Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Nihilism: where it all begins

Expand Messages
  • Trinidad Cruz
    Human beings must be wholly considered and this requires an account of death that recognizes personal mortality, not in the sense that all men die, but rather
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Human beings must be wholly considered and this requires an account of
      death that recognizes personal mortality, not in the sense that all
      men die, but rather that "I" die. If we catch on to Sartre's bending
      of Heidegger's demand toward activation there is some resolution for
      this issue short of nihilism. It is my view that the idea of
      activation requires a bit more development. In a purely scientific
      sense I may reasonably hypothesize that "I" the individual cannot be
      without the species, and produce any number of historical scientific
      arguments to that effect, but putting us all in the same boat does
      nothing to personally rid me of death, so short of fantasy I can only
      be immersed in death. Consider that the activation of any species-wide
      new action on the individual cannot be activated by the species
      precisely because the individual has arisen from the species. Any
      action by the species on a living individual with the potential to
      change the individual can only be activated by the individual himself.
      Consider that the individual cannot escape what the species has
      activated towards him in initially producing him as an individual
      member of the species, in order to get the sense of an essentially
      determined condition; and one can argue that the force required for
      the individual to improve his situation beyond what is common to the
      species can only be generated as a species-wide resolution toward
      change. For an individual to improve his biologically determined
      plight he must somehow activate the species toward the "I" that he
      longs to keep. For most on the surface this is a rather unattractive
      nearly Machiavellian idea until one considers what methodolgy or
      implementation would be required to activate the species toward
      oneself. Consider that the species' activation toward
      self-perpetuation produced the individual in the first place.
      Reconsider that the ordinary individual arisen of the species can do
      absolutely nothing to alter that imperative short of destroying the
      species. Consider that existence for a human being is an all or
      nothing proposition if you will, but do not discount what is left of
      the all just because you have yet to philosophically decipher how to
      activate the species toward the individual. It seems to me that if an
      individual were to successfully assume the responsibility for the
      perpetuation and preservation of the species the species would be free
      to produce a new imperative. I wonder what that would be? Perhaps one
      could speculate: the perpetuation of the individual? Consider that
      every act an individual makes toward liberating and providing more
      choices to another individual is a brief assumption of the imperative
      of the species. Perhaps that activation of species toward individual
      is not so impossible. Death in the whole individual is something that
      must be taken as fact, just an end of a string of possibilities, but
      what one does with the possibilities is of substantial importance to
      the whole species and so to every living individual and every
      individual to come. As much as a human being to be whole must accept
      the personal immersion in death, so must he accept the personal
      immersion in species. Becoming is an active and limited state.
      Nietzche's argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man
      construction. The argument for meaning that stands is the one that
      removes the NECESSITY of meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one
      Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men walking" and it is this
      "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as individuals, and
      as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began as a
      species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.

      Trinidad Cruz
    • Robert Keyes
      Can you be a Niliest and form a philosophy, That is Positive to the individual humans (or countries).I think Yes. Its called accepting reality. Then move on
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Can you be a Niliest and form a philosophy,
        That is Positive to the individual humans (or countries).I think Yes.
        Its called accepting reality. Then move on with the problem at hand.
        Good Post.
        Bob...


        -----Original Message-----
        From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
        Of George Walton
        Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 5:23 PM
        To: George Walton
        Subject: [existlist] Nihilism: where it all begins


        Simon Critchley from Continental Philosophy:

        ".....Christian metaphysics turns on the belief in a true world that is
        opposed to the false world of becoming that we inhabit here below. However,
        with the consciousness of the death of God, the true world is revealed to be
        a fable. Thus, and this is the paradox, the will for a moral interpretation
        or valuation of the world now appears to be the will to untruth. And
        yet----here's the rub---a belief in a world of truth is required simply in
        order to live because we cannot endure this world of becoming. Nietzsche
        writes,

        'But as soon as man finds out how that world is fabricated solely from
        psychological needs [my emphasis], and how he has absolutely no right to it,
        the last form of nihilism comes into being: it includes disbelief in any
        metaphysical world and forbids itself any belief in a true world. Having
        reached this standpoint, one grants the reality of becoming as the only
        reality, forbids oneself every kind of clandestine access to afterworlds and
        false divinities---but cannot endure this world though one does not want to
        deny it.'"

        Critchley then iterates the point:

        "...we can no longer believe in a world of truth beyond this world of
        becoming and yet we cannot endure this world of becoming.....This vicious
        antagonism results in what Nietzsche calls 'a process of dissolution',
        namely that when we realize the shabby origin of our moral values....our
        reactive response is to declare that existence is meaningless. It is this
        declaration of meaninglessness that Nietzsche identifies as nihilism..."



