wanting to learn more about existentialism

White Feather:
"Gunison,
Another problem I see with philosophy is that people may latch onto an idea and believe that that is the only or core belief of said philosopher. So not understanding all of what Nietzsche said, one latches onto one idea, like "God is dead" or the "Superman" and perverts its meaning."

I take your point. Heidegger and Sartre both talk about Angst (or anxiety). I get sick and tired of students constantly fixating on those ideas while tossing aside the rest of what these two philosophers have to say ("God is dead" is another example).
Nevertheless, this isn't a problem with philosophy itself. Rather, the problem lies with the reader not reading carefully. In fact, the second problem you mention above (also a legitimate problem) is not a problem with philosophy itself, but with incautiously reading philosophy (a student once wrote in a paper that Thomas Hobbes ripped all of his ideas off of Plato. No mean feat, considering that Plato was an idealist and Hobbes a materialist! Whose fault is this poor interpretation? Plato & Hobbes or the student?).

You're correct in arguing that a complete picture of a philosophy is necessary for gaining an accurate, representative understanding of that philosopher. What any (good) philosopher attempts to do is create a consistent and systematic view of some domain of experience. So, in order to avoid a situation where

White Feather: "If one does have the original to read, as opposed to interpretations, one then is left with the failure of language to convey the subjective experience; words don't always mean exactly what they seem to mean"

one should supplement the primary reading with secondary readings with an eye toward putting forth an interpretation of a philosopher that makes that philosopher's view consistent and systematic. If something appears inconsistent, why might that be (e.g. many scholars believe Descartes's ridiculous arguement for the existence of God, which is in sharp contrast to the rest of his otherwise careful reasoning, was written merely to placate the Church?)?

Finally, one must always be charitable. That is, come to a proper understading of and present an opposing view in the strongest possible light. That way one's own interpretation will appear that much more plausible. In order to do this successfully one must understand what the other fellow is saying. How is one to defend his vew without being appropriately familiar with opposing views? This just goes back to reading carefully.

There are far fewer lousy philosophers than there are lousy readers of philosophy.

 

White Feather,

Understanding Nietsche is a challenge because philosophy is difficult. One better understanding N by learning about his life as well as his philosophy. Truth is based on your own life experience and what is true for one may not be true for another.

In the case of The Superman N was trying to create a one truth that is common to all. N was all about being the strongest and the healthiest individual in all aspects of life be it physical, mental, emotional, spirtual. This makes sence that N would want this since he himself is constantly ill throughout his life.

The Superman changes with the times, whereas the Christian God does not. To N God is outdated. He cannot serve the people anylonger because he is out of touch with the times. That is why the Superman is necessary.

The Superman is the strongest individual in society and society will model themselves after him. The people are constantly tring to raise the bar and be better than the previous Superman.

In the case of Zarathustra, who attempts to teach the Superman, N was tring to make a point. He wanted to show that the Saints of the times where not "for the people", all they were concerned with was worshipping God, N was attempting to appeal to thos ewho felt as if God was not helping society. He wanted to show that his Superman was a logical, practical idealistic way of living.

Zarathustra does not go back to the cave because he can never go back. He has found the way of the Superman, and the Supermans way is to show the rest of society how to live, he cannot do that alone. Plus, N obviously modelled himself in Zarathustra....Zarathustra was a wonderer that never seemed to find an end, people ridiculled him....much like Nietzche.

That is why I say learning about the philosopher's life is key to understanding his philosophy. Philosophy is supposed to be the search for a universal answer to the great questions in life, but in reality philosophy is an individuals response to the great questions in life. We may be able to relate to some but not all of every philosopher's philosophies because we all have different life situations. In my opinion philosophy is extremely individual.

 

LOL. Thanks for the laugh.

I don't know if I would characterise Hobbes as a materialist, though.

Although I was enthralled with Philosophy when I was younger, as I grow older I tend to dismiss the whole discipline. As a Buddhist who tries to always be mindful I am amazed at myself when caught behind a broken car, how quickly "it" all goes down the drain.

I prefer slapstick to philosophy.

