i agree that various mediums/styles should be tried. too much goddamn intellectualization going on amongst disconnected philosophers.
What Is To Be Done
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
i agree that various mediums/styles should be tried. too much goddamn intellectualization going on amongst disconnected philosophers.
How many of us actually *do* anything substantial? Are we here gathered around the campfire of our philosophy forum because we're too jaded / incapable of doing anything we would view as valuable in the broader world?
I sure am - but being here is part of the learning I hope can become valuable to more than myself one day...
i think this hits it pretty much on the head. i know i have done many things throughout my life i thought were substantial, but now i've learned from mistakes and am seeking new alternatives.
Seditious
GodSlayer
I don't know if it warrants a thread -- philosophical opinions on what is worthless in life -- but I'm curious what kinds of things you see as mistaken, and what it was that made you think that way (was it a pointless task for any and all, or was your doing it worthless (like one person not polluting in order to save the planet), was it actually contrary to something good? etc)
some guy on another forum for instance was saying there's nothing greater than to have a baby. Personally I'd hate to be called great for merely accomplishing a rabbit's achievement (maybe we can argue the worth of being a good parent etc., but merely continuing the species in such times as these (times with more chance of over- than under-population) seems of little value). I'm always curious why people value the things they do.
that's a good point about babies. people have various reasons for having children, some of which i don't agree with, but since it is a universally natural phenomenon that transcends species and kingdoms, i find it hard to challenge it. however, as you said, the modern context calls for a questioning, I would argue of everything, population levels being critically important.
I would say some of the things i have done would matter if more people did them, but other things i have done i no longer see value in for anyone. i used to be hyper-focused on my patterns of consumption, researching where it was made, what it was made out of, etc. this influenced me to be vegetarian and then vegan, but i no longer see value in this stance whether in our current context or as an ideal. however, if everyone had a sort of "deep ecology" outlook which influenced how we come to possess the essentials of life, that would have value, but i don't see that happening.
something i would consider a big mistake is going to college and expecting to be able to fit into the system and influence it from within while maintaining my composure and not feeling like burning the fucking place down every day. various things led me to abandon the university, which also led to my questioning of the effectiveness of writing. i don't think writing books is a very worthwhile pursuit, seeing how so many don't read and how there are so many books that it is extremely easy for yours to get lost among the pack. money dictates an audience for one's speech, so it is hardly "free," as americans like to say.
other things i have tried include joining political parties, for example the Green Party, partaking in political and social activism related to various causes including anti-war efforts, as well as starting my own organizations around certain issues. but i think organizations, whichever one, are problematic, so is single issue causes, so is reformism, largely because it doesn't challenge the roots of the problem and gives people the false sense they are achieving something when in reality they are being led astray by a bunch of bullshit artists in power. however, here i am, searching for something new, always willing to listen to whoever has something to say about modern society and "what is to be done." i have my levels of affinity towards action, which i have expressed earlier in this thread, however, i doubt many will be any more receptive to this ideas then the masses were to charles manson, the unabomber, or any other "psycho."
Seditious
GodSlayer
I agree on single issue causes, it would be better if we could fund a whole endeavor based on some principle, rather than what we seem to have now which is 'I know someone who had cancer, I want to donate to that' or worse 'my mom had breast cancer, so I want to provide money to breast cancer research.'
and about college. I didn't have money or a career goal so I never went, but in my recreational learning I've certainly come across some things that have disgusted me, mainly ignorant opinions (its rare, but god it bothers me when I hear a load of nonsense from a professor) and what utterly pointless tasks college students are given. And on the opposite to ignorant suggestions and meaningless exercises, I was talking to a criminal justice major and was shocked that she couldn't tell me anything about Legal Positivism---all they're taught is how to function, not what justifies what they're doing, they're just learning how to perform a job, but have no clue why what they'll be doing is right (or even if it is). It bothers me that people in fields regarding ethics really don't need to have a strong understanding of ethics.
I hope you're wrong about writing, though I think the main reason I write is because if you need to get across some argument it's going to have to be written to get beyond the surface (you'll know how much easier it is to argue on the net than trying to remember all the things a person has said in a conversation argument). Maybe I'll never be published, maybe if I am no one will read it, but a book is at least a reference point, the writer could be a politician, or do interviews, write articles on the topic, or even as suggested put out some game or movie 'based on the book' and hope to spark interest in the topic itself, or be able to say 'if you like this, you can understand more here'. To me if something isn't written it's never going to get anywhere, writing at least records the argument, even if it may need to be reformatted to suit the population.
