Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Yes to Life

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

We want to say Yes to life, don't we? I think many people experience sufficient moral freedom to contemplate suicide. For these people especially to live is a choice. Didn't they used to bury suicides under the crossroads? And life was hard back then, physically much harder. And what about all those rotten teeth? They had to crack down on the option of suicide. It was in God's hands, life death and sex. But sex slipped thru the cracks sometimes, as Schopenhauer certainly understood. Good old Schopenhauer, a philosopher who directly addressed the potency of the sex drive. A philosopher who founded his system on LIFE, who knew that reason was subordinate to life. Nietzsche learned this from him.

The world has a million ideas about what to do with our blood, our money, and our labor, all three of which are closely related. I want to address philosophy-as-wisdom in this thread. I want to look at the philosophy that sustains us. What are the true lies that keep us alive? Why would I use the metaphor "lies"? Because it seems so obvious to me that reason is subordinate to life. Truth is not the prime directive. Truth is a tool in the hand of life. A happy man with his gullibility is more to be envied perhaps than the bitter man with his shrewdness. And yet I am as critical as you like. But this goes to show that criticism offers heroic possibilities. If a man prides himself on his critical mind, that is a functional sort of religion. Let's think of religion loosely as the value system that sustains a spirit/soul/psyche/mind. (I hate to be trapped in words. I say use every vocabulary as it pleases you. Know all the tricks in the book if you can.)

Romanicism can be described as the rebellion of the idiosyncratic against the universalism of the Enlightenment. But perhaps this is only my truth, a lie that works for me. As a flea on the back of the whale of capitalism, no one much asks for my opinion. This gives me the liberty to indulge myself, perhaps also the motivation. In the end I want to say yes to my seemingly finite visit to this planet, this meeting with my fellow humans. Ironism allows me to understand the maximum number of viewpoints. Any sort of dogmatism would alienate me from my ideological opponents. I vote to assimilate it all. Live big. See the world from as many perspectives as possible. Including at times the perspective of evil and cruelty. Jesus went down to hell you know.. So much genius in myth. The wisdom of the species in allegorical form. Philosophy can go a long long way just by abstracting from such myths. So this is rambling, and I welcome the rest of you to ramble here. Philosophy as wisdom as happiness as a yes to life.

Sure Nietzsche influenced me on this. The man didn't live up to his own principles all the time. But who does? Moral indignation is often a waste. Often blindness. The saint and the killer are one. All in all. Nothing human is alien to me. This is wisdom-philosophy in contrast to argumentative philosophy. This is a code language for those with ears to hear.

:sarcastic:

@Reconstructo,

Your post is verging on manic disregard. Be careful you dont drop of the edgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuhhh.

@xris,

xris;111004 wrote:

Your post is verging on manic disregard. Be careful you dont drop of the edgeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeuhhh.

I'd be happy to hear your elaboration. I put this thread in general discussion exactly because our views on life are messy. I encourage you to indulge in some "manic disregard." I've retreated from the edge quite a bit since I had sense enough to marry the perfect woman.
:sarcastic:

@Reconstructo,

We elaborate on life and its consequences in great detail but life is really quit simple. We are base creatures with ideas that we strive for but have little ability to exert. A wife of reason , children one two three. Sex is a constant pain that drives us to distraction and drains our moral fortitude.

...One night in the pub every week is my only escape from normality and then it ends in disappointment and a drunken song on the dreaded karaoke. My only success is my reasoned sanity and wonderful grandchildren, but then who could ask for more. Life is like a conveyor belt that no one can escape from, just enjoy the journey, as best you can.

I dont know if thats what you required but the red wine has influenced my judgement.thanks xris

@Reconstructo,

You've hit upon a brutal truth that lies at the basic of our philosophical existence. I suspect most either don't see it (being hopelessly immersed) or won't (feeling the plunge of nihilist encroachment upon the heart).

I'd like to expand on this more, and comment specifically on some of your statements; but alas, dinner awaits.

Nice post nonetheless - Introspection, in its most honest and laid-open form isn't always a pretty, shiny and flawless thing. I think it honorable (in that it does US honor) to acknowledge such where it applies.

Nice - thanks

@Khethil,

Khethil;111021 wrote:

You've hit upon a brutal truth that lies at the basic of our philosophical existence. I suspect most either don't see it (being hopelessly immersed) or won't (feeling the plunge of nihilist encroachment upon the heart).

Thanks, Khethil. It's a delicate subject, but one that seems inevitable for a certain type of person. I feel the many persons reach a point of self-ownership, and from there they can ask themselves some tough questions. Is a long mediocre life better than a short intense good life?

I'm well past the point of asking whether I should live in the first place, but in my twenties I played with fire and asked this question more than a few times. Not long ago a friend of mine (my age) lost his life playing with a "fire" he enjoyed. He's gone. I don't expect that he is suffering. Here I am, still playing the game and wanting to keep on playing it. Yet all roads lead to....

