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

Nietzsche (On Metaphysical Judgments)

Expand Messages
  • jkneilson
    In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements about the value of life reveal more about the person making the statement than anything about
    Message 1 of 18 , Oct 28, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements about
      the value of life reveal more about the person making the statement
      than anything about the world. He writes, "Judgments, judgments of
      value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be
      true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of
      consideration only as symptoms—in themselves such judgments are
      stupidities." Question: If judgments like "life is good" or "life is
      bad" have no truth value, how do we regard the foundational belief of
      existentialism that "life is meaningless?" Is this judgment also a
      symptom? If it doesn't reveal anything objective about the world, why
      should we believe it? K
    • louise
      ... be ... of ... why ... i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about terminology. take the word, symptom , for instance, which my own
      Message 2 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
        >
        > In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements about
        > the value of life reveal more about the person making the statement
        > than anything about the world. He writes, "Judgments, judgments of
        > value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never
        be
        > true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of
        > consideration only as symptoms—in themselves such judgments are
        > stupidities." Question: If judgments like "life is good" or "life is
        > bad" have no truth value, how do we regard the foundational belief
        of
        > existentialism that "life is meaningless?" Is this judgment also a
        > symptom? If it doesn't reveal anything objective about the world,
        why
        > should we believe it? K
        >

        i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
        terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
        mind would associate with the logic of causality and the metaphoric
        resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.
        philosophers, like human beings engaged in any art or science, draw on
        those patterns of language accessible at the time, in quest of
        precision, beauty, utility, and so on.
        the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or speaking
        about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the dichotomy
        between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of living'.
        read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
        defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he describe
        accurately his passion about life's meaning?? well, to me he did.

        Louise
      • Aija Veldre Beldavs
        ... i have been doing virtual ethnography for about 7 yrs on various Latvian language listservs and have met many of the people face to face when i visited for
        Message 3 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          > In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements about
          > the value of life reveal more about the person making the statement
          > than anything about the world. He writes, "Judgments, judgments of
          > value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never be
          > true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of
          > consideration only as symptoms—in themselves such judgments are
          > stupidities." Question: If judgments like "life is good" or "life is
          > bad" have no truth value, how do we regard the foundational belief of
          > existentialism that "life is meaningless?" Is this judgment also a
          > symptom? If it doesn't reveal anything objective about the world, why
          > should we believe it? K

          i have been doing virtual ethnography for about 7 yrs on various Latvian
          language listservs and have met many of the people face to face when i
          visited for a summer several years ago.

          an attitude i run into is that attitude doesn't count: "not words, but
          deeds/ work/ action (ne vaardi, bet darbi)." it's not so much
          anti-intellectual, as both post-Soviet after effect and the realities of
          Western market culture shock therapy. whenever i go into a longer opinion
          piece, i get this "whatevah, you come over and show us how to do it,
          then."

          say the area of gender. it's not legal to discriminate in Latvia in terms
          of gender or any of the standard categories (which doesn't eliminate
          conflicts of rights) or practice. also the primary obstacles to
          implementing legislature are, i think, first financial (in the poorest EU
          country), with attitude second, at least on the gender issue.

          attitudes to women are discriminatory on basis of both the usual
          post-Soviet idealization of a once happy domestication (that in reality
          didn't exist like that in pre-Soviet times which had 84% females employed
          outside the home in 1935, high % of educated females, de jure political
          rights) and current market commodification (sex trade or otherwise selling
          of bodies). this in the country with the lowest birthrate.

          however, women are allowed to join and try out for about anything - army,
          navy, defense academy positions, etc. the barrier is not legal, or even
          attitude so much as if women compete, they're viewed as competitors and
          don't get help: little or no "special considerations" for childcare,
          fertility, etc. even in the northern world where individuality has been
          quite strong, maybe this is rather another nasty Soviet after-effect.
          men don't seem to help each other out that much either - individuality
          torn away from traditional support systems carried to the xtreme, and if
          one doesn't make it, there's always the bottle for consolation.

