OGT: Thought: Western intellectual tradition: “Humanity is imperfect and must strive towards perfection.”
OGT: Thought 2: Eastern intellectual tradition: “Humanity is imperfect, and must strive towards acceptance of that imperfection.”
lelangir: wow I like eastern tradition moar.
ghostlightning: A syncretic view: Everything is perfect the way things are. Imperfection is a human construct too.
lelangir: political view: syncretism is a cop-out, we need to stick constructively towards a defined goal.
ghostlightning: If imperfection is “something’s wrong,” it gets in the way of dialog as it tends to affix blame rther than inspire responsibility.
OGT: Thought 4: I think too much. Back to Victory Gundam.
THIS
or
nihilism is knowledge/power; in most cases, it can only be realized/actualized within capitalist institutions, thus materialism is the means towards idealism, towards the construction of contingent truths, towards a philosophical happiness that grants material happiness.
You guys are stuck with the “X is Y” formula. A floating postulate is not the best way to set up a Philosophy IMO. You have to build a strong set of premises.
Meh, 140(?) characters can only get you so much.
pro-specialness vs pro-normalness
I SAY: humans are neither perfect nor imperfect inasmuch as perfection is a humanly conceived, humanly measured concept”. Western tradition collapses (what is there to strive for?), Eastern tradition collapses (what is there to accept?), dawn of a new day: drink starbucks coffee and watch anime.
But other than these constructs of the mind, we have nothing to rely on. Even if we did awknowledge the concept of ‘perfection’ as absurd, we’ll still subconciously strive for it.
How about, pursuing our own conception of perfection?
Being perfectionist was never about objective perfection afaik.
Perfection is always subjective.
A practical definition of perfection is useful, but not that useful:
Perfection is being whole and complete: nothing is missing. There is no need for anything, no want for anything, no injury or incapacity. There is absolute integrity.
The being that can fit this description is beyond even the deities of most religious traditions – who somehow still have necessary activities, or are governed by spiritual/metaphysical laws, seasons, or imperatives.
ghost,
that definition of perfection sounds like “DEATH” to me. i hear nietzsche whipping out his sledgehammer as i write this..
YOU GOT IT!!! WE HAVE A WINNER.
PERFECTION IS DEATH – an existence where there is absolutely nothing to be enjoyed, because whatever happens, it is much less than what already is.
“The average person admires perfection and seeks to obtain it. But what is the point of achieving perfection? . . . If something is perfect, then there is nothing left. There is no room for imagination.”
- Kurotsuchi Mayuri, Bleach. (An unlikely source for a quote relevant to this discussion – so I had to include it.)
An interesting paradox lurks somewhere within this discourse. Something along how entropy is a big part of dynamism, and how dynamism is not a quality of perfection which has no reason to move, or be anything else than it already is.
All this assumes there’s only ONE perfection tho.
One might well imagine that there are several ways in which one may be able to be perfect (fulfill all criteria for a certain measurement of excellence, or something).
if one is not the best of all possible things, can one/that thing still be perfect?
Just as the colour and shape of a ladder does not change whether you can reach an apple at the top, there might be different ways for perfection to be incarnate.
I mean, say, even if you’re omnipotent, you can have a prelidiction for using it in different ways. Yahveh divides oceans , the Aeon just floats there and lets part of it try to save Sophia from the work of the Demiurg, Azathoth listens to New Age music and Beatrice cackles.
In technical terms: instead of property P being perfection, there may be P1, P2, … Pi perfection properties.
Actually, many eastern traditions talk even more about striving towards perfection — that’s the entire point of the Bhagad-Gita.
But Buddhism, Taoism, and Shintoism are all apthetic belief systems. Especially Taoism, which borders on nihilism.
well, if you really think about, the gita is Hindu, which is Indo-European so it’s far nearer to a Western tradition than a (Far) Eastern tradition..the dividing line between West and East lies to the east of (northern) India imo.
You’re correct, geographically, but I have never really heard the Gita described as even a partially western text. You could be right, though.