@Reconstructo,

Oh I was hoping this was a pro-life/anti-abortion post. Guess not. Sorry, I have abortion on the brain tonight. Decision to commit suicide similar to decision to abort a child? Oh well, this comment got away from me. Respond if you want, else ignore.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;110852 wrote:

This is a code language for those with ears to hear.

:sarcastic:

Hear what, exactly?

Pragmatically speaking, what you might be looking for is a spiritual philosophy. Most real spiritualities are firmly grounded in the realities of life, while also drawing on something from beyond it. To be completely straight about it, I don't think Neitszche ever came remotely close to this idea (or way-of-being). Hesse was somewhat closer, but if you read about his life, a considerable amount of it was gripped by inner turmoil (maybe went with the territory in his case, the conflicts he experienced were probably indispensable in creating his master works. But later in life I think he resolved them successfully.)

As for 'yes to life'. Well, find a way to be completely open to life, to kind of ride the wave of life as it flows, or surges, along. But to me, this has to be an umbilical connection, from the centre of your being. You need to be able to do this from the centre of the body, not the cerebral cortex. This sounds impossible to understand when it is written down, but it represents something simple, real and important. I got it from taking up running, martial arts and other physical disciplines, and sitting meditation practise ('zazen'). These are ways to harmonise the mind-body and conscious mind with para-sympathetic nervous system. In other words, this is yoga, in the broadest sense - union of the self with the supreme self. But it is not intellectual, it takes place on a more fundamental level. It takes quite a few years to get the hang of it, but it is worthwhile.

As for romanticism - I think the fatal flaw in romanticism was really the lack of self-knowledge combined with clinging to a projection or ideal that by definition could not be realised. Kind of a magnificent fantasy. Maybe it is one of the things that gave rise to neuroses of the late 19th Century - the gap between the romantic ideal and the bitter reality. Mind you there are many romantic works and thinkers that continue to have real lasting value and beauty, far more than many that came later, and they will always have their place in the grand scheme.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114282 wrote:

As for 'yes to life'... You need to be able to do this from the centre of the body, not the cerebral cortex. QUOTE]

It is not so much a matter of saying 'Yes to life' but willing it. Saying the words or thinking the words tends toward the cerebral. Saying yes to life is at best a mantra and at worst empty words (although I'm sure jeeprs knows more about mantras than I do).

I have always thought of willing as being something less cerebral than thinking or saying, something that comes more from the 'center of the body' than the top.

@Reconstructo,

I agree with both of you. To say it and not mean it is nothing special. So "saying" is metaphorical in this sense. Just as "seeing" the truth is. As far as "having ears to hear," this is just a nod to the necessity of interpretation. Words on a screen are nothing to the mind that can do nothing with them.

I don't remember privileging mind over body. As this is a forum on the extremely disembodied internet, I use it as a conceptual playground.

It's my opinion that Nietzsche enjoyed more than a few moments of perfect ecstasy. For awhile, I studied him intently, also reading several biographies. When the man was healthy enough, he loved to walk near mountains and water.

To some degree, all religion ties into Romanticism, or such is my opinion. In Wordsworth, we find a sort of Eco-ecstasy. In Shelley and Blake, we find a sort of Platonism. Byron is Satanic, as well as other things. All of this is interpretation and opinion. Hesse is great. Did he suffer? Clearly, considering Steppenwolf.

One could suggest the those who suffer are not wise. Whether others believe this or not is a matter of persuasion. I agree with the Bible that "wisdom makes a man's face shine." Well, there's no shortage of Nietzsche in that. His best passages celebrate winged feet and golden laughter. He was a complicated guy.

Speaking of Will, that was Schopenhauer and Nietzsche all over. Both of them looked thru dialectic to something beneath it. I sometimes think of it as a dark Platonism. The overstood rather than understood. Both decentered consciousness and rationality, presented them as the puppets of mysterious sub/trans-rational Will.

The theme of this thread for me is essential the philosophy as the pursuit of happiness, contentment, enlightenment. Call is what you will. I'm using "o" at the moment.

Can human beings maintain a constant state of euphoria, contentment, etc? Some more than others, no doubt. Personally, I count myself as one of the blessed. Everyday I see the damaged and the miserable, but I don't let it drag me down. If anyone is lucky enough to beam heavenly smiles at drunken raging bums or the excuse's of junkies, they have something I don't have. If they are content with basic necessities and privacy, I understand them well.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;114301 wrote:

euphoria, contentment, etc?

I find it very difficult to take issue with you because I enjoy your writing... But duty calls.

Here, I don't know what 'etc' might include. Going back to the basics of the Western tradition, there are 'universal aims' such as eudaimonia which is the true state of contentment found through the pursuit of virtue. You could argue that the pursuit of 'true happiness' was implicit in much Greek philosophy, for example stoicism, epicurianism, and many other schools. All of them had theories as to what was conducive to the true good, and what impeded it. (And this included the physical as well as intellectual virtues, 'sound mind and body' and the like.)

The same was true of Indian philosophy although it was more cosmic and other-wordly in many respects, and its aims more explicity spiritual. But the Buddha would often sum up his teaching as 'I teach only the cause of suffering and the ending of suffering'.