          btw didn't see American Psycho, but there were a number of wry grins in "I
          Heart Huckabees."

          aija

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • joseph korba
          I like it when people get hung up on Nietzche the guy went nuts afterall.TV after drinking 20 Mountain Dews is one great philo text. Sienfeld the perfect show
          Message 4 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            I like it when people get hung up on Nietzche the guy went nuts afterall.TV after drinking 20 Mountain Dews is one great philo text. Sienfeld the perfect show about nothing. Kung Fu one koan after another but most importantly My name is Earl the lesson of Karma. After Earl I begin to quote Descarte in Latin. Cogito ergo sum.

            korba

            louise <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
            >
            > In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements about
            > the value of life reveal more about the person making the statement
            > than anything about the world. He writes, "Judgments, judgments of
            > value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end, never
            be
            > true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of
            > consideration only as symptoms—in themselves such judgments are
            > stupidities." Question: If judgments like "life is good" or "life is
            > bad" have no truth value, how do we regard the foundational belief
            of
            > existentialism that "life is meaningless?" Is this judgment also a
            > symptom? If it doesn't reveal anything objective about the world,
            why
            > should we believe it? K
            >

            i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
            terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
            mind would associate with the logic of causality and the metaphoric
            resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.
            philosophers, like human beings engaged in any art or science, draw on
            those patterns of language accessible at the time, in quest of
            precision, beauty, utility, and so on.
            the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or speaking
            about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the dichotomy
            between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of living'.
            read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
            defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he describe
            accurately his passion about life's meaning?? well, to me he did.

            Louise





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

            Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist



            SPONSORED LINKS
            Philosophy book Merleau-ponty

            ---------------------------------
            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


            Visit your group "existlist" on the web.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------




            ---------------------------------
            Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • louise
            korba, if you like Seinfeld you may be in good company, though not mine. i don t believe Nietzsche went nuts. he appears to have had syphilis, which produces
            Message 5 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              korba,

              if you like Seinfeld you may be in good company, though not mine. i
              don't believe Nietzsche went nuts. he appears to have had syphilis,
              which produces softening of the brain. weaker constitutions usually
              fade in a short period. he endured in this phase for over ten
              years. in what way do you name yourself Earl? or have i
              misunderstood? sometimes i think the path to justice is the
              abolition of Buddhism. but i know in my own intellect, inviolate,
              that is because some frauds have brought it low. happens to all
              religions, all noble causes. the bringing low is illusion at level
              of fancy. one must not be discouraged. don't let the bastards get
              you down. what does that word mean, by the way?? is it proscribed
              here? hope nothing in this message will be offputting, to your
              contributing further.

              louise

              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, joseph korba <korba1954@y...>
              wrote:
              >
              > I like it when people get hung up on Nietzche the guy went nuts
              afterall.TV after drinking 20 Mountain Dews is one great philo text.
              Sienfeld the perfect show about nothing. Kung Fu one koan after
              another but most importantly My name is Earl the lesson of Karma.
              After Earl I begin to quote Descarte in Latin. Cogito ergo sum.
              >
              > korba
              >
              > louise <hecubatoher@y...> wrote:
              > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...>
              wrote:
              > >
              > > In the Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche argues that statements
              about
              > > the value of life reveal more about the person making the
              statement
              > > than anything about the world. He writes, "Judgments, judgments
              of
              > > value, concerning life, for it or against it, can, in the end,
              never
              > be
              > > true: they have value only as symptoms, they are worthy of
              > > consideration only as symptoms—in themselves such judgments are
              > > stupidities." Question: If judgments like "life is good"
              or "life is
              > > bad" have no truth value, how do we regard the foundational
              belief
              > of
              > > existentialism that "life is meaningless?" Is this judgment also
              a
              > > symptom? If it doesn't reveal anything objective about the
              world,
              > why
              > > should we believe it? K
              > >
              >
              > i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
              > terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
              > mind would associate with the logic of causality and the
              metaphoric
              > resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.
              > philosophers, like human beings engaged in any art or science,
              draw on
              > those patterns of language accessible at the time, in quest of
              > precision, beauty, utility, and so on.
              > the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or
              speaking
              > about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the
              dichotomy
              > between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of
              living'.
              > read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
              > defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he
              describe
              > accurately his passion about life's meaning?? well, to me he did.
              >
              > Louise
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist
              >
              >
              >
              > SPONSORED LINKS
              > Philosophy book Merleau-ponty
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
              >
              >
              > Visit your group "existlist" on the web.
              >
              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
              Service.
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • jkneilson
              i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about ... metaphoric ... My question is not about terminology, not even implicitly. ... speaking
              Message 6 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
                > terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
                > mind would associate with the logic of causality and the
                metaphoric
                > resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.