What then does one make of Arthur Schopenhauer? Will a pessimist see justification in his eyes? Is he likely to identify with his writings, what Christians call having "burning ears"? If he only reads him will he end up blowing his brains out?

I feel that Descartes uttered, "I think, therefore I am" as evidence of a "God". It of course depends on how one reads it, just as I read Neitzsche differently.

I am no lover of Reason. If irrationality can exist then reason is not the whole arbitrator of truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

http://www.framingbusiness.net/descarteslanguage.htm

 

Supposedly Philosophy grew out of Religion and Science grew out of Philosophy. What questions Religion failed to answer Philosophy sought to find. [That is a very loaded statement].

How can a philosophy help an individual deal with life? If it is not existential, if it only of the mind, then when the mind breaks all is lost.

What then are the great questions in life? Are they "Is there a God?," "Why do I exist?," "Who am 'I'?", etc.

No. I say that the greatest questions in life have to do with death, with our mortality. If one can subscribe to the notion that "no one knows nor can know what lies after death," then by extension aren't all philosophies worthless?, a waste of time?

So if Zarathrustra wanted to share his Enlightenment with the world, to go out and teach them of their folly, what use was it if he was ignored? The same was said of Buddha, that he should share his knowing with the world.

But, the monk who had attained to the same thing as Zarathustra decided to just enjoy life, to commune with nature, to be one with the One. Was he wrong?

 

For some religion isn't enough. For those who could not except a higher being, for those who felt that religion was bunk. Philosophy started with the greeks, they believed in many gods, and many greeks thought Zeus and worshiping was leading people in the wrong direction. Philosophy attempts to fill the void that religion, and "god" left.

Yep, In philosophy those are the BIG questions. Metaphysical, Epistimtical, ect. Even asking what are the big questions, is a big question in philosophy. What are my personal big questions....???Well I leave that to a later discussion.

I suppose if you look at it that way it would be a waste of time. Tring to prove that your philosophy is right would never work. What is right?? How do we know?? But isn't religion a waste of time? We can never prove whos is right. And isn't science a waste of time, because everyone is always tring to prove/disprove others. Is the world not flat and the earth is the centre of the universe? Humans can't goo to the moon, and flies spontaneously generate where there is a food source right?

But he was not ignored, because we are talking about him right now. And Buddha wasn't ignored becasue there are millions af people who follow him. Nietzche was tring to point out that AT FIRST all new things are ignored because people don't like change. N wanted to change that about the world.

He was not wrong in my opinion, that was his personal choice. Nietzche says he is wrong because (a) he is not benefiting society and (b) "god is dead" we killed him. He is outdated and over used. (according to N).

 

To step beyond nietzsche and sartre, to live our own lives, is that not true existentialism?

The monk was neither right nor wrong. it was his choice to be happy. It's a choice, nothing more.

Any further speculation would be attempting to taint pure choice with judgment and external values.

And realize that, unfortunately, Nietzsche was just a wannabe. Sorry to burst your bubble. =(.

Lol, anyone realize yet how I tainted your opinions with my judgments? Thus making me a complete hypocrite?

 

hey, I never said N was great. After I wrote that essay I thought he was a nut. I know a bit about him is all.

 

whitefeather:"I feel that Descartes uttered, "I think, therefore I am" as evidence of a "God". It of course depends on how one reads it, just as I read Neitzsche differently".

This claim of Descartes' looks to be the starting point for him. That is, after he has (methodologically) gotten rid of all beliefs that can possibly be doubted, that he knows he exists, is the one belief whose truth he can be certain of. From there he begins building up things he can know. To this point Descartes seems a very rigorous philosopher. Descartes, in some sense, tried to use his famous claim above to prove God's existence (or perhaps vice versa---he puts forth a circular argument, after all), but stumbled badly.

whitefeather: "I am no lover of Reason. If irrationality can exist then reason is not the whole arbitrator of truth."

That's a troubling position. I can't see how there can be truth without reason (or by some means other than reason) and this is not due to some failure of intelligence on my part. Rather, I think this is a linguistic issue (specifically as it concerns the meanings of 'reason' and 'irrationality'). I define 'irrationality' as the opposite of 'rationality' (or acting in a way that is utterly contrary to ALL reason). Aside from reason there are only appetites and emotions if we're talking about human capacities (I'll tip my hand as a Platonist in this regard---I've tried, but I can't think of some capacity that is qualitatively different from these 3). It is certainly the case that we can "feel" things and have emotions. These feelings are not without value. But do they reveal or bring about truth? I don't think so.

