Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

NotThatImportant3 t1_izd7isd wrote

Reply to comment by Coconutcabbie in /r/philosophy Open Discussion Thread | December 05, 2022 by BernardJOrtcutt

Potentially sounds Buddhist. There is no beginning because there is no static thing. We are progressive but impermanent processes, mindstreams simply conscious at this moment. From this perspective—which could be characterized as anti-ontological—the study of being is fruitless because there is only becoming not being (Deleuze vs Heidegger). Things are constantly and perpetually changing.

In his Critique of Pure Reason, Kant posits that pure reason cannot capture certain things because one cannot infinitely pontificate in a room and understand everything—some level of empirical observations through experiential interactions with the world and others is necessary for knowledge development. I can say “red is red” with pure reason, but I can’t say “Roses are truly red and not blue” without seeing a rose.

The part where we might disagree, though, is with this idea that there are irrational things. If you just mean there are things that transcend reason, I agree. But If you mean things lack order, or are chaos—i.e. God is dead, metaphysics are dead, therefore the world is chaos we just manufacture organization onto—I would disagree. I think I side more with Plato’s Allegory of the Cave over Nietzsche. Sure, we may only see shadows, but the shadows emanate from something objectively real—we just can’t objectively perceive it. Since the things casting shadows are real, I still find order in the world. Physics consistently works because good studies are replicable. I just think reason alone can only, when done well and rigorously, get very close to a correct rationale explanation of how the world operates. I think this last bit we can’t get perfect on is just the limits of human cognition.

1

Coconutcabbie t1_izdh3d0 wrote

I don't think we disagree, I think I failed in my explanation.

I would never be so bold as to claim, "God is dead." Or that metaphysics suffer death either.

I see the conception of irrational as something of a burden.

That which cannot fit reason, evades all our calculations in search for reason.

It is the very disregard of irrationality that clouds our basis for questioning.

If every line of questioning leads us to an impossible conclusion, perhaps we are poisoning our reason with faulty data.

To assume shadows must be cast by figures without clear evidence, apriori stands to reason.

Why? We must have prior understanding of light, shadow, figures etc.

I'm not questioning that which stands to reason; I'm suggesting that we are assuming reason from a fundamental factor never questioned.

Is the assumption of a start to all, backed by any evidence other than anecdotal—we started therefore the universe did—or the fact we subjectively have only known existence, proof existence is all that exists.

Unless we can end our existence to prove we can't exist, then return to existence and declare, "ah ha!" Is it not sound to assume existence is the norm?

The endless search to discover how or why the universe begun, is like shining light on the dark to prove the dark doesn't exist.

Nothing cannot exist unless something exists.

To assume the universe, or God started it all, is a failure to grasp the irrational truth of rationale.

I've only recently started reading Nietzsche. I have so much more to read. The more I seem to open my eyes to, the more I realise I am blind to.

This hypocrisy is abundant in everything. As I struggle through Nietzsche's beyond good and evil, he seems to highlight the truth in this phenomena.

Assumption in what must be true, distracts us from real truth.

Truth hides between desire and illusion.

The little I've read of Nietzsche so far, I definitely feel less anxious in life.

1

NotThatImportant3 t1_izeemh6 wrote

I’m glad reading Nietzsche has helped you feel less anxious. I feel you - Nietzsche’s comments on suffering are great in my opinion. The general concept of learning from suffering, embracing it, is a powerful one for me. His concept of ressentiment—how resenting and fighting against certain things actually can make them stronger in our own minds by binding us to them—very powerful and mentally useful as well. As you can see, I take issue with his rejection of any metaphysical organizing principles, though.

I also think, among many philosophers, Nietzsche is a great writer, especially compared to, say, Heidegger. However, be careful with trying to rationalize inconsistencies in Nietzsche’s writing. I once heard someone (I think it may have been Bertrand Russell in a recorded lecture) describe Nietzsche as a literary philosopher, in that he writes more like a storyteller than a classic, dry, pure deductive logic philosopher. This does make his work significantly more palatable, and it allows him to write more stream of thought type work (which I enjoy), but it also left him free to talk in ways that appear to contradict his own propositions. I would recommend enjoying his work, taking what you like and leaving the rest.

For example, I make the Buddhism reference because I find Buddhism helps me with suffering in many the same ways Nietzsche does. But I find the Buddhist concept of the Dharma very helpful - it helps me see compassion as inherently valuable, even if we don’t get direct material rewards for being compassionate. And I think Nietzsche would view the Dharma as too much like a “God” system to accept it.

May you feel peace, may you feel love, may you be free of suffering, my friend

1