                My question is not about terminology, not even implicitly.

                > the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or
                speaking
                > about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the
                dichotomy
                > between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of living'.

                Not sure how this disctinction helps us. Thinking about living or
                speaking about living are definite modes of living, period - we do
                them all the time. Now if you mean that talking about backpacking is
                the not same as acutally backpacking, that's true, obviously
                enough.


                > read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
                > defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he
                describe
                > accurately his passion about life's meaning??

                I don't want to establish that conclusion. His life was singluarly
                rich in meaning.

                Cheers,
                K
              • jkneilson
                i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about ... metaphoric ... My question is not about terminology, not even implicitly. ... speaking
                Message 7 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
                  > terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
                  > mind would associate with the logic of causality and the
                  metaphoric
                  > resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.

                  My question is not about terminology, not even implicitly.

                  > the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or
                  speaking
                  > about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the
                  dichotomy
                  > between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of living'.

                  Not sure how this disctinction helps us. Thinking about living or
                  speaking about living are definite modes of living, period - we do
                  them all the time. Now if you mean that talking about backpacking is
                  the not same as acutally backpacking, that's true, obviously
                  enough.


                  > read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
                  > defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he
                  describe
                  > accurately his passion about life's meaning??

                  I don't want to establish that conclusion. His life was singluarly
                  rich in meaning.

                  Cheers,
                  K
                • louise
                  [Louise] i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about terminology. take the word, symptom , for instance, which my own mind would
                  Message 8 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    [Louise]
                    i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
                    terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
                    mind would associate with the logic of causality and the metaphoric
                    resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.

                    [JKN]
                    My question is not about terminology, not even implicitly.

                    Louise
                    I didn't say it was. All I can offer is my own perspective, which
                    is philosophical. Your perspective seems to me concerned with the
                    ontical world of things-at-hand, mine with the ontological, of what
                    is implied about being once one thinks philosophically about that
                    ontical world. So I said your questions implicitly raise* the
                    founding question about terminology. Like I said earlier, I concur
                    with Heidegger about such matters. This question is not raised for
                    you because the ontological is something you do not [yet] wish to
                    think about, at least in this particular context.

                    [Louise]
                    the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or
                    speaking about [how to live] living existence. so we return to the
                    dichotomy between 'the art of living', and 'the theory of the art of
                    living'.

                    [JKN]
                    Not sure how this disctinction helps us. Thinking about living or
                    speaking about living are definite modes of living, period - we do
                    them all the time. Now if you mean that talking about backpacking is
                    the not same as acutally backpacking, that's true, obviously
                    enough.

                    Louise
                    You and I must separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which
                    helps me ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the
                    torture of my soul. Goes with the territory. I am an existential
                    philosopher.

                    [Louise]
                    read Nietzsche's work, together with an account of his life, and i
                    defy you to conclude that he deemed life meaningless. did he
                    describe accurately his passion about life's meaning??

                    [JKN]
                    I don't want to establish that conclusion. His life was singluarly
                    rich in meaning.