However, that still leaves us with Buddhism (forever striving towards Enlightenment) and Confucianism (striving for the perfect society). Just because the methods are different from Western methods doesn’t mean there isn’t a goal in mind (and, since this is where I think the discussion started, a measuring stick to put yourself up against).
Also, side note — no one considers Buddhism as caught between east and west (so far as I know, anyway), but it’s from India as well.
Hmm, wasn’t Gautama’s birthplace really in Nepal? Not that it at all matters here.
I’d say, though, that Buddhism isn’t really that humanity strives towards a better state, just every single human (a bit of a difference, one is a collective effort, other is not) – a step here is, after all, accepting the Noble Truth that existing is pain. Which at least I would take as an imperfection.
Confucianism is wholly on the Western side of the scale, though, I’d agree. Dividing thoughts sharply like so is useful and interesting, but never perfectly accurate, after all.
You could be right. But isn’t the attempt to accept Noble Truth a kind of striving? Which, as you say, would be an individual effort. But it all works out the same way, as Christianity may claim we’re all fallen, but each person has to purify him- or herself. At least, to my my pragmatic mind it’s the same. :)
And if Confucianism is on the “western side of the scale,” it seems to me that side of the scale is no longer “western,” but something else. What bothers me is the sharp delineation of a difference between “east” and “west.” I’m not sure how useful it is to anything other than exoticism. As you say, it’s not very accurate, either.
I’m too western to stand if this is remotely accurate (I suspect it is).
Nearly totally unrelated topic: I don’t get nihilism. As in, I get how they are thinking, but the whole enterprise is essentially grounded in the very premises it denies moral realism.
As in; you cannot say there’s no meaning, because the word “meaning” has a meaning (and all other words do. Let’s ignore Quine).
“Well, of course I meant meaning as in purpose”, says the nihilist.
“But every action you take do have a purpose of some kind; or at the very least some do. So there’s purpose. Moving your hand to the handle of the fridge, grasping it and pulling is all with the underlying purpose of opening it.”
“Not that kind of purpose.”
“Kinds? If you mean “purpose to everything”, if I want there to be one, there is, since purposes only stem from actions taken/will to it (in this case, the action of living further, with whatever purpose one sees).”
Sort of like that. Essentially, I’m saying “I do not understand what the nihilist means with the utterance ‘there is no meaning’”. Of course, there are no objective morals (and even if there were, no reason to go along anyway), but that’d be moral relativism, not nihilism, in my opinion.
I might totally miss the whole point of course.
When I speak about nihilism and the absence of meaning, I mean the absence of ‘necessary’ meaning, of absolute meaning. Meaning to me, is contingent to many things – including and probably most importantly human agency and arbitrariness.
There is no meaning that is necessarily privileged over all others.
But by saying this, does this mean I’m less nihilistic? I’m a ‘qualified’ nihilist?
In my case, the absence of necessary meaning yields a blank canvas for life and existence. My pursuit of happiness is contingent to nothing necessary, and is a liberating idea.
Yeah, I’m with you, and agree with you, on that. I wouldn’t say you’re less nihilist, as you’re as nihilist as I can see logically possible, I guess. Although, Quine has denied that sentences have meanings (let’s still ignore him). I just have a kneejerk reaction to calling it nihilism, though, lol (nitpickery, of course!).
Absolute meaning I can’t really see as worth more than my own meanings.
I don’t quite get that one either, for different reasons, as I do not understand what it would be like if objective morals/meaning existed (or if they do, if they didn’t). At best, I guess, it’d mean that nominalism is false, and that there as thus are true and false statements regarding meanings/etc – but why would that turn the “objectively” true meanings into… well, different from anything else, seeing as we transgress virtually any meaning-boundary anyway? As in, we exercise our meaning-systems – be they ethical or be they semantical – as much as we at all can. To put my a bit flustered point down succintly: What would it mean to have objectively true/false meanings, in the absolute sense?
I can’t really think of any way in which it would mean anything. The position of moral realism is sort of… logically void, since unlike physical laws, you can just choose not to give a damn about moral/semantic ones even if they are absolute, which of course would mean they weren’t absolute.
I lack imagination, I guess.
Absolutes, should they exist would be easy to imagine.
