Philosophers corner........Debate 2

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks for the helpful responses; they are guiding my reading for the remainder of this week (I probably won’t be back on here now till next week). Just a few brief comments:

We cannot conceive of reality in any other manner but a subject-predicate form.

I’m not sure this is entirely true: 1) I’m not sure that all languages take that fo ...[text shortened]... Peel away the leaves of the onion, however… I admit, I have become an onion kind of guy…. 🙂[/b]

I’m not sure this is entirely true: 1) I’m not sure that all languages take that form; 2) Buddhists, for example, tend to conceive of reality in terms of “mutually arising” happenings….

I cannot reply definitively that all languages take a subject-predicate form, but I do know that Sanskrit, at least, has a subject-predicate form.

Thinking of reality as "'mutually arising' happenings" does not avoid the subject-predicate problem. Who do these happenings happen to? How?

“In the very least, then, the neurobiology of consciousness faces two problems: the problem of how the movie-in-the-brain is generated, and the problem of how the brain also generates the sense that there is an owner and observer for that movie."

The flaw, I would say, is in the analogy itself. Clearly the human mind is conscious of itself, capable of reflecting on itself and its thoughts. More importantly, we are all conscious (when we think about it) of the cognitive unity of the mind. When you're looking out of a window at a tree and I ask you what you're thinking about, you are able to reflect on the thoughts that were passing through your consciousness just the moment before. But you are also aware that it is one and the same mind that was looking at the tree a moment before and is reflecting on its thoughts right now. Otherwise, you would have a mind looking at the tree, mind looking at mind looking at the tree, mind looking at mind looking at mind ...

If you're up to it, I would recommend reading Bernard Lonergan's Insight sometime. Though he does not make it explicit, I believe he realises that there is no sufficiently suitable model/analogue for the human mind that would not result in the kind of paradox that Damasio talks about - except the mind itself. Hence, the only way to truly understand the human mind is not in terms of an objective model, but in terms of understanding how one's own mind works.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b][b]we are all conscious of the cognitive unity of the mind. When you're looking out of a window at a tree and I ask you what you're thinking about, you are able to reflect on the thoughts that were passing through your consciousness just the moment before. But you are also aware that it is one and the same mind that was looking at the ...[text shortened]... king at the tree, mind looking at mind looking at the tree, mind looking at mind looking at mind ...

This is the crux of it (artichokes and onions). The mind can be a single glass, or a hall of mirrors. You can bring your mind to a diamond focus; you can allow it to be scattered.

I distinguish between the mind (classified by the Upanishads as an ordinary sense, along with the more familiar 5) and the self. Mind is at the service of self, if trained; self? I can't say.


Nor can I say where "I" fits into all this, unless it be the self's mistaken identification with the mind.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
This is the crux of it (artichokes and onions). The mind can be a single glass, or a hall of mirrors. You can bring your mind to a diamond focus; you can allow it to be scattered.

I distinguish between the mind (classified by the Upanishads as an ordinary sense, along with the more familiar 5) and the self. Mind is at the service of self, if traine ...[text shortened]... where "I" fits into all this, unless it be the self's mistaken identification with the mind.

When I think of the self, I think of it as my being (ens). Like any being, my being has an essence (essentia) that exists (esse). The mind is but one aspect of my essence (quiddity, form, nature, what-ness).

Originally posted by lucifershammer
When I think of the self, I think of it as my being (ens). Like any being, my being has an essence (essentia) that exists (esse). The mind is but one aspect of my essence (quiddity, form, nature, what-ness).

Mind is an aspect of being--I think you're agreeing with me?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Mind is an aspect of being--I think you're agreeing with me?

I think so.

Mind is our main (only?) means of knowing the world, however.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I think so.

Mind is our main (only?) means of knowing the world, however.

Yeah, it's a wicked tool.

Do you think Descartes (as a super-intellectual Frenchmen) might have mistaken mind for being when he made his famous statement?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Yeah, it's a wicked tool.

Do you think Descartes (as a super-intellectual Frenchmen) might have mistaken mind for being when he made his famous statement?

We need to remember that Descartes himself was not a skeptic; he was a very committed realist. His purpose in the Meditations was to establish a concrete set of facts which could be used to counter the skeptics.

IMO, Descartes Cogito argument actually affirms the distinctness of mind and self. He does not say, "I think, therefore my mind is" but "I think, therefore I am". He realises that the existence of thought implies not only the existence of a Mind, but also a thinker (self) that the mind is part of.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
We need to remember that Descartes himself was not a skeptic; he was a very committed realist. His purpose in the Meditations was to establish a concrete set of facts which could be used to counter the skeptics.

IMO, Descartes Cogito argument actually affirms the distinctness of mind and self. He does not say, "I think, therefore [i] ...[text shortened]... ht implies not only the existence of a Mind, but also a thinker (self) that the mind is part of.

OK, that does it for 😀

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Can you offer a Kantian perspective on cogito ergo sum?

Kant: profound philosopher, appallingly bad writer. That's why I've never finished one of his books...He doesn't seduce me.

Try Schopenhauer: he distils the essence of Kant, and writes much better.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Try Schopenhauer: he distils the essence of Kant, and writes much better.

But Nietzsche fundamentally critiques Schopenhauer and takes his 'will to live' to another level, the 'will to power'

Originally posted by Serendipity
But Nietzsche fundamentally critiques Schopenhauer and takes his 'will to live' to another level, the 'will to power'

I like the way you worded that: “takes his 'will to live' to another level, the 'will to power'.” Nietzsche’s “will to power” (which he described also as “life enhancement” ) is the will to thrive, as opposed to simply the will to survive.