                    Cheers,
                    K

                    not Kafka, i presume ... ???
                  • jkneilson
                    ... metaphoric ... I agree with you that symptom implies causality, as in a sore throat could be the effect of a cold. Of course, I risk speaking ontically
                    Message 9 of 18 , Oct 29, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > [Louise]
                      > i think yr questions implicitly raise the founding question, about
                      > terminology. take the word, 'symptom', for instance, which my own
                      > mind would associate with the logic of causality and the
                      metaphoric
                      > resonance of clinical medicine, in whatever branch.
                      >

                      I agree with you that "symptom" implies causality, as in a sore
                      throat could be the effect of a cold. Of course, I risk speaking
                      ontically here, but I find it easier that way.

                      > Louise
                      > I didn't say it was. All I can offer is my own perspective, which
                      > is philosophical. Your perspective seems to me concerned with the
                      > ontical world of things-at-hand, mine with the ontological, of
                      what
                      > is implied about being once one thinks philosophically about that
                      > ontical world. So I said your questions implicitly raise* the
                      > founding question about terminology. Like I said earlier, I
                      concur
                      > with Heidegger about such matters. This question is not raised
                      for
                      > you because the ontological is something you do not [yet] wish to
                      > think about, at least in this particular context.

                      It's been a while since I've read Heidegger, an unpleasant
                      experience as I recall. I presume "ontical" refers to objects in the
                      world, "ontological" refers to something else, apparently something
                      I can reach if (as you suggest) I begin thinking philosohically
                      about the ontical world. I'm happy to try it.

                      > [Louise]
                      > the fact is, living existence is not the same as thinking or
                      > speaking about [how to live] living existence.

                      This morning, I tiled a bathroom floor, painted a wall, mowed a
                      lawn, and spoke to my mother-in-law about Arundhati Roy and the
                      political implications of her most recent speech, implications that
                      affect my life. I presume that these are all examples of "living
                      existence." If not, I hope you'll explain your use of this phrase.

                      > Louise
                      > You and I must separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which
                      > helps me ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the
                      > torture of my soul. Goes with the territory. I am an existential
                      > philosopher.
                      >

                      Interesting. How has it contributed to your "torture"? Please
                      explain.

                      Cheers,
                      K
                    • louise
                      ... Dear K, I have in recent hours incurred a most needful reality check. In my fantastical ambience here at existlist, you seem now thoroughly identified
                      Message 10 of 18 , Oct 30, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > Interesting. How has it contributed to your "torture"? Please
                        > explain.
                        >
                        > Cheers,
                        > K
                        >

                        Dear K,

                        I have in recent hours incurred a most needful reality check. In my
                        fantastical ambience here at existlist, you seem now thoroughly
                        identified with the Grand Inquisitor. Please do me the courtesy of
                        considering my character technically incapable of pleading. It will
                        be quite impossible to discourse about torture to an honest soul who
                        admits that reading Heidegger is a painful experience.

                        L
                      • jkneilson
                        L, fair enough. Courtesy granted, inquisition over. Having read several of your posts, I can fairly guess your answer, no matter which persona you assume.
                        Message 11 of 18 , Oct 30, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          L, fair enough. Courtesy granted, inquisition over. Having read
                          several of your posts, I can fairly guess your answer, no matter which
                          persona you assume.

                          Martin


                          > Dear K,
                          >
                          > I have in recent hours incurred a most needful reality check. In my
                          > fantastical ambience here at existlist, you seem now thoroughly
                          > identified with the Grand Inquisitor. Please do me the courtesy of
                          > considering my character technically incapable of pleading. It will
                          > be quite impossible to discourse about torture to an honest soul who
                          > admits that reading Heidegger is a painful experience.
                          >
                          > L
                        • jkneilson
                          L, fair enough. Courtesy granted, inquisition over. Having read several of your posts, I can fairly guess your answer, no matter which persona you assume.
                          Message 12 of 18 , Oct 30, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            L, fair enough. Courtesy granted, inquisition over. Having read
                            several of your posts, I can fairly guess your answer, no matter which
                            persona you assume.

