Philosophical topics

[Erich Fromm]

I would disagree. Both are necessary for positive change. One is not more valuable than the other. Take Shiva, the great destroyer. Shiva is responsible for change through death and destruction, which opens up the path for new creation. You wouldn't have materials to construct art without the death of animals and plants and the destruction of the earth. Destruction is crucial to creation. Margiela had long created through destruction and re-creation in the most literal sense. If you're creating you're destroying, be it the physical or the intangible (like culture and beliefs). Otherwise everything would be stagnant and unchanging if you wished to not destroy. I would not separate the two as different notions.

I would tend to agree with you. But when regarding Fromm's work you always have to keep in mind his disillusionment due to the third reich. His work and his ideas are very much influenced by his disbelief that humanity was able to be so evil. That's why destruction and similar notion are very negatively valued in his work.

[Ahimsa]

I would tend to agree with you. But when regarding Fromm's work you always have to keep in mind his disillusionment due to the third reich. His work and his ideas are very much influenced by his disbelief that humanity was able to be so evil. That's why destruction and similar notion are very negatively valued in his work.

Doesn't make his position anymore valid, however. Passivity is also an essential component in many aspects of my life to my own betterment and personality. He is far too rigid in his thinking.

[Erich Fromm]

Doesn't make his position anymore valid, however. Passivity is also an essential component in many aspects of my life to my own betterment and personality. He is far too rigid in his thinking.

I suppose when he speaks of destruction he does no necessarily mean destruction of say iron ore to create iron. That would be part of the process of creation. Destruction as something purely destructive that does not lead to creation. I do agree though that destruction is in many ways essential to creation.

I think when he talks about passivity it's more on a macro level. Of course passivity can be a good thing is certain ways, but he makes no value judgement. He says that total passivity is impossible, because you are always creating or destroying, whether that is an idea, art or whatever. Everyone is constantly creating - or destroying - ideas through thought for example. For me this very much relates to Descartes idea of the thinking thing.

The statement that he is too rigid in his thinking is a bit of a generalization IMO.

[Ahimsa]

I suppose when he speaks of destruction he does no necessarily mean destruction of say iron ore to create iron. That would be part of the process of creation. Destruction as something purely destructive that does not lead to creation. I do agree though that destruction is in many ways essential to creation.

I think when he talks about passivity it's more on a macro level. Of course passivity can be a good thing is certain ways, but he makes no value judgement. He says that total passivity is impossible, because you are always creating or destroying, whether that is an idea, art or whatever. Everyone is constantly creating - or destroying - ideas through thought for example. For me this very much relates to Descartes idea of the thinking thing.

The statement that he is too rigid in his thinking is a bit of a generalization IMO.

There is no "pure" destruction. The decimation of a city creates fertile ground, which creates and harbors new life. Creating a civilization invites the destruction of others and their culture if creation is to persist. Through passivity, however, one can alleviate themselves of these desires and prevent the enjoyment that comes from creation, as well the enjoyment which can come from destruction.
Being raised with an eastern school of thought, the idea of separating creation from destruction is reductionist and trivial to me.
On a macro level, passivity is indeed achievable.
To say that total passivity is impossible, is contradictory in attributing an absolute to an absolute.
His cultural values differ far too greatly for me, so I find his ideas too rigid. The Art of Loving is an example of this. To reject "falling in love" is exclusionary in his interpretation of the meaning of love. Such thinking eliminates the possibility of it in your life and those you might have shared it with, thus you are sadly left with only one kind of love, which I find a tad selfish. (I have read the book in it's entirety)

[Erich Fromm]

There is no "pure" destruction. The decimation of a city creates fertile ground, which creates and harbors new life. Creating a civilization invites the destruction of others and their culture if creation is to persist. Through passivity, however, one can alleviate themselves of these desires and prevent the enjoyment that comes from creation, as well the enjoyment which can come from destruction.
Being raised with an eastern school of thought, the idea of separating creation from destruction is reductionist and trivial to me.
On a macro level, passivity is indeed achievable.
To say that total passivity is impossible, is contradictory in attributing an absolute to an absolute.
His cultural values differ far too greatly for me, so I find his ideas too rigid. The Art of Loving is an example of this. To reject "falling in love" is exclusionary in his interpretation of the meaning of love. Such thinking eliminates the possibility of it in your life and those you might have shared it with, thus you are sadly left with only one kind of love, which I find a tad selfish. (I have read the book in it's entirety)

Thanks for your thoughts! I find it very interesting how you say that your thoughts stem from an upbringing in an eastern society. The west is certainly very eurocentric and if you look at the news also pretty close minded a lot of the time. To be honest I'm not familiar enough with eastern thinking to make a judgement, but I find it interesting that you say his cultural values differ so greatly from yours. For me, especially because of my countrys history I can relate very much to his ideas on freedom etc. I suppose it is a bit of a romantic approach and valueing positivity is something that our society definitely needs.