I have long thought that the best “pop” exposition of Nietzsche’s philosophy is Harold Ramos’ comic film Groundhog Day with Bill Murray, a cynical, world-weary TV weatherman who finds himself caught in the “eternal recurrence.” His response to that dilemma (waking every morning to Groundhog Day in Punxatawney, PA, ushered in by the same Sonny and Cher song on his clock-radio) runs the following course:

1. Disorientation and panic.

2. Nihilistic and suicidal despair.

3. Ego-inflation (“I’m a god!&rdquo😉.

4. The turn toward amor fati and the path of the ubermensch, when he suddenly decides to take piano lessons.

Over the course of the eternal recurrence, he engages day-after-day (the same day) in acts of kindness and compassion, while becoming an accomplished jazz pianist, earning a medical degree, reading the corpus of western literature, etc. He embarks on a course of life affirmation. His acts of “goodness” flow, not from a sense of moral obligation, but from his own discovered generous spirit—he is generous with himself, he is generous with others. This overflowing generous spirit is a mark of the ubermensch.

This notion that one can take one’s life in one’s own creative hands, even in the face of an extreme pre-determination of one’s circumstances, seems to accord with Kathleen Higgins’ interpretation of the eternal recurrence (which is open to multiple interpretations) in her Nietzsche’s Zarathustra. She takes a line of interpretation that “contends that the doctrine [of the eternal recurrence] represents an ‘existential imperative,’ a heuristic tool that illustrates a particular attitude toward life.’” Interestingly, she uses music as an example: “With his doctrine of eternal recurrence, Nietzsche is urging us to approach our experiences with an attitudinal perspective that resembles our attitude in musical listening….Our attitude in musical listening is an attitude of delight in the present. Our delight, like our musical concentration, is not contingent on our sense that some clear progress is being made. On the contrary, we enjoy great music because of its circuitousness, its ingenuity in taking devious paths toward its evident aims, its instinct for moving in ways contrary to precedent, its unmitigated sense of life. We enjoy the fullness of the present musical moment, even if it is dissonant, not for its efficiency in moving toward the evident musical goal, but for its own surprising presence.” (Nietzsche’s Zarathustra, pp. 183-4.) As Alan Watts once commented, if the purpose is to get to the end of the composition, the best musicians would be those who played the fastest. But, at the same time, the musical composition does flow forward; if you try to "freeze" the last line and cling to it, you cannot "dance" with the music as it comes.

So, if faced with the extreme of being able to listen to (or play) only the same piece of music over and over and over again—would you necessarily have to hear it the same way every time? How long before you collapse into nihilistic boredom? Or could you make the turn to amor fati…? (Note: I’m addressing the general “you” here, which includes myself, not any “you” in particular.)

I think Nietzsche might like the idea of his philosophy of amor fati and the ubermensch being treated in such a “frohliche” way as in the movie; though I also think he would be displeased by the ending—which I will not give away to those who have not seen the film—which he might see as a bit of “decadent” schmaltz.

EDIT: to LH--Yes, I'll look up Lonergan. Thanks.

Originally posted by vistesd
I like the way you worded that: “takes his 'will to live' to another level, the 'will to power'.” Nietzsche’s “will to power” (which he described also as “life enhancement” ) is the will to thrive, as opposed to simply the will to survive.

I have long thought that the best “pop” exposition of Nietzsche’s philosophy is Harold Ramos’ comic film ...[text shortened]... as a bit of “decadent” schmaltz.

EDIT: to LH--Yes, I'll look up Lonergan. Thanks.

I enjoyed your post.....but although Nietzsche talks in Zathustra of reoccurence, the will to power regards authenticity (in the 'Time and Being' sense, and yes I know Heidegger came after Nietzsche). The autheticity to be the real you, whatever that is. 🙂

Originally posted by Serendipity
I enjoyed your post.....but although Nietzsche talks in Zathustra of reoccurence, the will to power regards authenticity (in the 'Time and Being' sense, and yes I know Heidegger came after Nietzsche). The autheticity to be the real you, whatever that is. 🙂

I think I agree with you; I do tend to see will to power/will to thrive in terms of existential self-authenticity—as Nietzsche put it, to dare to become who you are. I would argue that the eternal recurrence represents a kind of “thought experiment,” presenting an extreme case in which the question of authenticity is presented—an extreme case of being thrown into a world not of one’s choosing. And I think part of Nietzsche’s challenge is: “Can you delight (amor fati) in choosing—again and again—the course of becoming/being your own authentic self?” I tend to see Nietzsche (at least in part) as a proto-existentialist, but he would take as dim a view of “existential angst” as he did of Schopenhauer’s pessimism.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think I agree with you; I do tend to see will to power/will to thrive in terms of existential self-authenticity—as Nietzsche put it, to dare to become who you are. I would argue that the eternal recurrence represents a kind of “thought experiment,” presenting an extreme case in which the question of authenticity is presented—an extreme case of bei ...[text shortened]... t, but he would take as dim a view of “existential angst” as he did of Schopenhauer’s pessimism.

I think theres been not much that would have pleased Nietzsche since his death (1900) bar Heidegger , until he joined the Nazxi party , and maybe Foucault for his use of genealogy.

Originally posted by Serendipity
I think theres been not much that would have pleased Nietzsche since his death (1900) bar Heidegger , until he joined the Nazxi party , and maybe Foucault for his use of genealogy.

I've only touched on Heidegger, and haven't read Foucalt at all--can you recommend a starting-place for the latter?