                            Martin


                            > Dear K,
                            >
                            > I have in recent hours incurred a most needful reality check. In my
                            > fantastical ambience here at existlist, you seem now thoroughly
                            > identified with the Grand Inquisitor. Please do me the courtesy of
                            > considering my character technically incapable of pleading. It will
                            > be quite impossible to discourse about torture to an honest soul who
                            > admits that reading Heidegger is a painful experience.
                            >
                            > L
                          • louise
                            Now I m really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over, perhaps you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly, though, I doubt that you
                            Message 13 of 18 , Oct 31, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Now I'm really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over, perhaps
                              you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly,
                              though, I doubt that you and I would be able to come to an agreed
                              definition of the word, 'soul'. Louise


                              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                              >
                              > L, fair enough. Courtesy granted, inquisition over. Having read
                              > several of your posts, I can fairly guess your answer, no matter
                              which
                              > persona you assume.
                              >
                              > Martin
                              >
                              >
                              > > Dear K,
                              > >
                              > > I have in recent hours incurred a most needful reality check.
                              In my
                              > > fantastical ambience here at existlist, you seem now thoroughly
                              > > identified with the Grand Inquisitor. Please do me the courtesy
                              of
                              > > considering my character technically incapable of pleading. It
                              will
                              > > be quite impossible to discourse about torture to an honest soul
                              who
                              > > admits that reading Heidegger is a painful experience.
                              > >
                              > > L
                              >
                            • jkneilson
                              ... perhaps ... What is this all about? A quick history: 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche s dictum that grand metaphysical judgments express attitudes,
                              Message 14 of 18 , Oct 31, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Now I'm really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over,
                                perhaps
                                > you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly,
                                > though, I doubt that you and I would be able to come to an agreed
                                > definition of the word, 'soul'. Louise

                                What is this all about? A quick history:

                                1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
                                metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.

                                2. You replied that I implicitly raised the question about
                                terminology, adding that the term "symptom" implies causality.

                                3. You added that I failed to notice (2) because I was concerned
                                about the "ontical," not the "ontological," and that there's a
                                dichotomy between "the art of living" and the "theory of living."

                                4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
                                experience.

                                5. This statement rankled you.

                                6. Referring to the dichotomy in (3), you said, "You and I must
                                separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which helps me
                                ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the torture of my
                                soul."

                                7. Torture, I'm familiar with this, the pain and suffering that's
                                unique to being human. But what's not familiar to me is the idea
                                that the art-of-living / theory-of-living distinction contributes to
                                the torture of one's soul.

                                8. So I asked how it contributes to your torture.

                                9. But you identified me with the Grand Inquisitor and said it was
                                quite impossible to speak about torture to someone who didn't enjoy
                                reading Heidegger.

                                Pause. Deep breath. And now we're up to speed.

                                While it's true that I greatly prefer Kierkegaard and Nietzsche -
                                even Quine! - over Heidegger, my original question remains: Why /
                                how does the distinction discussed in (3) and (6) contribute to the
                                torture of your soul? I'll accept any definition of soul for the
                                sake of better understanding your point.

                                Fyodor

                                P.S. The Grand Inquisitor has a plain way of speaking and was after
                                all quite correct about the Christian church. Literary references
                                don't offend me, especially complimentary ones.
                              • louise
                                Sighs. Over twenty-one months I have been at this list. Keep having to explain the most basic facts about my own normal human reactions, before we can even
                                Message 15 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sighs. Over twenty-one months I have been at this list. Keep
                                  having to explain the most basic facts about my own normal human
                                  reactions, before we can even think about philosophical discussion.
                                  So I shall tackle the awkward emotional part, in suitably restrained
                                  fashion, first of all, before answering the philosophical content of
                                  your post in my next message.