Irrationality is not just a tough nut, it's downright impenetrable. Reason, whatever else it is, is not a matter of convenience. Without reason, communication (and language) would be impossible. How would we know which word to use next, or what some word meant (or could possibly mean) within a given context? Moreover, it is not the case that we merely partake of reason (in the way we can partake of some cuisine rather than others). I, as a human, am unable to act in a manner that is irrational (my emotions sometimes get the best of me, but that is NON-rational rather than irrational). What would such an action "look" like? I can't say as I would be utterly unable to comprehend it. Irrationality, whatever else it is, cannot partake of, be associated with, or bring about truth. Even the proposition 'irrationality exists' must be either false or incomprehensible given the definitions of reason (or rationality) and irrationality.

Nevertheless, reason is not all that there is. For instance, do I have a greater duty to save my mother's life or the life of a complete stranger? I would say my mother. Why? Because I love her. There is a place in life (and even ethics) for capacities other than reason (that is, non-rational capacities), but putting those capacities to use (and especially judging whether or not they've been employed appropriately) if a task for reason.

 

i theorize that there is no such thing as an irrational decision. for example, when choosing between apples, oranges and pears, the individual will choose the fruit that it -thinks- will give it maximum utility, i.e. use-value.

let us say it buys an apple, because apples are its favorite fruit. now, it thinks at the moment that the apple will give it maximum utility.

however, the apple may be rotten or contain a worm, or may not be as sweet as one hopes for. then, did the individual make the wrong choice? it looks like it would have better utility from, say, the orange.

but, how can picking the apple be irrational at the moment of choice? simply because a misinformed decision has been made, does not mean the choice is irrational.

looking back the person may change and say 'no, i should have picked the orange,' but this still does not make the misinformed choice irrational.

'reason' is simply a construct of external forces, a forced opinion inflicted upon an individual for purposes of survival&evolution in the world. 'reason' boils down to the wanting of maximum-utility for the individual (of course, the individual may make the wrong choices, but that is a flaw in intelligence, not reason).

i think hobbes? or locke? maybe jung? said that there is no altruism. apply that to this. rationality is the will to maximum-use-value. and ALL decisions MADE are, at the time and to the individual making the choice, rational.

ehh thats the way i look at it.

 

Gunison,

Do you mean "reason," or "Reason"? One pertains to the individual mind and the other to the collective, to society, to an ideal.

We all do irrational things, all it takes is not to think and act, or act without thinking. We do something and then ask ourselfs, "Why the heck did I do that for?" But we coming back to rationality. Total irrationality would scare most people. There are probably insane people who would seem perfectly sane, using their own brand of logic.

Descartes, while stressing that he existed, failed to prove who or what it was that knew that he existed.

"reason" (small 'r') is just a social convention, the mind, learning, teaching, thinking, the "I", the id, ego. It is consciousness thinking extraneously. The nature of consciousness itself has yet to be fully understood.

I hear that Descartes used to vivisection animals, thinking that as animals they had no consciousness and felt no pain. We tend to think of people who rip off the wings off flies as a sick individual, no?

 

If you start taking a bite out of every apple to see which one you will buy - that's irrational.

There are plenty of crazy people out there.

If an insane person who always talked to himself held up a fake cell phone we'd never be able to distinquish him from anyone else.

 

btw the Outsider is now translated as "The Stranger" both are great books.

 

Whitefeather: Do you mean "reason," or "Reason"? One pertains to the individual mind and the other to the collective, to society, to an ideal.

I'm going to raise an objection to this distinction below. At that time, I hope to put forth a clear definition of reason (or at the very least, to make clear the role it plays in my position).

Whitefeather: We all do irrational things, all it takes is not to think and act, or act without thinking. We do something and then ask ourselfs, "Why the heck did I do that for?" But we coming back to rationality. Total irrationality would scare most people. There are probably insane people who would seem perfectly sane, using their own brand of logic.