It's the only way I know I have some reason to do anything---I mean if I can't write why something should be done, if it's just 'join a suicide helpline cos I lost a friend to suicide' then because I have no reason to compel others to do x y z I feel compelled to ask myself why I should do it, why I should humor my inclinations and emotions and do what I can for whatever the cause is.
anyways, what do you mean by 'reformism', trying to fix a flawed system rather than changing systems or something? that's natural in science---give a theory with new evidence opposing it its chance to account for it, so it would make sense not to be hasty in politics either, but maybe that's why it makes so little progress, it's not as fixed, it's not well executed, and people can always fall back and say 'just put more funding into the same old thing and we'll revamp it' rather than trying something which may be superior but more of a financial/political risk. (and maybe that's another one of the problems, even when people care about something, are they even willing to risk their career/reputation/influence by trying something unorthodox.)
and about college. I didn't have money or a career goal so I never went, but in my recreational learning I've certainly come across some things that have disgusted me, mainly ignorant opinions (its rare, but god it bothers me when I hear a load of nonsense from a professor) and what utterly pointless tasks college students are given. And on the opposite to ignorant suggestions and meaningless exercises, I was talking to a criminal justice major and was shocked that she couldn't tell me anything about Legal Positivism---all they're taught is how to function, not what justifies what they're doing, they're just learning how to perform a job, but have no clue why what they'll be doing is right (or even if it is). It bothers me that people in fields regarding ethics really don't need to have a strong understanding of ethics.
I hope you're wrong about writing, though I think the main reason I write is because if you need to get across some argument it's going to have to be written to get beyond the surface (you'll know how much easier it is to argue on the net than trying to remember all the things a person has said in a conversation argument). Maybe I'll never be published, maybe if I am no one will read it, but a book is at least a reference point, the writer could be a politician, or do interviews, write articles on the topic, or even as suggested put out some game or movie 'based on the book' and hope to spark interest in the topic itself, or be able to say 'if you like this, you can understand more here'. To me if something isn't written it's never going to get anywhere, writing at least records the argument, even if it may need to be reformatted to suit the population.
It's the only way I know I have some reason to do anything---I mean if I can't write why something should be done, if it's just 'join a suicide helpline cos I lost a friend to suicide' then because I have no reason to compel others to do x y z I feel compelled to ask myself why I should do it, why I should humor my inclinations and emotions and do what I can for whatever the cause is.
anyways, what do you mean by 'reformism', trying to fix a flawed system rather than changing systems or something? that's natural in science---give a theory with new evidence opposing it its chance to account for it, so it would make sense not to be hasty in politics either, but maybe that's why it makes so little progress, it's not as fixed, it's not well executed, and people can always fall back and say 'just put more funding into the same old thing and we'll revamp it' rather than trying something which may be superior but more of a financial/political risk. (and maybe that's another one of the problems, even when people care about something, are they even willing to risk their career/reputation/influence by trying something unorthodox.)
i think many things in society have had ample time to prove they could operate differently, such as government, however they all operate on the same principles of control and representation. many things can be reformed, but that is co-opting a radical critique to keep the system functioning. such as "sustainability" keeps industrialism going. unions and minimum wages keep captialism going. and so on....
My two cents:
The thing about humans, is this constant need for progress,
and I think it should be heeded. For although every solution breeds new problems, every sensible evolution/revolution in our ways is better than total stagnation. There are countless areas of the individual and the society in which there is plenty of room for improvement.
Yes. I believe in science, as much as art, culture, health, and so on,
But it is our responsiblity to empower and steer the development in the right direction.
The thing about humans, is this constant need for progress,
and I think it should be heeded. For although every solution breeds new problems, every sensible evolution/revolution in our ways is better than total stagnation. There are countless areas of the individual and the society in which there is plenty of room for improvement.
Yes. I believe in science, as much as art, culture, health, and so on,
But it is our responsiblity to empower and steer the development in the right direction.
Seditious, Spartacus, just what do you do? How do you support yourselves? I ask because I'm curious and jealous (jealous, you're not tied to some soul-sucking 5-day a week normal job like yours truly).
Nile577
Member
- Jun 26, 2003
- 376
- 2
- 18
Culture is a subtlety seldom understood. In a healthy age, one does not stand external from it. True 'culture' is not material things or 'project' ideas that can be possessed. It is a 'clearing' through which we understand the 'how' of our Being. True culture is non-reflective. It is ingrained. It is the distance we stand from friends, from lovers, from strangers. It is the flash of eyebrows greeting someone. In days past, before the Gods left the world, it was the divine investment of the creator(s) in the fate of man.
In today's culture all is levelled to valueless nihilism. The only ‘valuator’ that remains is experience. Experience of sensation - sex, 'religion,' pleasure - becomes the internal 'culture' of life, yet it is a nihilistic culture: If one posits a value, he can surely unposit it. True culture comes from an external - though a WILLED external, a non-reflective, ‘irrational’ external. Gods may be a 'lie' but they function as truth when 'religious' thought is non-reflective. Indeed, when Gods live, there is no distinction between normal Being and religious Being. All Being IS divine purpose. As Dreyfus notes, hilariously, only the death of God can provide separate 'religious experience.'
I think many here misunderstand ‘culture’ as that which can fill a vacuum with imposed, reflected upon 'ideas.' It is a parody. True culture knows nothing of 'critique.’ Agent A does not stand outside to inculcate event B that thus propagates culture C. Culture is ‘the soil in which we live.’
