal may or may not have symmetry.) If we assume the crystal does actually have a symmetry, then the symmetry presupposes a worth, or value. The crystal has symmetry, and a non-crystal does not. If something posesses something that another does not, a worth is inherent in difference. If this is true, then the faith in the-thing-in-itself corresponding to an a-priori concept must yeild that the thing actually possesess that concept gives a right to find a function in it. This, as far as my logic can reach, is the essential root of a modern civilization with an impossible way to reach absolute economic stability, when completely extrapolated. In short, it is the epistemological root of all evil.
I’m by no means advocating nihilism. I’m advocating determinate uncertainty.
thanks again, and cheers”

#15

[quote=“CypressMoon, post:14, topic:230”]Hey Joker,
How are you fairing with your studies.
I don’t know where to begin to add to your notes here.
Faith in an actually determinately uncertain ontology. ( I have yet to come across an ontology that seems to be good.) (In th platonic sense.) Even Science does not have me convinced. This was a post I made from pf. It essentially posits that the epistemological root of evil is a conclusive ontology.

"Thanks for responding Tobi. You raise an interiesting point positing that I turn the question around. Is it possible that the crystal is actually not symmetrical? You think that this would lead to a contradiction, in that “we need to call an object like a crystal symmetrical, but somehow we would have to assert that it is not symmetrical at all.” I would say, “we need to call a crystal symmetrical, but at the same time assert that it might not actually be symmetrical at all, thus we don’t need to call a crystal symmetrical. The “need to call” a crystal symmetrical is no need at all, because need implies a function, whether utilitarian (e.g. producing pharmacuticals) or non-utilitarian (e.g. producing ‘knowledge’) - when knowledge of a crystal is in fact independent of the crystal-in-itself. Knowledge of the crystal pre-supposes understanding through an a-priori concept, which the crystal may, or may not posess.
This is the position I am taking on all ontologies I come across. Determinate Uncertainty. (e.g. The crystal may or may not have symmetry.) If we assume the crystal does actually have a symmetry, then the symmetry presupposes a worth, or value. The crystal has symmetry, and a non-crystal does not. If something posesses something that another does not, a worth is inherent in difference. If this is true, then the faith in the-thing-in-itself corresponding to an a-priori concept must yeild that the thing actually possesess that concept gives a right to find a function in it. This, as far as my logic can reach, is the essential root of a modern civilization with an impossible way to reach absolute economic stability, when completely extrapolated. In short, it is the epistemological root of all evil.
I’m by no means advocating nihilism. I’m advocating determinate uncertainty.
thanks again, and cheers” [/quote]

Oh, I loved this. It kind of reminds me of what my frame of reference sort of runs off of: No such thing as a straight line or a sphere, although some people believe they exist though, I don’t, since as far as I know I haven’t sensed them or anything symetical in my entire life. Perhaps this arises from my sense of everything changing constantly.