Reaching a state of emotional equilibrium and being able to maintain in it the face of life's viscissitudes surely must be one of the ideals of philosophy in both the East and West. That I would regard as a life-affirming outlook.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114314 wrote:

Reaching a state of emotional equilibrium and being able to maintain in it the face of life's viscissitudes surely must be one of the ideals of philosophy in both the East and West. That I would regard as a life-affirming outlook.

I completely agree. There's the positive aspect of wisdom and then the dirty work/fun of criticism. Of the two, wisdom/happiness/cessation of suffering is clearly more important. But then I love to read and write also, so the linguistic aspect absorbs me as well.

@Reconstructo,

There is something pitiful about all this striving. A holding of the breath. An inability to relax and just breath. Yes to life! Yes to life! Yes to life! If If I don't keep saying this over and over again a "No" might slip in and then I'll be back to square one.
Nietzsche lacked a healthy respect for equilibrium.
Yes or no?
There is a third choice: Silence.

@Reconstructo,

but there is a fly in the ointment, spanner in the works, and a million other hackneyed analogies. Once I had the idea of writing an entire philosophy book in parentheses, beginning as follows:

In a perfect world, there would be no philosophy. (But......

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

Most of what we talk about here would start at that point.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114398 wrote:

but there is a fly in the ointment, spanner in the works, and a million other hackneyed analogies. Once I had the idea of writing an entire philosophy book in parentheses, beginning as follows:

In a perfect world, there would be no philosophy. (But......

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

Most of what we talk about here would start at that point.

But do we say Yes! to the fly in the ointment because we are affirmers of life and that fly is part of life! Or do we say No! to the fly the ointment for the ointment is ruined, life is full of these little insults, the world is broken, I renounce it! Or is there really nothing to say about it? More and more, philosophy is becoming for me a pursuit of silence.

@Reconstructo,

What I am thinking of is the contrasting ideas of freedom and liberty in modern society, and in traditional philosophies. I completely appreciate the 'pursuit of silence' as a remedy, but few would consider it. Nowadays, the remedy to our nagging wants is sought in externals - in acquisitions, in relationships, possessions, achievements, and the rest. But 'the spanner in the works', is not that the world is broken, or that life is full of insults, but because there of some internal factor which prevents these externals from really providing the satisfaction we seek in them. This is what I think is not being taught in today's world, and which it is the aim of philosophy to really teach.

@Reconstructo,

Even N. said that what one has words for is already dead in one's heart. To have to say yes to life is boring for one who is living this yes. But we were all young once. I can't speak for the rest of humanity, but I wasn't always generally serene. I was stuffed with horror and angst at the ways of this world. Call me oversensitive... maybe I just got too much breastmilk. I absorbed all sorts of contradictory ideals as a youth. It meant something to discover N. Is silence golden? Absolutely. I love to walk in the middle of the night and see no humans, only possums and cats.

@Reconstructo,

Is silence just the diminishing of the will that Nietzsche wanted to distance himself from? a la Schopenhauer Buddha? I mean the internal silence. The silence I have set up against the internal "Yes to life".

Well, Schopenhauer was a pessimist, that was his schtick but maybe Buddha's ideal is closer to silence than to "No!"? The equanimous Spinoza too maybe?

It seems obvious to me that "No" is not a worthy rival for "Yes". But silence, silence may give "Yes" a run for its money. The silent Crane style vs. the Tiger style of "Yes".

Also, is silence between "yes" and "no" or is it somewhere else entirely?

@Reconstructo,

Schopenhauer was definitely on the right track. Of all the European philosophers, he was the closest to understanding the Buddhist teaching (and Indian philosophy generally). He was also undoubtedly a genius, a pioneer, and fearless in his rejection of the current social standards and mores. But he was carrying, as we all are, a lot of baggage. He was profoundly misogynistic because of his troubled relationship with his mother, and he was a very suspicious, competitive, argumentative and vain individual. It is one thing to form a verbal picture of our situation, but another to realise the import of it on the somatic level 'in the body' (which is why I keep harking back to that.) I am sure too that Spinoza had many more of those qualities of sagacity in his demeanour.

Have a look at 'Cosmic Consciousness' by R. M. Bucke, if you can get a copy. Published 1901. Has a chapter on Spinoza (in 'Lesser, Doubtful and Imperfect Cases:bigsmile:) It provides a 'theory of enlightenment' which I have found profoundly helpful in navigating all these ideas.

@Reconstructo,

Should we choose happiness over truth?
The truth does not always set us free or make us happy.
I do not think Nietzsche was happy with his notion of god is dead and traditional morality with it. He just felt compelled to be ruthlessly intellectually honest. Interestingly, he still felt compelled to create some kind of alternative transcendent morality.
Maybe we should just cling to the myths that make us happy? Choose god over truth.
Maybe faith is not truth, faith is just a gift, or rather a choice and we should accept and acknowledge it as such.

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Yes to Life

Quick Links

My Account

able2know