Your Style Philosophy

[Michael_Robartes]

See Faust. I don't think my posts do really need to say much because you either get people like interest1 trolling or people making things up like dorje
Internet isn't for proper discussion because people just don't take it seriously so I don't think I need to either.

[Michael_Robartes]

Dudley gray. I don't think I have if you reread
The quoted section it is what I was saying if your not bein pedantic.
I have taken the words as they are written so perhaps I should contextualise but I'm not familiar with her work and the sentence is pretty conclusive in itself
Yack you too also are being pedantic and your writing is confusing. I do believe nietszche did not write in English so multiple translations are around. The quote isn't misquoted either as far as I'm aware. Please see google. Book: Thus Spake Zarathustra, Part III.
Chapter: Of the Spirit of Gravity, section 2, end.
And lastly dorje my suspicions are confirmed that you seem to believe in a very different, much more radical branch of Buddhism. Claiming nirvana is here and now and claiming that Buddhism doesn't believe in an awakening and achievement of greater consciousness

[Shucks]

can someone please re-rail this thread.

[yack]

I responded how I did because it's obvious you are just stirring the pot...

A couple points... that Nietzsche quote is awful. Of course there is a "right way" to view phenomenon... I don't believe in simple random occurrences.

Here is the translation that I have: "'This- is now my way- where is yours?' This did I answer those who asked me 'the way'. For the way- it does not exist!" I have no idea where the "your way, my way, theres no right way" came about.

The main theme of Nietzsche's work deals with the reevaluation of morality, its genealogy, the need in overcoming our concepts of good and evil (Beyond Good & Evil, Thus Spoke Zarathustra). The specific chapter from Zarathustra where the misquote comes from deals with how generalizations of good and evil obscure the way in which we view ourselves as individuals realizing a greater potential (not all individuals, Nietzsche isn't an egalitarian), and the lack of shortcuts in this journey.

He's not a radical leap towards moral relativism or saying there are no truths if that's what you're thinking.

Sincerely,
the Nietzsche Internet Task Force

[DudleyGray]

I think you've misunderstood the Hannah Arendt quote.

[Michael_Robartes]

Nihilism is but the other side of conventionalism; its creed consists of negations of the current so-called positive values, to which it remains bound.

I actually explain that I don't agree with nihilism because it is just a opposition of salvation faiths

Other than that nihilism just accepts the human categories of the world

[DudleyGray]

Wow this thread blew up since I last came here, but I did see one thing I wanted to address:

Dudley, it's only compassion that saves us from the depths of nihilism.

Understanding that is the key to finding meaning in life.

Nihilism is for the weak and lazy, people that are too engrossed in themselves and their ego to open their eyes. It is a cop out and one that causes untold suffering because it is not the way things REALLY work. It does not hold up to scrutiny and if you are awake enough to compare nihilist ideas with reality it will become obvious. Nihilism is a way to avoid taking responsibility for the situations and circumstances of life, it is a way to throw away all your personal power and just say "fuck it", and as such is a weak and lazy way to view the world. It is a great theory to rationalize giving up.

I would say I value compassion, but I don't think this is an accurate assessment of nihilism. Hannah Arrendt had this quote on nihilism that I saw once, it's from The Life of the Mind:

"What we commonly call "nihilism"--and are tempted to date historically, decry politically, and ascribe to thinkers who allegedly dared to think "dangerous thoughts"--is actually a danger inherent in the thinking activity itself. There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous, but nihilism is not its product. Nihilism is but the other side of conventionalism; its creed consists of negations of the current so-called positive values, to which it remains bound. All critical examinations must go through a stage of at least hypothetically negating accepted opinions and "values" by searching out their implications and tacit assumptions, and in this sense nihilism may be seen as an ever-present danger of thinking."

I think that says it better than I could have, in any case. I do have a problem of thinking too much at times, and nihilism isn't so much a conclusion as it is an inherent part of my problem.

[Dorje]

LOL,
so what do you suppose nirvana is?

right here, right now.

Congrats on your 100th post!