Only a correct understanding of Being allows us to begin to comprehend the nuances of cultural ontology. The process of such thought is nearly ineffably subtle, even mystical. The ‘Action! Action! Action!’ hypotheses outlined here misappropriate the nature of ‘culture.’ Their error is inspissated in that they erroneously equate ‘philosophy’ solely with ‘critique.’ ALL thought is philosophy and thinking IS.
In order to 'change' the nature of the Western cultural paradigm we must move towards a new understanding of Being. Many of the posts that fill this thread are products of the same disposive thought processes that they attempt to rebel against.
In today's culture all is levelled to valueless nihilism. The only ‘valuator’ that remains is experience. Experience of sensation - sex, 'religion,' pleasure - becomes the internal 'culture' of life, yet it is a nihilistic culture: If one posits a value, he can surely unposit it. True culture comes from an external - though a WILLED external, a non-reflective, ‘irrational’ external. Gods may be a 'lie' but they function as truth when 'religious' thought is non-reflective. Indeed, when Gods live, there is no distinction between normal Being and religious Being. All Being IS divine purpose. As Dreyfus notes, hilariously, only the death of God can provide separate 'religious experience.'
I think many here misunderstand ‘culture’ as that which can fill a vacuum with imposed, reflected upon 'ideas.' It is a parody. True culture knows nothing of 'critique.’ Agent A does not stand outside to inculcate event B that thus propagates culture C. Culture is ‘the soil in which we live.’
Only a correct understanding of Being allows us to begin to comprehend the nuances of cultural ontology. The process of such thought is nearly ineffably subtle, even mystical. The ‘Action! Action! Action!’ hypotheses outlined here misappropriate the nature of ‘culture.’ Their error is inspissated in that they erroneously equate ‘philosophy’ solely with ‘critique.’ ALL thought is philosophy and thinking IS.
In order to 'change' the nature of the Western cultural paradigm we must move towards a new understanding of Being. Many of the posts that fill this thread are products of the same disposive thought processes that they attempt to rebel against.
sadly, i work. money doesn't grow off trees, but fruit did in the paleolithic.
I write, but earn no money from it and probably never will based on nature of what i write. tis the fate of the renegade artist.
Standard Al Gore bullshit. Humans do not have a constant need for progress, civilization does. That is what the mindfucking does to you, it makes you think humanity=civilization.
as i've said before, i agree we need a new way of thinking, but i don't think we should ONLY be sitting around thinking and writing to eachother on message boards. you provide no concrete strategy or tactics beyond thinking. the quasi animism you speak of could be integral to a new way of thought, but disconnected from strategy and tactics it will be a mere ineffective intellectual endeavor. sorry, but that is just how causality works. you can't think something into existence, you have to do it into existence.
Seditious
GodSlayer
lol, I'm unemployed (and I have been for a number of years for a number of reasons) but I'll be committing to wage slavery again soon enough.
what do I do in terms of what is to be done, essentially nothing, I'm writing and I'll need to complete that to have full rational assurance that I can commit to some course of public action. If I discover I'm wrong then I'm not sure what I'll do; I'm not gunna have kids, I don't like the political system, and I don't see myself as one for scientific research so I can't imagine some sort of career goal to have that isn't of a philosophical nature. I suspect I'll fall into making enough money to survive until I find some other passion that could make money from which I could then fund something to help improve my immediate society (I mean we're not getting rid of drugs and crime and homelessness and pollution and abuse in the law but if I could do something there which would make things slightly better for myself then that's really the only end/goal in life I could imagine contributing to. I'm happy for that kind of meaningless life of selfish self-preservation but I really do hope I'm not wrong
that rant is the product of my not being sure what you meant (did something above suggest our souls aren't being bled by draining repetative senseless laboring?)
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
There should be plenty of options for someone with a degree of intelligence, a desire for something else, and the absence of a desire for 'money for the sake of it'... a small business seems the most straightforward. I work about 20 hours a week and live comfortably. Of course this is not practical in all countries, but I'd have expected it would be more achievable in the U.S than anywhere, if anything.
civ expands historically, and very well may be an inherent dynamic. it expands and collapses. see Joseph Tainter's book Collapse of Complex Societies. some call this progress, but i'd call it collective narcissistic suicide and a desacralizing affront to nature.
hibernal_dream
A Mind Forever Voyaging
I'll check it out, thanks. That's not what I call progress either, and I don't see why anyone else would.
people are not satisfied with the way things are or with what they have. once you get into the trap of coveting possessions through ownership, the "sickness" Sitting Bull described and the form of slavery Big Soldier spoke of, you start to think the foundational assumptions of civ are acceptable,we just need to tinker with it. then you see bullshit artists start intellectualize some permanent and absolute separation of humanity from the rest of the circle of life and then you get proposals like, "well, we need art, culture, medicine, etc." it's all bullshit. ask any wolf, bear or plant, it's all bull....shit.