As I argued previously, I don't think it's true that 'we all do irrational things.' In fact, the question you pose in the above paragarph ('why the heck did I do that for?') seems to illustrate this. For example, if you went about biting into apples in order to select the best one, couldn't you provide an explanation for this (e.g. in your experience it is the best way to avoid selecting rotten apples, your mother taught you that this was the correct way to pick produce, or possibly to show Gunison that one CAN act irrationally)?

I would argee that the overwhelming majority of the time we do not act in a way that results from any prolonged conscious deliberation. For example, when I hammer a nail I'm not often aware of what I am doing. I'm simply hammering. Is this irrational (or 'acting without thinking' the way you're using that phrase above)? No. There is, after all, an appropriate and inappropriate way of using a hammer. Even if I'm not consciously and deliberately hammering this could hardly be described as an irrational (or even 'nonrational'---as I defined it previously) activity. For one thing, I have a purpose in hammering. Namely, driving the nail (unbent, presumably) through the board. That there is a purpose to this hammering is evident when something "goes wrong". For example, the head of the hammer falls off, I accidently strike my thumb, or the nail bands. When something goes wrong, I make a correction to what I'm doing. Even though I'm "acting without thinking" I am still acting in a way that is rational or that partakes of reason. After all, if the nail were to bend, I would make certain alterations (RATHER THAN others) to my technique of hammering.

whitefeatherescartes, while stressing that he existed, failed to prove who or what it was that knew that he existed.

I agree. Though Descartes believed he had shown that HE existed, I (and other scholars) disagree. The farthest he seems able to get is the claim "something exists". Perhaps (to use the popular example) he's just a brain in a vat.

whitefeather: "reason" (small 'r') is just a social convention, the mind, learning, teaching, thinking, the "I", the id, ego. It is consciousness thinking extraneously. The nature of consciousness itself has yet to be fully understood.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'It is consciousness thinking extraneaously.' But I do agree that consciousness has yet to be fully understood (though I don't see what role that claim plays in your position).

Reason (big or small 'R') is more than just a social convention. It is true, always and everywhere, that if all Xs are Ys and all Ys are Zs that all Xs are Zs. Moreover, it is true always and everywhere that one thing cannot both exist and not exist at the same time in the same respect.

It is true that, at bottom the meaning of words is conventional. But it is not MERELY conventional. The reason (no pun intended) that we're able to communicate, to understand each other, and equally importantly understand when one of us has said something inappropriate (e.g. 'Tucson is the capital of Arizona') is because of the shared context in which we use language. It is on the basis of this shared context that we communicate successfully. A necessary condition of being able to do this is reason, which is a human capacity (and not a feature of the world outside humans).

I hope that goes some way toward clarifying my definition of reason (at least in the form of an operational definition).

Whitefeather: I hear that Descartes used to vivisection animals, thinking that as animals they had no consciousness and felt no pain. We tend to think of people who rip off the wings off flies as a sick individual, no?

That story sounds familiar. A sick individual would be someone who does this for his own enjoyment while knowing it causes pain to the organism in question (or a sado-masochist who does not obtain the consent of his "victim").

 

Gunison,

The easiest way to quote someone is to first use a left square bracket, insert "quote=" then the name, followed by a right square bracket. Do a paste of their statement then insert a left bracket, "/quote," right bracket. Or you can just do a quote of their whole message, edit out the parts you see as superfluous but keep the quote , /quote delimiters in their respective brackets.

This should make your message a little more readable.

That's because we all have hammered. When I see you hammering I have experienced the same thing.

As a grocer if I were to see you biting into apples and throwing the unsatisfactory ones away I would think that you were insane. I'll allow you to eat one grape but I will not allow you to sample many apples. The grape weighs little so my loss is little. Grapes are not sole singly whereas apples are.

You are not aware that you are hammering because you are thinking of other things. If you concentrated only on that one action there would be no extraneous thinking.

Reason, by most definitions, is employing logic to come to a conclusion, it is a mental exercise. Some say that it is "thought before action," but most people use reason to justify their actions. As a post "action" it is disengenious. One a collective and political level it is used for justifying one's actions, like "Manifest Destiny" and "Eminent Domain".