        The record may be broken and the needle may be stuck in the same groove but
        this is what philosophy brings me back to over and again: how, in a world
        that is essentially meaningless and absurd, ought one to live? And, once
        someone acknolwedges that philosophy can't tell [or help] them any more than
        religion, how ought they respond to others philosophically at all?

        In other words, I don't know. And you don't know. No one knows. And that is
        because, sans God, no one can know.

        Therefore, it invaribly comes down to grappling as best we can with actually
        living our lives. Living them always in the shadow of the abyss. The one six
        feet under and the one that encompasses the vastness of all earth is
        enveloped in cosmologically.

        But: you can only do this one decision at a time. And this segues into the
        circumstantial contexts out of which all choices are situated. In other
        words, the chaotic and convoluted ambiguities they emerge from and then back
        into.

        The starting point thus is always nihilism. There is either knowing this or
        no knowing it.

        Unless, of course, some philosopher actually comes up with a God that sticks
        this time. Unlike, say, the ones invented by Plato or Kant or Wittgenstein.



        george





        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! for Good
        Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
        Yahoo! Groups Links
      • Robert Keyes
        Nihilism is reality. I Accept that and still want to leave a better world no matter now pointless. And I think I have rational reasons for thinking this.
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Nihilism is reality.
          I Accept that and still want to leave a better world no matter now
          pointless.
          And I think I have rational reasons for thinking this.
          Bob...


          -----Original Message-----
          From: existlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
          Of Trinidad Cruz
          Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 12:26 AM
          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: [existlist] Re: Nihilism: where it all begins

          Human beings must be wholly considered and this requires an account of
          death that recognizes personal mortality, not in the sense that all
          men die, but rather that "I" die. If we catch on to Sartre's bending
          of Heidegger's demand toward activation there is some resolution for
          this issue short of nihilism. It is my view that the idea of
          activation requires a bit more development. In a purely scientific
          sense I may reasonably hypothesize that "I" the individual cannot be
          without the species, and produce any number of historical scientific
          arguments to that effect, but putting us all in the same boat does
          nothing to personally rid me of death, so short of fantasy I can only
          be immersed in death. Consider that the activation of any species-wide
          new action on the individual cannot be activated by the species
          precisely because the individual has arisen from the species. Any
          action by the species on a living individual with the potential to
          change the individual can only be activated by the individual himself.
          Consider that the individual cannot escape what the species has
          activated towards him in initially producing him as an individual
          member of the species, in order to get the sense of an essentially
          determined condition; and one can argue that the force required for
          the individual to improve his situation beyond what is common to the
          species can only be generated as a species-wide resolution toward
          change. For an individual to improve his biologically determined
          plight he must somehow activate the species toward the "I" that he
          longs to keep. For most on the surface this is a rather unattractive
          nearly Machiavellian idea until one considers what methodolgy or
          implementation would be required to activate the species toward
          oneself. Consider that the species' activation toward
          self-perpetuation produced the individual in the first place.
          Reconsider that the ordinary individual arisen of the species can do
          absolutely nothing to alter that imperative short of destroying the
          species. Consider that existence for a human being is an all or
          nothing proposition if you will, but do not discount what is left of
          the all just because you have yet to philosophically decipher how to
          activate the species toward the individual. It seems to me that if an
          individual were to successfully assume the responsibility for the
          perpetuation and preservation of the species the species would be free
          to produce a new imperative. I wonder what that would be? Perhaps one
          could speculate: the perpetuation of the individual? Consider that
          every act an individual makes toward liberating and providing more
          choices to another individual is a brief assumption of the imperative
          of the species. Perhaps that activation of species toward individual
          is not so impossible. Death in the whole individual is something that
          must be taken as fact, just an end of a string of possibilities, but
          what one does with the possibilities is of substantial importance to
          the whole species and so to every living individual and every
          individual to come. As much as a human being to be whole must accept
          the personal immersion in death, so must he accept the personal
          immersion in species. Becoming is an active and limited state.
          Nietzche's argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man
          construction. The argument for meaning that stands is the one that
          removes the NECESSITY of meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one
          Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men walking" and it is this
          "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as individuals, and
          as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began as a
          species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.