Consider how powerless we often feel against circumstances and contingencies: hunger, authorities (i.e. parents, our upbringing, urges and needs) . I submit that absolutes would determine (in a Skinnerian or Pavlovian way) our lives even more than the contingencies that face us every day.
Most people live contingent ‘truths’ as necessary/absolute ones anyway. The shy ones who believe that they’re not good with people, the bitter ones who believe people are not worth trusting, Dr. Pangloss who insists that whatever happens in this life we are still in the best of all possible worlds, and the devout who face each personal tragedy as the execution of divine will – all these are somehow treated as absolutes by these individuals, and practically determine their behavior throughout their lives.
Even though these people don’t apply theoretical rigor to completely objectify and render these ‘truths’ absolute, they live in a way that these are – for all intents and purposes.
i completely agree with ghostlightning, but the points kaiserpingvin is bringing out are ridiculously awesome and worthy of study.
look:
nihilism means there are no absolute values, or meanings. don’t worry about the nihilists, of course they go out and they function and do things and deploy meanings. don’t worry about the religious person either (as kaiser said, people never live up to the “absolute” values they believe in. )
i think people get confused with nihilism because they tend to focus on nihilists. Fuck nihilists. Nihilism is true whether there are nihilists or not, and whatever they might do or say.
Kaiser, you ask “What would it mean to have objectively true/false meanings, in the absolute sense?”
Well, no one will be able to tell you because they don’t exist (at least, a nihilist should say that) but what people believe to be the absolute is an unchanging, unaffected whole, lacking nothing, supplemented by nothing, similar to ghostlightning’s definition of “perfection” which he gave above.
I just realized everyone cruelly ignored lelangirs point ;A; Understandable, it’s tightly condensed and requires (at least for me) chewing on it quite a bit to get it. I can’t critique it, since I am unsure if my interpretation is correct (and there’s one point I just stand :O? at)
Nihilism is knowledge/power = Hm, I do not really grasp this one. Knowledge as in, nihilism is the correct approach, and power as in without moral restrictions, you have more freedom/ability to take stronger actions, is what I am guessing.
Most often only realized with capitalist institutions = this makes sort of sense in my comprehension of the above. Although, of course, capitalism does assert that money has a value (if people thought money valueless, capitalism would fall apart).
Materialism is the means towards idealism = wat
Contradiction, or do you mean materialism and idealism in common parlance, as opposed to the philosophic usage of the terms? Even then I am not really seeing the connect here.
id est: :O?
I will assume it means something along the lines of “materialism (as in the doctrine of attaining more material goods as being a good thing) will bring about idealism (optimistic doctrine and outlook on the future of mankind)”.
towards the construction of contingent truths = Hmmyeah? This might rely too much on the :O? bit for me to process, I think. I guess it means, in the shine of nihilism, exactly the kind of nihilistic joy ghostlightning described – that the world is an empty canvas, to which we can scribble these contingent truths on.
towards a philosophical happiness that grants material happiness = Nihilism makes you happy, leads to capitalism, which ensures that everyone have what they materially need for joy?
UNVEIL, OH MASTER, IS MY READING FINE?
Summarum:
So, in capitalist society nihilism will arise more frequently. This will lead to idealism, since we can scribble what we want on the empty canvas of Everything. Since it has been brought about by knowledge and power, we will be able to realize our ideals, leading to idealism, in it’s own turn leading to material wealth (for… everyone? The nihilists?).
That anywhere right? lelangirese can be too di/tri/multi/omnisemous for poor ol’ me at times.
I think I’m seeing shades of Nietzsche here, in that anyone who realizes the social structures are created can then act in any way he or she wants — breaking the social contract and becoming the “over-man.” Maybe that’s the idea of nihilism’s “pointlessness,” that a nihilist is free to do whatever and thus is free to be powerful?
I think I get this, if I contextualize it with…
Most people are ‘trapped’ in constructs that they hold to be absolute truths. Nihilism holds none of these ‘truths’ privileged, and allows for power and freedom to create. Deconstructions: Capital/money is not necessarily morally repugnant. We can build a bigger needle within whose eye camels can saunter through – or just genetically engineer nanocamels.