The mystic lives in a subjective world, where the mind is not the whole arbitrator of truth. As such it cannot be used to guage the subjective. It makes a fine objective tool so long as their is no judgement made.

So if we see two people in love we say "All the world loves a lover," yet that is a collective statement. As individuals we may tend to think of someone who is exhibiting symptoms of being in love as being insane, irrational, illogical.

You can ask someone who is in love why they are in love and they may wax poetic. That poetry will most likely seem irrational because when you look at the same woman you see things differently, you do not see what the person sees, you see a haggard bag of bones with no beauty whatsoever. So we say, "Love is blind."

If you get into a car accident and say that you detected time "going in slow motion," it will sound irrational to someone who has never experienced it, just like love.

No. Logically it makes sense but existentially it is illogical. One cannot guage logic by mathematics. Plainly speaking X can only be X, it cannot be Y or Z. If it were Y or Z we would say it is Y or Z and not X. When it comes to logic and mathematics all terms must not appeal to semantics. If an apple is a fruit and an orange is a fruit, an apple is not an orange. They may both be fruits but they are not equal. Likewise purely appealing to logic, that apple =fruit, (x=y), and fruit = orange (y=z) means apple = orange (x=y) is logically unsound, I can counter that if X=1 then 1 =X. Therefore where ever I see "1" I can substitue X.

The problem is our assigning an unknown variable a constant, a value. That value is not absolute, even though the value is absolute. Huh? I mean that one is an absolue value, but when assigning it to a variable it thereby becomes a variable, it is no longer an absolute. We assume it to have an absolute value. That assumption will have to be proven. It becomes a matter of convention, of learning.

Reasoning, as a philosophy is taught, thereby setting boundaries are what can be further defined and re-defined. Reasoning as a mathematical discipline is also bounded yet may include irrational and illogical definitions and statements. They are used to convey concepts. But the mind is dis-associative therefore it appeals to irrationality even though its resultant is the logical conclusion. You can say that that it is non-sense in the purest sense, but so is assigning an imaginary value to a existential organic organism; it only exits in the mind as a mental construct.

All that will happen when we appeal to logic is that two different views of reality are different. If I say that if I add one drop of water to another drop of water what I end up with is one drop of water, your saying that it is two drops of water because it is twice the size fails to answer the criticism that no matter whether it is one drop or the whole ocean it is still existentially only one drop of water. The reality is that a drop of water once it stops dropping it it no longer a drop of water. But out of convention we keep the same definition.

So to me there are not five oceans on the Earth. Out of Convention we may call it the Pacific Ocean, the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Arctic Ocean, the Antarctic Ocean. I see it as one ocean. Logically there may be 5 oceans but existentially there is only one.

"consciousness thinking extraneously" means that it is consciousness itself which is thinking, so how can it guage its own reality? It is taking its own property as its own evidence which it uses to prove itself. It therefore is a closed system, the definitions are dependent upon the definor. It is using its own subjectivity to define objectivity. Objectivity is defined as an object bywhich two subjects agree.

When it comes to communication, reason has little to do with it. We are taught what to think and how to think it. Communication breaks down when one expresses something which the other has no experience of or who has not be taught how to translate it correctly.

It becomes a matter of perception. If you look at quantum physics, is an electron a particle or a wave? The very definition of quantum is 'something that wasn't there before, but now is, without the perception of time passing or being able to measure same."

 

Whitefeather, thanks for the quoting pointers. Still getting the hang of this web forum business. Let's see how it works out this time.

I've read your last post and a large portion of your reply either answered points I didn't raise, or were outside the scope of the issue at hand (whether or not reason is the sole arbiter of truth and whether or not one can choose to act irrationally). I hope we can continue this discussion without further talking past each other

Here are my responses to some of your last points:

Extraneous thinking or not, I'm still able to plausibly describe how and why this activity is a product of reason (moreover, my description of it as a rational activity is more plausible than any explanation put forth of this activity as irrational).

You would describe me as insane (that is, incapable of apprehending the difference between right and wrong)??? Really? Maybe I'm just inconsiderate. Insanity is among the least likely of explanations.

