How would you chose which 'existential imperative' to adopt?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » How would you chose which 'existential imperative' to adopt?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Mon 25 May, 2009 02:33 pm
How would you chose which 'existential imperative' [to use Bonaventurian's term] to adopt?

It's all good saying we mold our essence and we chose what into; but HOW do we chose?
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 09:10 am
@Greg phil,
i'll elaborate on this topic elsewhere (as a function of discussion on 'free will/agency'), but, for now: this 'imperative' or impulse to choose is as singular as the folks who each exercise it

it would be nice if a universal criteria for choosing could be codified, but, since there's not a one who moves through the world as a wholly 'rational' agent, or as an accurate reflection of his or her fellows, this codifying of a fictional universal is like chasing after angels

the only real question that can be asked: 'how did/do YOU (as individual) come to choose 'this' or 'that'?'

and, in asking that question: the inquirer must be prepared to get answers he or she may not understand simply because those answers may be so idiosyncratic and subjective as to be nonsensical to anyone other than the answerer (which is why i, for the moment, put aside attempting to describe my own criteria)
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 10:52 am
@Greg phil,
I understand it as doing so at each moment, rather than necessarily defining a rule to live by, though existentialism kind of imparts its own rules: don't subscribe; don't submit; don't lie to yourself.

Look at the reasons why you choose to do something. Are you doing it because that's the way you've been told to do it? That's subscription. Are you doing it because you feel someone makes you do it? That's submission. Are you doing it when, if you think about it, you couldn't say that's the thing you feel you should be doing? Then you're lying to yourself.

If you avoid all these pitfalls, you'll probably converge on what you should be doing, what's true to yourself.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Tue 26 May, 2009 02:41 pm
@Greg phil,
Hmm, both fair posts.
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Wed 27 May, 2009 09:46 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;64977 wrote:
HOW do we chose?

EXperience, man. EXistence. Experience everything you can. Trial and error. You fall and you get back up. If you're open to learning, you say, "won't make that mistake again." If you're an idiot you get upset and start pumping your fists in rage.

There's no 'right' formula, everyone is operating on trial and error when you get right down to it. So find your own rhythm, do your own thing. Mistakes are carved into the basis of the existentialist way of life.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 08:34 am
@Greg phil,
Stick the imperatives up on the wall, and then throw darts at them. It seems to be at least as effective as trial and error.
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:20 pm
@Greg phil,
I will note that I'm not convinced that anyone has really given me a solid reason to accept existentialism.
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 12:24 pm
@Greg phil,
good

the only existentialism you should accept, or invest in, is your own

in other words: it's all on YOU, buddy... Wink
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 01:27 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;65411 wrote:
I will note that I'm not convinced that anyone has really given me a solid reason to accept existentialism.

You're not really getting it are you?

No one is trying to get you to "accept" existentialism. We are not Existential Priests waving flags of dogma in your face.

The whole point is that no one should be able to convince you of anything. You have to go by your own experience.
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Thu 28 May, 2009 02:10 pm
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey wrote 'You have to go by your own experience'


as the delightfully hateful l-f celine wrote: 'experience is a dim lamp which only lights the one who bears it'

with absolutely no respect for my communitarian enemies: only you, greg, can decide the criteria -- if any -- you'll use to forge a world view, and the living you do within the context of that world view

you can read a library of philosophy, involve yourself in a lifetime of discussion, philosophize till your blue in the face from rot...all meaningless

at best: the books, the discussion, the musings, MAY point you in a direction

ultimately, though, a philosophy is only useful when 'lived'

we -- each of us -- are 'action'...we move in and through the world...it's in the 'doing' that one lives, experiences, and ultimately self-defines

and: if you begin from the apparent -- that there is no objective purpose/meaning to the world -- the job of bringing meaning/purpose to yourself rests entirely on YOU

you can cling to the 'ready-made' foisted up by those who would use you (as a resource, a cog), or, you can claim your 'self' as your first and best property and move forward

i should warn you: claming your 'self' is liable to put you at odds with almost everyone and anyone...setting your own agenda (your 'self') FIRST always antagonizes those who believe you owe them submission or service...
 
Greg phil
 
Reply Sat 30 May, 2009 08:11 am
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey;65421 wrote:
You're not really getting it are you?

No one is trying to get you to "accept" existentialism. We are not Existential Priests waving flags of dogma in your face.

The whole point is that no one should be able to convince you of anything. You have to go by your own experience.

Yes I know that :rolleyes: but I'm not convinced that I should go by my own experience: in fact I'm not even sure what that means.
 
Bones-O
 
Reply Sun 31 May, 2009 01:48 pm
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey;65421 wrote:
You're not really getting it are you?

No one is trying to get you to "accept" existentialism. We are not Existential Priests waving flags of dogma in your face.

The whole point is that no one should be able to convince you of anything. You have to go by your own experience.


Reminds me of something written about Nietzsche: if you agree with him, you've misunderstood him. Point being he's trying to get you to think for yourself, not agree with what he thinks.
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 09:56 am
@Bones-O,
greg wrote: '...I'm not convinced that I should go by my own experience...'

what else do you have?

certainly your experiences are often faulty: imperfect senses funneling only a slice of information about the world into an imperfect brain where this fragmented information is imperfectly 'processed' and 'interpreted'


but -- again -- what else do you have?


sure: you can open yourself to the experiences of others but those experiences are just as likely to be imperfect as your own...and even less useful to you since those experiences (and the interpretations of those experiences) are idiosyncratic to the others, just as yours are to you


as for what 'going by your own experiences' means: you -- a discrete, autonomous, individual -- 'live'...your 'experiences' is your 'living'

example: how do you know fire is hot?

someone warned you, and, you got burned anyway when you investigated for yourself

you define 'you' in the living, in the experiencing...
 
nameless
 
Reply Tue 2 Jun, 2009 03:09 pm
@Greg phil,
Greg;64977 wrote:
How would you chose which 'existential imperative' [to use Bonaventurian's term] to adopt?