                                  1. I am puzzled as to why you signed off 'Martin', whether such is
                                  really your name, or whether you were in some way pretending to be
                                  Heidegger?? No, that sounds strange, yet I wish people would be
                                  straightforward, then I could come out from among my pseudonyms and
                                  spare myself the indignity of my unwanted existlist role, qua
                                  receiver of serial aspersion-casting. You see, my grammar extends,
                                  runs in its distress to inversions and genitives, flops into
                                  objective mode. Why do I mention my distress?? Because I am an
                                  existentialist. Feeling, in relation to ideas, is part of life,
                                  part of the art of living. It is one of my theses here [existlist]
                                  that personal or social suppression/repression of feeling produces
                                  political conflict, and undermines individual health. Frankly, I am
                                  bewildered, and it might be over nothing at all. Maybe your name is
                                  Martin, and you just sign off that way when you feel like it, and
                                  not at other times, in which case, fine. If, however, it is
                                  connected in any way with Martin Heidegger, my own sensibility is
                                  wounded thereby, because you have not evinced any respect for him.
                                  This is extremely painful to speak about, because I am still
                                  exhausted by last year's moderation battles, in which I received
                                  warnings on just this account, namely that I took personally any
                                  perceived insults directed toward, in that instance, Kierkegaard and
                                  Nietzsche. This is intrinsic to what I am. Honour is a concept
                                  from which I cannot separate my existence. Without it I die,
                                  spiritually.

                                  2. In assertion 5 below you state that when you told me reading
                                  Heidegger was an unpleasant experience, this rankled with me. Not
                                  at all. That's an incorrect inference. I am never offended or
                                  otherwise discomforted by honest emotional narrative, if it is
                                  within a context of philosophical discussion, with agreed rules,
                                  observed by both parties in all good will. It is my contention that
                                  the mutual respecting of rules and a mature sense for what good will
                                  really entails can take quite some time to establish, especially
                                  when participants to a discussion are strangers to each other,
                                  living in different countries, etc.

                                  Negotiation, negotiation, negotiation.

                                  Yep, it's an obstacle course.

                                  These forays into the border country, where prose meets poetry, are
                                  an aspect of my existentialism. I'm a Nooist. Hearing the sounds
                                  of the shackles fall, I envisage, oh, I know not what, it is too
                                  different, too good. In the meantime, we have life on earth as it
                                  is. Committed I am, to the duty of argument, and it shall follow.

                                  Louise


                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > Now I'm really curious, Martin. If the inquisition is over,
                                  > perhaps
                                  > > you can begin to explain to me what this is all about. Frankly,
                                  > > though, I doubt that you and I would be able to come to an
                                  agreed
                                  > > definition of the word, 'soul'. Louise
                                  >
                                  > What is this all about? A quick history:
                                  >
                                  > 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
                                  > metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.
                                  >
                                  > 2. You replied that I implicitly raised the question about
                                  > terminology, adding that the term "symptom" implies causality.
                                  >
                                  > 3. You added that I failed to notice (2) because I was concerned
                                  > about the "ontical," not the "ontological," and that there's a
                                  > dichotomy between "the art of living" and the "theory of living."
                                  >
                                  > 4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
                                  > experience.
                                  >
                                  > 5. This statement rankled you.
                                  >
                                  > 6. Referring to the dichotomy in (3), you said, "You and I must
                                  > separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which helps me
                                  > ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the torture of
                                  my
                                  > soul."
                                  >
                                  > 7. Torture, I'm familiar with this, the pain and suffering that's
                                  > unique to being human. But what's not familiar to me is the idea
                                  > that the art-of-living / theory-of-living distinction contributes
                                  to
                                  > the torture of one's soul.
                                  >
                                  > 8. So I asked how it contributes to your torture.
                                  >
                                  > 9. But you identified me with the Grand Inquisitor and said it was
                                  > quite impossible to speak about torture to someone who didn't
                                  enjoy
                                  > reading Heidegger.
                                  >
                                  > Pause. Deep breath. And now we're up to speed.
                                  >
                                  > While it's true that I greatly prefer Kierkegaard and Nietzsche -
                                  > even Quine! - over Heidegger, my original question remains: Why /
                                  > how does the distinction discussed in (3) and (6) contribute to
                                  the
                                  > torture of your soul? I'll accept any definition of soul for the
                                  > sake of better understanding your point.
                                  >
                                  > Fyodor
                                  >
                                  > P.S. The Grand Inquisitor has a plain way of speaking and was
                                  after
                                  > all quite correct about the Christian church. Literary references
                                  > don't offend me, especially complimentary ones.
                                  >
                                • louise
                                  [JKN] 1. I posted a question about Nietzsche s dictum that grand metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts. Louise This refers to your post 36583.
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    [JKN]
                                    1. I posted a question about Nietzsche's dictum that grand
                                    metaphysical judgments express attitudes, not facts.

