Yes to Life

@Reconstructo,

Schopenhauer does seem to be more about silence than no. I suppose his no was a bridge to silence. One nos the Wille to contemplate Platonic ideas. Nietzsche was unfair to him (to exaggerate their differences?). Nietzsche, Spinoza, and Schopenhauer all connect, however apparently different. The right move for man was an attitude coupled with a realization.
Schopenhauer has been one of my favorite philosophers to contemplate as a person. I love the pictures of him as an old man with that wild hair. Sort of a sublime grump. I bet he was quite the joker, though.

@Reconstructo,

Spinoza taught that there was no such thing as evil.
Is this the same as Nietzsche's and/or Reconstructo's "Yes to life"?

And here's something I've wondered about before.
There's that old hip hop phrase that still annoys me a little: "It's all good."
Is that the same as "Yes to life"?

@Deckard,

Deckard;114578 wrote:

Spinoza taught that there was no such thing as evil.
Is this the same as Nietzsche's and/or Reconstructo's "Yes to life"?

And here's something I've wondered about before.
There's that old hip hop phrase that still annoys me a little: "It's all good."
Is that the same as "Yes to life"?

Yes, on the first question. But that's a poetry that's hard to live up to sometimes. Didn't Heraclitus say: "to man some things are good and others bad. To the gods all things are good.."?

"God is not good he's perfect." It's an ascetic affirmation, in its way. A bit heroic in regards to attitude. Something to strive for. A rejection of moral indignation. A rejection of whining.

This is in Schopenhauer too. His grim clarity allows for resignation. "Life is evil. Deal with it. Here's how: etc."
I get the feeling that "it's all good" is applied on a shorter term basis, but I suppose its in the affirmation family. It is an annoying phrase, isn't it?

@Reconstructo,

I thought Nietzsche's 'alternative transcendent reality' was the Uber-mensch. But this figure seemed to have no moral qualities other than the 'will to power'. Surely this foreshadowed nazism.

I honour the motto of the Theosophical Society: 'There is no religion higher than truth'. to which I would add the following appendix 'and nobody has a monopoly on it'.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114600 wrote:

I thought Nietzsche's 'alternative transcendent reality' was the Uber-mensch. But this figure seemed to have no moral qualities other than the 'will to power'. Surely this foreshadowed nazism.

I honour the motto of the Theosophical Society: 'There is no religion higher than truth'. to which I would add the following appendix 'and nobody has a monopoly on it'.

I don't think Nietzsche is that simple. He shot his mouth off in every direction, of course, so he made it easy for the Nazis to use him. I think it should be stressed that he wasn't systematic philosopher. I read him like I read the New Testament, with scissors. His best passages are great. His worst passages are embarrassing.

The way I see it, one has practical truth and spiritual truth. That we use the same word for each is deceptive, perhaps. Truth as a metaphor for what is highest and truth as mere correspondence to physical reality.

@Reconstructo,

well of course you're right. It would be a gross oversimplification to draw a straight line.

That idea of the 'Two Levels of Truth' is a concept in Buddhist epistemology - Samvriti (conventional) and Paramartha (ultimate) truth or reality. I will do a posting on it in the Buddhist forum.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;114723 wrote:

well of course you're right. It would be a gross oversimplification to draw a straight line.

That idea of the 'Two Levels of Truth' is a concept in Buddhist epistemology - Samvriti (conventional) and Paramartha (ultimate) truth or reality. I will do a posting on it in the Buddhist forum.

Samvriti as conventional is good. Reminds me that objective truth is a convention. Truth/power of Foucault.

I think Schopenhauer's Will to Live and Nietzsche's Will to Power are both mystical concepts. Heidegger accused Nietzsche of being one more metaphysician, but he could only do this by downplaying Nietzsche's irony.

I'm not anti-metaphysics like Heidegger. I agree with Schopenhauer that man is the metaphysical animal.

Philosophy Forum

Quick Links

My Account

able2know