It's all good saying we mold our essence and we chose what into; but HOW do we chose?

'Choice' is an illusion of vanity.
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Thu 4 Jun, 2009 08:33 am
@nameless,
"'Choice' is an illusion of vanity."

how so?
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 01:45 am
@henry quirk,
henry quirk;66531 wrote:
"'Choice' is an illusion of vanity."

how so?

Thumbnail version;
In order to fully define something/someone, context must be inherent in the description/definition. One cannot fully define a 'fish' without using the 'concept'/word of 'water'. Ultimately (think Butterfly Effect), to define anything, fully, would involve the entire Universe in the definition.
The entire Universe is the complete definition of any 'feature' of the Universe, such as us, or a rock, or a galaxy, or a dream...
Every moment, what is, is. It can be no other than what is Here!Now! and Here!Now! and..
There are no options.
For one to actually believe that one can, thus, alter the entire Universe to accord with one's 'desires' (usually to achieve 'personal comfort'! "So what if I wipe out a civilization in another galaxy to have that Mercedes, ignorance is truly bliss!"), or 'will' (another vain notion), is to believe that one is (a) god, creator (and 'mover') of galaxies and thighmasters...
That, my friend, is 'vanity', egoic pride.
To 'believe' that one has 'free-will/choice' is the ultimate vanity, ('sin' of) pride.
What is, is, forever! There is no moment that can be 'changed' from what it is.
Nor is there, or ever has there been, any scientific or logical evidence that there can be anything other than what is... Here!Now! and Here!Now!...
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 10:03 am
@nameless,
if i choose to eat at joe's instead of lou's: i've made a choice...one based on my preferences and my understanding of the circumstances

if i choose to nurture the baby instead of cook it: i've made a choice...one based on my preferences and my understanding of the circumstances

if i choose to write a book instead of just reading the ones written by others: i've made a choice...one based on my preferences and my understanding of the circumstances

if i choose to respond to your post instead of ignoring it: i've made a choice...one based on my preferences and my understanding of the circumstances

my point, i think, is made...

in case, however, my point is too blunt:

"One cannot fully define a 'fish' without using the 'concept'/word of 'water'. Ultimately (think Butterfly Effect), to define anything, fully, would involve the entire Universe in the definition."

i have absolutely no need to seek or pin down some ultimate definition of 'fish' if all i intend is to choose between eating catfish or trout

in fact: all i need to know to make a choice is that both taste good and i want one, the other, or both for supper, or, perhaps -- despite my desire for fish -- tonight i'll have mac and cheese instead
 
nameless
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 02:40 pm
@henry quirk,
henry quirk;66683 wrote:
if i choose to eat at joe's instead of lou's: i've made a choice...one based on my preferences and my understanding of the circumstances

So, the 'feeling', the 'illusion', of having made a 'choice' is sufficient for you. Quite common.

Quote:
my point, i think, is made...

You make no point with you're naive string of "is so...is so...is so" assertions other than that you are nurturing a 'belief' with which you identify, and must support against all commers, no matter how logical or scientific.
Quite common, but not philosophy.
'Good enough to be comfy to the ego', and the subsequent end of critical thought/examination is not philosophy, it's religion.

I thought that, perhaps, you asked for clarification in an attempt to understand 'this' Perspective, perhaps comment or examine on what I have offered. Instead it seems you just wanted to argue/present/'defend' youPerpsective rather than understand 'this' one.
'Believe' (and respond) as you must, after all, you have no 'choice' (except as/in your 'feelings/beliefs').
Sorry to waste our time, but I never had a 'choice' either.

happy trails..
 
henry quirk
 
Reply Fri 5 Jun, 2009 03:44 pm
@nameless,
"So, the 'feeling', the 'illusion', of having made a 'choice' is sufficient for you."

you've offered nothing but a twist of language (you played with placeholders) to support your position, while i offer my own (and presumably your own) direct, unmediated, experience


"You make no point with you're naive string of "is so...is so...is so" assertions other than that you are nurturing a 'belief' with which you identify, and must support against all commers, no matter how logical or scientific."

i've made a point based in the reality of experience...you have offered no logic or science...i submit it's you who offers 'belief' masquerading as fact


"I thought that, perhaps, you asked for clarification in an attempt to understand 'this' Perspective, perhaps comment or examine on what I have offered. Instead it seems you just wanted to argue/present/'defend' youPerpsective rather than understand 'this' one."

that's exactly why i asked: for clarification

you clarified, i understand your view: i think you're wrong


i note in your little dismissal: you never actually addressed my essential position, which i reproduce here:

>i have absolutely no need to seek or pin down some ultimate definition of 'fish' if all i intend is to choose between eating catfish or trout

>in fact: all i need to know to make a choice is that both taste good and i want one, the other, or both for supper, or, perhaps -- despite my desire for fish -- tonight i'll have mac and cheese instead

*shrug*


"Sorry to waste our time, but I never had a 'choice' either."

weeding out error (as i've done here) is never a waste of time...and: you always have a choice...however: if it comforts you to believe yourself buffeted left and right, up and down, by the impersonal forces of the universe, then, please, go to it


"happy trails.."

you left out the '************', ************...HA!

Wink
 
nameless
 
Reply Sat 6 Jun, 2009 01:37 am
@henry quirk,
henry quirk;66719 wrote:

weeding out error (as i've done here) is never a waste of time

Hahahaha! Whatever helps you sleep...
Further response would be fruitless.
nameless out
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Existentialism
  3. » How would you chose which 'existential imperative' to adopt?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 11:02:06