                                    Louise
                                    This refers to your post 36583. The word, 'grand', did not appear,
                                    however.

                                    [JKN]
                                    2. You replied that I implicitly raised the question about
                                    terminology, adding that the term "symptom" implies causality.

                                    3. You added that I failed to notice (2) because I was concerned
                                    about the "ontical," not the "ontological," and that there's a
                                    dichotomy between "the art of living" and the "theory of living."

                                    Louise
                                    All human beings and all non-human sentient beings are concerned
                                    with the ontical. It is what we cannot help, for as long as we
                                    physically survive. Whether you discourse about Arundhati Roy or
                                    about the marrows grown on your allotment, whether you paint a wall
                                    or a portrait, you involve yourself with the world-at-hand. What is
                                    most rare is the desire to understand exactly what are the
                                    implications of what you do, EVEN IF THAT INVOLVES SURRENDERING
                                    EVERYTHING YOU EVER LOVED AND LIVED FOR, once a new truth comes into
                                    view. The ontological categories can be studied at a distance, so
                                    to speak, contemplatively, and it may be that Heidegger did this.
                                    Nietzsche, however, willingly surrendered comfort and security in
                                    order to purify and make hard his will. He made of the relative
                                    categories he found underlying Christian values, into an absolute;
                                    he discovered and enacted the illusory shifting nature of truth ...
                                    and loved her, without reserve, for truth is a woman. Kierkegaard
                                    did the same, quite differently, by surrendering his love for Regine
                                    in order to win that love again, through the absolute categories of
                                    Christian love, which surely tortured his soul, all his life. He
                                    did this because he wanted her to be happy, and he himself to be
                                    eternally happy.

                                    [JKN]
                                    4. I said that I've read Heidegger and that it was an unpleasant
                                    experience.
                                    5. This statement rankled you.

                                    Louise
                                    I've answered this, of course, earlier today.

                                    [JKN]
                                    6. Referring to the dichotomy in (3), you said, "You and I must
                                    separate, methinks. It is not a distinction which helps me
                                    ontically. On the contrary, it has contributed to the torture of my
                                    soul."

                                    7. Torture, I'm familiar with this, the pain and suffering that's
                                    unique to being human. But what's not familiar to me is the idea
                                    that the art-of-living / theory-of-living distinction contributes to
                                    the torture of one's soul.

                                    Louise
                                    No, I think torture is experienced by non-human sentient lives as
                                    well. It may even be worse for them, given the absence of our type
                                    of articulated language.
                                    The distinction I make is between the art-of-living as something you
                                    do, hour by hour, whether in spontaneous mode or with forethought,
                                    which carries with it long refinement of thought and instinct (if
                                    one is serious existentialist), and, on the other hand, the theory-
                                    of-the-art-of-living, which examines the accuracy of the assumptions
                                    carried within that process. Physical survival can sometimes be a
                                    matter of chance, at least from our human vantage-point, but for the
                                    existentialist it can also be a kind of proof, for those ultimate
                                    spiritual ventures. To risk all, to lose all, then to find all
                                    restored, with interest, as it were, Jesus taught this, and
                                    Nietzsche practised it, in a sense.