Ideals can be constructed/pastiched/invented – and will not suffer from the hegemony of accepted traditions. Capital, which is coveted by the institutions that foment the accepted traditions is a great leveler.
But I don’t think I can establish a complete causal framework between nihilism and capitalism.
i think that causal connection between capitalism and nihilism is there. simply stated, money buys everything which means it destroys boundaries including boundaries of meanings. For example, last year my wife and I went to Germany and Greece. Let me say that again: last year, I, a simple islander and my thai wife visited GERMANY and GREECE. Our ancestors 100 years ago, not to mention 200 or 500, would have never been able to do so. And what happens? my wife says: oh, I want to go to Egypt next, and so on. The world becomes totally flat, totally accessible. There are no boundaries, and thus we start to realize that all of those amazing “constructs”, cultures are on the same plane. If i can have have anything i want with money, how i can put things and places on pedestals??? I visited Napoleon’s Tomb about 3 years ago. I!! What’s Napoleon now. Nothing. Then nihilism creeps in..
I’ve read Thomas L. Friedman’s books (reading the latest one presently), and I see this idea of yours represented throughout his writing. The world is flattening because of technology which puts production in the hands of many – allowing more people to become capitalists. Barriers to entry have been lowered – the playing field has been leveled, flattened.
This resulted in more wealth, more prosperity – allowing you, a ‘simple islander’ (which island? I hail from an archipelago) and his Thai wife to ‘consume’ classical culture as if it were disposable entertainment (something to do for the summer). These things no longer have tremendous meaning. The wealth has allowed you to de-mystify, de-value Napoleon.
Following this chain, I arrive at the nihilism you describe.
exactly. hah!
my place of origin is a secret that shall never be revealed, although if you know who dayanara is then you already know… i hear she did some soaps over there..
I know. While on ROTC back in uni, I had the misfortune of being assigned to traffic duty (as in direct vehicular traffic on an intersection). She did a movie here then and her motorcade passed by and she waved at me ^_^
LOL 1994
she had a motorcade and everything, wow! i think she’s pretty much sunk into oblivion now..
@kaiser/ghost: What is philosophy without philosophers? information without discourse? pen without paper?
Nihilism is merely a philosophy that needs roots in discourse to sustain it. Without discourse, a philosophy doesn’t exist, even if the principles of a philosophy proclaim to be universal. Philosophy is knowledge – the discourse on philosophy is knowledge as well. These discourses appear as absolute for educated peoples, but that is the illusion of the content, while their form is contingent upon discourse.
For non-educated people, that is to say roughly, oppressed peoples, “Nihilism” (or ______ism) does not exist because they are not situated within the institutionalized discourse on philosophy.
“Hey you, poor kid, I’m gonna donate some aid to your nation, since I feel sorry for you, and since everyone is equal.”
“I don’t need it, rich mother fucker, you’re not better than me, you’re just an asshole.”
“What? No, everyone is equal, don’t you get it? That’s why I’m on your side…I’m giving you money…”
“No, go away, asshole.”
A psychological privilege such as Nihilism can only be enacted/actualized within capitalist institutions (universities) once you’ve accumulated the knowledge necessary to reconstruct your perception of the world. Maybe the pseudo-intelligent believe that there really is such an absolute truth as “equality”, but then why on earth does racism persist to this day?
The relationship between discourses is not hierarchical. A discourse of absolute truths (i.e. rich people are evil) cannot be so easily overturned by a discourse of contingent truths (i.e. rich people are not always evil). It’s amplified here because the discourse of contingent truths is situated in the very substance of the discourse of absolute truths. It’s like a patient in a straight jacket: you think you’re sane, and in your straight jacket, you say “I’m sane! Let me free! I’m sane!” – and the doctors look and say “of course someone in a straight jacket would say they’re sane!”. Thus, a rich person who has the education to say that rich people are not always evil says to a poor person “rich people are not always evil” will surely get some murderous glares from poor people who think that all rich people are evil.