(the above is in reply to my claim that it is true always and everywhere if all Xs are Ys and all Ys are Zs, then all Xs are Zs)

You're vastly overcomplicating what I said.

Three points to bear in mind. First and foremost, note the word 'if'. Second, validity (and my inference is valid) has little to do with actual truth. Third, there are 2 senses of 'is' besides the 'is' of identity. The proposition 'All apples are fruits' uses the 'is' of predication, while the proposition 'Tallahassee is the capital of Florida' uses the 'is' of identity.
Nevertheless, IF it were true that all apples are fruits and all fruits are oranges, then it would also be true (in fact, it couldn't fail to be true) that all apples are oranges (this is valid, but unsound).

Logic, the science of reasoning, is certainly taught. It is used to make sense of certain processes operating within the world. Where logical laws are concerned, if the processes described exist at all, they cannot fail to conform to logical laws.
Granted, logic is a product of the human intellect. So what? So is physics. Is it sheer coincidence that objects of smaller mass are attracted to objects of larger mass (rather than the other way around)? Certainly not. Though these sciences are products of the human intellect, they're not MERELY mental constructs with no worldly cash value.

As for your drop of water and ocean-naming example, we do have different names for (allegedly) different oceans, yet we're able to understand one another and communicate successfully. You're observation that this is the product of convention (and your distinction between logical and existential) isn't doing any work for you in your argument.

Here again, physics and logic are doing a quite good job. Far better than any alternative systems.

Really? Then how come I am able to correct you were you to assert 'Albany is the capital of Florida'? I don't say something at random. I choose (from among certain alternatives RATHER THAN others) what to say next (e.g. Tallahassee, rather than Harrisburg or the 1929 Yankees).

(thud) I just had a heart attack . The law of non-contradiction is a "matter of perception"????? Trained physicists cannot completely agree what to make of quantum physics. You'll need to appeal to a less problematic counterexample.

 

gunison,

My position on "reason" is that it is something taught, something learned. For the most part one is taught to think. Existentialism is something which one discovers for oneself. When one has such an epithany one usually snaps one's fingers or shouts out "Eureka!". The reasoning process may be involved but the result is usually ascertained with dis-associative thinking. Such "thinking" may be seen as irrational.

Mathematics is a langauage. Like music it is something which is learned, which follows a formal discipline. We may subconsciously use it, though. It therefore is a mind construct. This is the social constuct or convention to which I alluded, that since it is learned within a social framework, it therefore takes on societal parameters.

I did not say that hammering is irrational. As children we play with all sorts of tools; we learn to interact and discover for ourselves their proper use. As we grow older we seek to be demonstrated a tool's use before we use it ourselves. Whether that tool be languauge, math, music, dance, anything which is objective, we first see what will spark our interest and attention, then we seek to emulate it.

Why the incongruity? I didn't say that you were insane, I said that if I were a grocer and I observed "your" (rhetorical) action I would consider "you" to be mentally unstable. I grew up in NYC seeing how homeless people acted.

rotflmao. See, you have your own metaphysical language, too. If I were to say that "it is because it is" you'd likely think me mad. The failure then is one of language. If I, as a mystic, said, "it just is," you'd probably say that I was illogical. So also if I site an existential experience, based on my subjectivity.

To delimit logic to that which is objective does logic a disservice. Both the subjective and the objective are of the mind, the experience cannot be divorced from the experiencer. As a msytic I will assert that it can be done, but there is no proof which I can provide to prove it to your satisfaction. To blindly dismiss it as "illogical" without pondering the possibility is to be closedminded.

When someone asked Buddha whether or not there is a God he stayed silent and asked that the person first go into meditation and find the answer for himself. To demand a yes or no answer without the willingness to experience for oneself, to merely appeal to logic and reasoning, is disengenious. It is not existential.

Is consciousness existential? What then is consciousness? I say that consciousness can exist without thinking, having experienced "no-thought," having seen my thinking mind as a separate process from "myself," having seen time and motion stop. You may not be able to conceive of such a thing but to rule it "out of hand" because it is illogical to your logical mind is disengenious. I say that there are "things" which are illogical. To solely guage reality by logic or logical thinking fails to address what I have experienced. To humilate my experience shows the impotency of "your" (rhetorical) preponderence upon reason and logic; all it shows is "your" closedmindedness.

