Philosophy has been the subject occupying much of my time lately. It seems to directly coincide with literature, which shall always remain my primary interest.
I began peering into the seemingly infinite world of philosophy through Sartre; I found the existentialism that he coined to be rather overrated. Absurdities, dissolving the objective and object (not social) nausea are all I've adopted, but I'm glad I've discovered his work. Without Sartre's philosphies, I wouldn't have explored my own, less counterintuitive, thoughts, nor would I know why Kafka and Dostoyevsky's works are classified as vaguely existential.
My own ideas are a bit nihilistic, but much less depressing. Existence seems to have no true definition, and, from what is generally considered the (male) psycological perspective, our yearning for our own destruction or morose emotion seem obvious. However, there is one force or aspect that is rarely denoted as positive in nihlism, that, for my philosphy, is imperative to an explanation to our existence on earth consuming as much time as it does, other people. (Another idea I've played with is man's amusement from pain. Think Caligula, it could be possible man sees the parallel of his most prominent feature, life, in "things" he kills slowly. Man may enjoy seeing himself dying slowly as a wounded animal as opposed to ceasing life efficiently. [This is completely irrelevant to the idea I'm attempting to express.])
With my philosophy, superiority and inferiority cannot exist, for every existence is equally unimportant to the universe. This creates a psycology which makes interaction much easier, as we all partake in this experimental process. However, this also relies on my ideas not being universal; society needs an opposing philosophy for a classless system to exist, for people practicing my belief would look for a rational system within it. Otherwise, this is simply an aspect of Marxism which will meet the same, socially inequal, fate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can you expound upon this passage?
ReplyDelete"However, this also relies on my ideas not being universal; society needs an opposing philosophy for a classless system to exist, for people practicing my belief would look for a rational system within it. Otherwise, this is simply an aspect of Marxism which will meet the same, socially inequal, fate."
I don't know that I catch your meaning.
I wonder if you've read Shopenhauer and/or Neitzsche? Read both if you haven't. Neitzsche will cure you of nihilism, which is a dead-end philosophy.
Yeah, existentialism may be interesting, but it's unfulfilling as far as personal philosophy goes. I find that it's best to believe what is most useful. There's an anecdote-- I don't remember where I read it-- about one day when Hume was working through the logic of a strand of philosophy, and reached a conclusion that was rationally valid, but carried disturbing and profoundly defeating implications. He simply opened his drawer, put his papers in, and locked it shut, never to open it again. That's certainly where nihilism belongs, and perhaps existentialism as well.
Given how much there is to read, and how hopeless the prospect of even making a dent on the sheer wealth of worthy philosophy, art and literature to consume in the course of our lifetimes, it's wise to dispense with what is not useful, what is not beautiful (or sublime) and what does not make you, in the end, happy. Focus on what does all of this instead.
Finally, you may like this site if you haven't seen it already: http://virtualphilosopher.com/
What I meant by that passage was that multiple ideas had to exist for my philosophy to be self fulfilling, some people may need meaning in their lives to develop an essence. I, however, don't feel I need a profound meaning to exist contently, which may be contradicted by itself. Also, I felt people like to rationalize things, I don't want the ideas I live by to be completely rational. Given, the bit on Marxism is irrelevant and should not have been included as it becomes moot with the use of the archaic term, which I realize has little to do with personal philosophy. I think I was using it as filler, hoping no one would really question it.
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of Nietzsche, but not Schopenhauer. It's a bit difficult to find anything in the only bookstore within an hour of my home. Most of what I've read has been found in literature sections, so the dead philosophies are a bit more enchanting than they would normally be if simply explained as they would be in any other case. (Also, I should have aligned my concept with Nietzsche's humanity goals more than nihilism; I now understand I've misused yet another term. It's a bit of a mirror image of my believed individual concept at some points, to be honest. Funny how easily things can make one feel less unique, but, at the same time, be satisfied with this feeling as identity building.)
I agree that no published philosophy is fulfilling on a personal level for anyone other than the philosopher. But I believe aspects can be adapted and create a placeholder of psychological contentment. Some ideas of existentialism, for example, made me take responsibility, but not feel burdened by it because of my proposed small influence. I can make interpretations of something, feel enlightened for a few days and dispose of it as I have with the rest of the philosophy. And with the knowledge that none of it suits my life every day.
I enjoy the advice of the fourth paragraph. And, with the hope greater intellectual maturity will ensue in due time, I may live with it.
My list of bookmarked websites grows once again, thank you!