To be inculcated in the discourse that not all rich people are evil, a poor person will invariably need to be situated in that discourse – circular, and for a reason (there’s no other way). Thus materialism, Marxism, is a way to improve the economic conditions of people, increasing access to education/power/knowledge. Once this is materialism is achieved, we can work towards idealism, the discursive maintenance of the philosophy of materialism, Marxism, and praxis. At least in my under-informed view of things, idealism and materialism really do need each other.
The synthesis (OH SHI-) of materialism and idealism is just to produce well-informed individuals that know there are no absolute truths. Absolute truths are effective up until a certain point, then they’re useless (same with contingent truths).
Basically, what Ghost said:
Except that they’re not trapped. Or, everyone is always trapped. Six to one, half dozen the other…
actually I dunno about this. Could be reversed. Depends on the person. Sometimes if you’re in a good mood, then whatever shitty task you’re doing isn’t so bad. Or, a nice material condition generates a happy mood.
Very good. People are trapped until they free themselves, but from what material is the key made? This is where the idea of education (and the whole materialistic process that enables it) comes in.
But what about the uneducated rich? Is it impossible for them to arrive at nihilism without the university experience? It is improbable that they will be able to articulate their position in the language we use in this thread, but it’s not implausible that they arrive at a healthy but non-bitter distrust for ‘received tropes,’ such as “poor people hate you fro being rich and will rob you blind.” Conversely, it can work for any person from any socio-economic background.
The danger here is to claim that the university is the only source. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that it is the engineered source, it’s already a system in place.
—
Another matter, I just want to clear this: is nihilism necessary for idealism to develop? I was an idealist of a different kind once, and worked/studied with/under many of the like. We were anything but nihilist. We were all concerned about THE TRUTH (of the Platonic absolute sense).
yeah, i guess the harder core you get into idealism maybe the easier it will be to transition to nihilism, once that idea has been destroyed. it is people who have a diffuse sense of things that are more resistant to nihilism. if you don’t have all of your meaning-eggs in one basket..anyway, ignorance is bliss (of a sort). don’t let your kids read nietzsche, i say..
PLATO RULES, btw. his “Callicles” character in the Gorgias dialogue is already Nietzsche, but more succint!!!
i’m still on book 2 of republic :( Y SO LONG WINDED, SOCRATES?
Republic is long, repetitive, often dull (although meant to be flashy as propaganda for his Academy). I don’t know if you have, but I’d read Symposium first (for the fun), then Apology/Crito/Phaedo (short and sweet) and then get into the Republic (although Gorgias might be better before that).. Then, finally, it’ll be time for the hardcore stuff like Theaetetus, Sophist, Timaeus, Philebus.
“If you meet the Buddha in the path, kill him.”
“…using a large beam weapon.”
FIXED.
I am simultaneously reminded of the Black Lagoon drunken discussion of Jesus’s choice of armament (“What did the shepherd carry as he walked through the valley of death?” “He’s a Jew; he has to have an Israeli pistol!”) and the fact that supposedly there is a manga retelling of the Bible.
Well done . . . I think. :P
Anyway, this is (obviously, I thought, but perhaps not obviously) about the Buddhist assertion that one cannot let the construct intended to guide one to truths about existence be a bar to discovering truths about existence. Relevant to the above discussion of thought-constructs trapping people.
OKAY GUYS YOU CAN CALM DOWN NOW
Jesus, I was just giving my horribly generalized, vague, non-specific holistic impressions of the general thought patterns that seem to be pervasive more in one loosely-defined culture than another. You were SUPPOSED to sit down and evaluate how the two viewpoints (which I ascribed to West and East since they seem to fit more with those cultures, although apparently I shouldn’t have) affect how you watch anime/read books/whatever. Do you want it to be better than it is, and judge by that, or are you happy with what it is?
It wasn’t about how Hegel defined perfection versus how Siddhartha Gautama defined it. I pitched a baseball and you guys played cricket with it.
I won’t make this mistake again, I think.
No. I played basquash with it!
Where’s the mistake? This orgy of intellectual frottage is glorious!
Think of it as something like a renga writing exercise, only with HOT BLOOD but without the inebriation. YOUR MOVE!
[...] I had to post all of this on twitter, as some philosophy is done, it would take over 80 tweets to do [...]