[Ahimsa]

Thanks for your thoughts! I find it very interesting how you say that your thoughts stem from an upbringing in an eastern society. The west is certainly very eurocentric and if you look at the news also pretty close minded a lot of the time. To be honest I'm not familiar enough with eastern thinking to make a judgement, but I find it interesting that you say his cultural values differ so greatly from yours. For me, especially because of my countrys history I can relate very much to his ideas on freedom etc. I suppose it is a bit of a romantic approach and valueing positivity is something that our society definitely needs.

Oddly enough, I was raised in Western society (I'm caucasian), however, my mum raised me Hindu from the teachings of Sathya Sai Baba, as well as some Buddhist and Taoist ideologies, and is a Reiki master of the Japanese energy healing. My cousins across the street were raised the same. I only interacted with Western teachings at school, as I had to come home after school everyday and it was too isolated to interact with any other children other than my cousins. Coupled with that I only had dial-up internet into my teens with 2 hours of shared access a day, and roughly 4-5 TV channels, I grew up in a very peculiar way compared to most millennials.
The largest religious groups in my immediate area were Amish and Orthodox Russian.

I hope this sheds some light into the differences of our approach to cultural values.

[Erich Fromm]

Oddly enough, I was raised in Western society (I'm caucasian), however, my mum raised me Hindu from the teachings of Sathya Sai Baba, as well as some Buddhist and Taoist ideologies, and is a Reiki master of the Japanese energy healing. My cousins across the street were raised the same. I only interacted with Western teachings at school, as I had to come home after school everyday and it was too isolated to interact with any other children other than my cousins. Coupled with that I only had dial-up internet into my teens with 2 hours of shared access a day, and roughly 4-5 TV channels, I grew up in a very peculiar way compared to most millennials.
The largest religious groups in my immediate area were Amish and Orthodox Russian.

I hope this sheds some light into the differences of our approach to cultural values.

Thank you very much for your insight! I find it fascinating how much most people are influenced by their upbringing. I recently turned 18 and all my interests and values are very much inspired by my parents. Without my parents I would most probably not be interested in art, fashion and philosophy(my 3 main areas of interest). Lately I have been appreciating very much what my parents did for me when they raised me in that particular manner. From my young childhood on they always hammered into me that intellectual growth is the most essential thing. I truly believe that and this is something that is completely independent of different cultures. Especially in Central Europe I don't have much contact to entirely different cultures, but from the people that I have met and from texts that I have read (I tried to study the Tibetan book of the dead for example) I have realized that this concept of valuing abstract thinking is something that is universal to different cultures. I guess I'm just trying to say that I value what you said greatly :)

Btw if the text has zero punctuation, which could very well be, it's because I wrote it on my phone on the bus. SZ really needs an app!

[stagename]

I find it fascinating how much most people are influenced by their upbringing.

I'd suggest to pick up distinction, logic of practice and/or outline of a theory of practice by Pierre Bourdieu. The latter two are a shorter so they might seem less daunting. And maybe this by Mauss.

And then you can move away from the shaping by your upbringing to the shaping by society and start to interrogate all social constructions. I miss my teens.

[Erich Fromm]

I'd suggest to pick up distinction, logic of practice and/or outline of a theory of practice by Pierre Bourdieu. The latter two are a shorter so they might seem less daunting. And maybe this by Mauss.

And then you can move away from the shaping by your upbringing to the shaping by society and start to interrogate all social constructions. I miss my teens.

Will do thanks!

[Erich Fromm]

Picked up all the books, thanks a lot!!

I started reading Pirsig (thanks for the recommendation Faust, great book!) today and I'm done with part 1. I want to share some thoughts I had that are loosely based on this. Now these are just thoughts so hit me with the critique!

I was thinking about what actually makes good design "good". Assume a rubric comprised of 5 areas: aesthetics, function, comfort, quality and ingenuity/innovation. Each of these is placed differently on a spectrum between objective and subjective, for example aesthetics is more subjective i.e personal preference, while quality is more objective. Good design as a concept itself is objective and not a matter of personal taste. Personal taste is detached in that someone might dislike a certain piece, but it is nonetheless good design according to the criteria. This is where postmodernism and an emphasis on subjective value becomes an obstacle. Mass taste, especially as seen today, is often not personal, but adopted taste, which is why so many people dress so similarly, not by social convention (like a suit as business wear), but by mass adoption of the same taste - basically trends. Ideally good design is aimed at at a person whos personal taste is in accordance with good design, which is why "good taste" is not necessarily subjective. Ironically if good taste is based on good design and everybody would dress in good taste then everybody would dress similarly, so this would also become an adoption of taste. The question here is where true personal taste comes from. Is it all adopted? Is good taste actually good design or is good taste mass adoption of the same taste? And if so where does that put good design?