                                    I'm too tired to continue now. The definition of 'soul'. Now
                                    there's a challenge ...
                                  • jkneilson
                                    ... you ... assumptions ... Hi L, I don t know what a Nooist is, but I m pleased to meet you. I go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K,
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Nov 1, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      > Louise:
                                      > The distinction I make is between the art-of-living as something
                                      you
                                      > do, hour by hour, whether in spontaneous mode or with forethought,
                                      > which carries with it long refinement of thought and instinct (if
                                      > one is serious existentialist), and, on the other hand, the theory-
                                      > of-the-art-of-living, which examines the accuracy of the
                                      assumptions
                                      > carried within that process. >

                                      Hi L, I don't know what a Nooist is, but I'm pleased to meet you. I
                                      go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K, short
                                      for my real name. I too am committed to argument, in Socratic
                                      fashion. I'm new to the group. Instead of lurking, I posted a
                                      question about Nietzsche, aiming to discover the lay of the land.
                                      Your distinction between the art-of-living and the theory-of-the-art-
                                      of-living is clearer to me now. Still, I don't see how it
                                      contributes to soul torture. Perhaps you mean that the process of
                                      examining the assumptions of our life is exacting, onerous, painful -
                                      or that such reflection leads to the discovery of something
                                      ("ontological categories?") that is painful. But I'm just guessing
                                      here. Cheers, K
                                    • louise
                                      ... forethought, ... (if ... theory- ... I ... art- ... painful - ... Within my existential world, you most certainly do not exist, whatever name or initial
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Nov 2, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jkneilson" <jkneilson@y...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > Louise:
                                        > > The distinction I make is between the art-of-living as something
                                        > you
                                        > > do, hour by hour, whether in spontaneous mode or with
                                        forethought,
                                        > > which carries with it long refinement of thought and instinct
                                        (if
                                        > > one is serious existentialist), and, on the other hand, the
                                        theory-
                                        > > of-the-art-of-living, which examines the accuracy of the
                                        > assumptions
                                        > > carried within that process. >
                                        >
                                        > Hi L, I don't know what a Nooist is, but I'm pleased to meet you.
                                        I
                                        > go by neither Martin nor Fyodor. On group lists, I go by K, short
                                        > for my real name. I too am committed to argument, in Socratic
                                        > fashion. I'm new to the group. Instead of lurking, I posted a
                                        > question about Nietzsche, aiming to discover the lay of the land.
                                        > Your distinction between the art-of-living and the theory-of-the-
                                        art-
                                        > of-living is clearer to me now. Still, I don't see how it
                                        > contributes to soul torture. Perhaps you mean that the process of
                                        > examining the assumptions of our life is exacting, onerous,
                                        painful -
                                        > or that such reflection leads to the discovery of something
                                        > ("ontological categories?") that is painful. But I'm just guessing
                                        > here. Cheers, K
                                        >

                                        Within my existential world, you most certainly do not exist,
                                        whatever name or initial you employ. So we have not met. Just
                                        think me of a trusting fool, apt to fall into the same cycle of
                                        mistakes as the months go by. George was right. What a shitty
                                        world. I am not committed to Socratic argument, rather to Iliadic
                                        dialectic, in the light of philosophic love. You are quite entitled
                                        to your perspectives, to your methods, and I would guess you won't
                                        be anxious that I cannot participate in any discussions your
                                        interests may generate. However, there's no knowing if I might
                                        change my mind. Recognition, the precondition for clarity. By the
                                        way, I'm very pleased you don't know what a Nooist is. My own
                                        awareness thereof is somewhat lost to memory at present.

                                        regards,

                                        louise
                                        ... maintaining her neurons ...
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.