When I said, " When it comes to communication, reason has little to do with it." I did not mean that reason is not employed in communicating. I meant that language is a learned discipline, it is a tool. One uses thought, a tool, to think, a tool, to so arrange symbols and symbolism so that it has co-herent meaning to the other party. If two people are using two different languages, though each is using reasoning to construct their sentences, there is no communication.

The selective use of words, whether written or spoken, or non-verbal signs, are used to convey ideas. These ideas and how they are expressed may have a reasoning component to it but it is the conveyance of the idea which is paramount. Reasoning is a tool. One uses it when one needs it, one puts it away when not needed.

Two lovers can communicate without words, especially when in the throngs of passion. That communication is existential, it does not need verbalisation. We know the meaning of a moan yet it is the inherent "feeling" which we impart to it that is existential. The infusion of emotion, of feeling, into a word is beyond reason, it could be said it is irrational; but it doesn't need to be rational, it just has to convey emotion.

When little Jimmy sees mommy and daddy making love he may think that they are fighting. They are scratching each other, calling each other names, thrashing about, blaspheming, calling God's name over and over again, moaning as in pain. So to a child it may not be rational, he may equate a moan of pleasure with his existential understanding of a moan connoting pain. But to a "disinterested" and indifferent party it isn't logical, either. Is it logical for a woman to use the words, "Eat me" while in the throngs of passion? Passion therefore is illogical. Passion is existential.

Words are connected in a string to form a sentence which conveys an idea, where each word is an idea onto itself. But even that idea is part of a bigger idea, usually denoted by paragraphs. In conversation we punctuate these gaps of ideas with stretches of silences, we wait for a response.

Part of the problem with A.I. is that it presently can't do dis-associative thinking. The subconscious and dreaming mind works in shapes, forms and icons, a pictorial language. During the day you may be thinking along a certain thought track and for no reason an un-associative thought springs up. Part of the problem is that you have seen a form or figure, say a stick figure like we used to draw as children, and we have associated a complete thought, an experience, with that icon. So while you are thinking another thought, an un-associated thought, springs up.

Disassociative thinking is irrational, it is illogical, it is unreasonable, because there is no conscious effort involved, it is involuntary.

So while the thinking mind, reason, calls forth words to convey ideas, intuition and the subconscious speaks in the language of pictures and associated experiences, it compares form to form, experience to experience, to come up with verbalisation.

One could be presented with a problem. The mind sees a form, perhaps what will subconsciously remind one of a perfume bottle, which reminds one of the smell of a certain perfume, which one associates with an experience, of smelling, say the babysitter, one's mother, one's lover, baby powder, etc. All these experiences are compared against each other. One then finds a past experience which had a certain outcome and applies it to the problem at hand. It then "sees" what the likely outcome will be. The one most appealling will be tried.

So reasoning has an intuition component to it, a "past," a database of experience. During that introspection one becomes introverted and indifferent, concentration "tunnels" to affect an answer.

But there exists non-verbal language, body language, both conscious and unconscious. Without a proper context conscious non-verbal language will likely be seen as irrational. For example if you walk down the street and randonly give someone "the finger," he is likley to respond with confusion.

If you have seen the movie, "What the <bleep> do I know?," there is a segment where it is theorised that the first American Indians did not see Columbus' ships because they had no prior reasoning to "fall back on," they had no prior knowledge of sails. As the shaman leader contemplated this illogical situation, as he contemplated the waves coming onshore and tried to ascertain the source of the disruption he slowly began to see the ships on the horizon. His contemplation occured before the ships were on the horizon, before they could be seen.

If he had pontificated the arrival of aliens, while seeing nothing on the horizon, you would have thought it illogical. His experience was existential, first starting from his illogic to bridge over to logic.