          Trinidad Cruz






          Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

          Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • gevans613@aol.com
          _existlist@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com) Trinidad Cruz wrote: [below] Hi Trinidad, An excellent piece of writing. Is there any more of
          Message 4 of 6 , Oct 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            _existlist@yahoogroups.com_ (mailto:existlist@yahoogroups.com)


            Trinidad Cruz wrote: [below]

            Hi Trinidad,
            An excellent piece of writing. Is there any more of your stuff I can see
            somewhere - perhaps published on the Internet?
            I would like to publish your piece in my Athenaeum Library of Philosophy
            credited to you together with a small head and shoulders picture if that is
            possible?
            You can see the treatment I give to the material I post by visiting:

            _http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm_
            (http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/study.htm)

            If you have any other philosophical stuff of a similar quality I would love
            to put that up in the library too. The website libraries are strictly
            non-commercial and regularly attract between 60,000 to 80,000 visitors per DAY - so
            you would be ensured of a large readership. :-)

            Cordially,

            Jud Evans.

            BTW Any other members who have stuff that they have written that they feel
            would be of interest to a philosophical audience are most welcome to sent it to
            me privately as an attachment. The philosophical stance taken is
            immaterial, and can include concepts from the whole gamut of ideas, from Platonism to
            Nietzsche - from Anselm to the Churchills or personal, individual philosophies.


            Trinidad Cruz wrote:
            Human beings must be wholly considered and this requires an account of death
            that recognizes personal mortality, not in the sense that all men die, but
            rather that "I" die. If we catch on to Sartre's bending of Heidegger's demand
            toward activation there is some resolution for this issue short of nihilism.

            It is my view that the idea of activation requires a bit more development.
            In a purely scientific sense I may reasonably hypothesize that "I" the
            individual cannot be without the species, and produce any number of historical
            scientific arguments to that effect, but putting us all in the same boat does
            nothing to personally rid me of death, so short of fantasy I can only be immersed
            in death. Consider that the activation of any species-wide new action on the
            individual cannot be activated by the species precisely because the
            individual has arisen from the species. Any action by the species on a living
            individual with the potential to change the individual can only be activated by the
            individual himself.

            Consider that the individual cannot escape what the species has activated
            towards him in initially producing him as an individual member of the species,
            in order to get the sense of an essentially determined condition; and one can
            argue that the force required for the individual to improve his situation
            beyond what is common to the species can only be generated as a species-wide
            resolution toward change. For an individual to improve his biologically
            determined plight he must somehow activate the species toward the "I" that he longs
            to keep.

            For most on the surface this is a rather unattractive nearly Machiavellian
            idea until one considers what methodolgy or implementation would be required to
            activate the species toward oneself. Consider that the species' activation
            toward self-perpetuation produced the individual in the first place.
            Reconsider that the ordinary individual arisen of the species can do absolutely
            nothing to alter that imperative short of destroying the species. Consider that
            existence for a human being is an all or nothing proposition if you will, but do
            not discount what is left of the all just because you have yet to
            philosophically decipher how to activate the species toward the individual. It seems to
            me that if an individual were to successfully assume the responsibility for
            the perpetuation and preservation of the species the species would be free to
            produce a new imperative. I wonder what that would be? Perhaps one could
            speculate: the perpetuation of the individual? Consider that every act an
            individual makes toward liberating and providing more choices to another
            individual is a brief assumption of the imperative of the species. Perhaps that
            activation of species toward individual is not so impossible.

            Death in the whole individual is something that must be taken as fact, just
            an end of a string of possibilities, but what one does with the possibilities
            is of substantial importance to the whole species and so to every living
            individual and every individual to come. As much as a human being to be whole
            must accept the personal immersion in death, so must he accept the personal
            immersion in species. Becoming is an active and limited state. Nietzche's
            argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man construction. The argument
            for meaning that stands is the one that removes the NECESSITY of
            meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men
            walking" and it is this "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as
            individuals, and as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began
            as a species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.


            PERSONAL WEBSITE
            http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/index.htm


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Aija Veldre Beldavs
            ... yes, but most who confront their dead (wo)man state aren t heroes, they need a touch on the shoulder, or at least seeing others picking up their stones.
            Message 5 of 6 , Oct 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              > Nietzche's argument is dated and now become inevitably a straw man
              > construction. The argument for meaning that stands is the one that
              > removes the NECESSITY of meaninglessness from the dialectic, the one
              > Sartre and Darwin began. We are all "dead men walking" and it is this
              > "walking", the active state, that is our meaning as individuals, and
              > as a species. We can only change as individuals what we began as a
              > species by accepting responsibility for it. Pick up the stone.
              > Trinidad Cruz

              yes, but most who confront their dead (wo)man state aren't heroes, they
              need a touch on the shoulder, or at least seeing others picking up their
              stones.

              aija
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.