Appeals to reason fail when posited to irrationality. Such a question could be: "Why get drunk?" Getting drunk is unreasonable, it is illogical, it makes one irrational. But people still decide to get drunk. Is that logical? To a person who has had many failed marriages, marriage is illogical, unreasonable, irrational. But people decide to get married. Is that logical? People smoke, knowing full well the inherent dangers. Is that logical? We all have destructive personality traits which we feel powerless to overcome. Is that logical? Appeals to logic in these types of "cases" are bound to fail.

To someone who has never fallen in love, love is illogical. Love is illogical because love is existential. When one is in love one becomes irrational.Love is subjective, reason is objective oriented.

Reason therefore calls for a certain amount of detachment from emotionalism and makes one indifferent to a situation. What we call "Reason" is non-emotionality, not emoting. It is emoting which is existential. When one passes a certain emotional threshold we may call it being illogical or irrational, but that is because the emotion is feeding upon itself. It is through being un-emphatic that we appeal to reason and logic. Being un-emphatic is indifference. Reason is a conscious choice to be indifferent.

For the most part "Reasoning" is a philosophical ideal, just as is existentialism; it is a mental exercise, a mental construct, built on convention, erected by society, existing purely in the mind. It is a process of the mind but it is not the mind, it is not consciousness itself. Reasoning is but one property of consciousness.

Ultimately appeals to reason are emotional, usually out of desperation, usually directed at an object, another person. It is emotion which is existential because ultimately they are subjective.

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

You think I've given you enough to ponder for awhile?

Just do this: just watch your mind and the thinking process as you go about your daily life. Watch TV and see if you don't see your mind wandering. Look at your thoughts and trace them back. As you watch TV or listen to music or walk down the street, see if these thoughts aren't being triggered by a simple form, colour, smell, touch, sound, etc. Just a bird's song may trigger past memories. As you become more aware you should see how thinking and reasoning isn't all that it's hyped up to be.



Peace.

 

White Feather,

I just finished reading your latest post. Though this discussion may be enthralling to you and I, I fear we're treading on the patience of others in this otherwise public forum. Instead of replying point by point in my usual manner, I'm just going to make a couple of general comments:

1) Reason is a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for all human communication (verbal and non-verbal). If what we're dealing with is, in fact, communication (rather than something else), reason cannot fail to be involved.

2) Mysticism, along with affirming entities like the subconscious mind, is not an attractive position to me (i.e. it is not a position I wish to hold). Neither of these positions yield any worldly cash value. That is, a subconscious mind, for example, is ill-suited as a means of explaining phenomena within the world. At the very least, it does no better (and given troublesome questions about the mere existence of mystical forces and mental capacities that are subconscious) in explaining things than other, naturalistic explanations. Could there be unseen mystical forces that are controling things? Sure. But I shall not accept them into my world-view until I can see or grasp or apprehend how they're any better at explaining things than what I currently appeal to.

3) Disassociative thinking. I'm not sure what role it's playing in your position, so what I am about to say is not necessarily a direct reply to anything you said above. This manner of thinking (whose existence I do not dispute), whatever else it is, is of no communcative value in itself, though one may be led to communicate something on the basis of having such a thought. It is non-rational (as opposed to irrational; this distinction is similar to the distinction between immoral and amoral).

4) The philosophy of existentialism can be (and is) taught. Whatever else the philosophy of existentialism is, it is a world-view that attempts to provide an explanation for some domain of experience. The explanation it provides is taught. The value of that explanation (if any) is what is MADE by the individual who chooses to adopt it (and such an individual most likely asks after its worldly cash value: does existentialism explain my world well or poorly?).

I shall close with a quote from William James:
"The whole function of philosophy ought to be to determine what definite difference it would make at definite instants of our lives, whether this world-view or that world-view be true."

 

Gunison,

I'm hoping that some got amusement from our exchange. As I said before, I think Philosophy is useless.

As http://www.connect.net/ron/exist.html seems to be saying, what is seen as existentialism was co-opted by Sarte and Nietzsche. I just object to a nihilistic framework. That is why I reject Hegel's Humanism.

ibid.

Thanks for the discussion. We really didn't disagree on too much.
-wf

I wonder what joker made of all this?

 

http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/exist.html


this is a nice site

 

Art,

Thanks for the link. It is a great find. I feel it sums up very nicely some of the points I and Gunison have made.