[Michael_Robartes]

i actually do know a little of the basics, but since your so involved, as to even use it in your username!!!!!! gasp

i am aware of nirvana, i am also aware that some buddhists claim this can be entered into after death!
shit happens after your dead?! sounds a little bit like christianity to me.
please educate me


Please, explain how there is not an imbalance in spending hundreds of unnecessary dollars on self-adornment and hours observing fashion when your true meaning comes from compassion?
*sorry if i've come over a little flustered its just you seem to keep side-stepping and side-stepping what i'm saying or i'm misunderstanding completely

[Michael_Robartes]

LOL,
so what do you suppose nirvana is?

[Dorje]

I responded how I did because it's obvious you are just stirring the pot...

A couple points... that Nietzsche quote is awful. Of course there is a "right way" to view phenomenon... I don't believe in simple random occurrences.

Your comparison of Christian to Buddhist philosophies is a huge stretch. The fact is, Buddhists are actually atheists. They make no claim of a "greater" consciousness or awakening existing. In fact, they believe everyone has the same consciousness, it is just obscured by mental afflictions to a greater or lesser degree. Someone who is "enlightened" has not achieved anything but the clearing away of mental affliction, there is no "greater" consciousness that is somehow achieved. Their philosophies are in fact founded on logic and reason, and from what you have wrote it is clear you have little to no idea what Buddhism actually is, let alone have actually taken any time to become familiar with their philosophies, as you have botched the most basic points already.

Finally, you have not pointed out any imbalances or holes in what I am saying by accusing me of not living up to the ideals I embrace. I make no claims of perfection and the fact that I or any person is not perfect does not detract from the beliefs they hold. Humans suffer from various mental afflictions and so they do things that are not "perfect", the only people that can avoid that are people who have completely cleared away those afflictions... people like Jesus Christ or the Buddha. These kinds of examples of a fully evolved human being are rare but do exist to show that the achievement is possible.

[VonApelSouce]

I used to wonder whether I over or under think philosophy in fashion.

Reading this thread helped - now I think I give up!

[Michael_Robartes]

I failed to actually pull out an argument in what you were saying so i just tried to question what you were saying about buddhism,
I still think you should reply in direct response to your first scandalous comment which is probably not how you really handle your life at all, just how claim to :D

[Michael_Robartes]

Yes it's because of FAUST'S accusation I was racing to one hundred posts with unsubstantial commentary so I thought whilst I haven't too much knowledge on clothes and style I can at least play the devil's advocate in philosophy conversations with some knowledge and opinion

Like the comment about people being delusional and wearing j crew that was made in the same light-hearted nature, I was just pointing out the ridiculousness in stating what brings meaning to life for you is the concern for others misfortune whilst being a member of a forum that habitually spends outrageous amounts of money on clothes and has a general consensus that fashion is the (obsessive) expression of the self: “Fashion stands at a unique crossroads of artistic and individual expression” and therefore we are all at least a bit self-interested.

First and foremost I am happy you replied but wish you had taken a little more time to absorb my opinion rather than come back at me with hostility and pretentiousness.
Hostile:

and it's safe to say that if you want to debate nihilism and moral relativism then you will be crushed by anyone who has a clue.

Pretentiousness:

Anyway, you should get have an idea about my beliefs if you noticed my username

Whilst the entire part about nihilism is heavily laced with opinion that I broadly agree with, I was not subscribing to nihilism just using it as a tool to poke holes in your first comment. I actually explain that I don't agree with nihilism because it is just a opposition of salvation faiths and like you said is really just a way to rationalize giving up.
I do not relinquish my responsibilities I just don't don't embellish them with religion and morals or corrupt them any other way.
I am a strong believer in Nietzsche statement:
“you have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist”
Yet I still love to talk about the ways
Buddhists may have polished up this and that, but so have christians. Yet they have polished upon cryptic claims. Whilst christians may be more radical, Buddhists are just more conservative. Christians claim a bloody lot of things, but Buddhists claim that there is a greater consciousness, a greater awakening.
To power phrase Gunaratana: we block out 99 percent of what we observe - according to research we actually do block out a lot
whilst Gray said in Straw Dogs, so beautifully something along the lines of, “our spinal cords are encrypted with traces of far older worlds”
animals vary in what their brains block out, but even us, the 'cleverest' block out so much, its natural. What makes you think we are going to be so unnatural and achieve such phenomena of salvation/meaning/deliverance!
Whilst naturally I receive it ridiculous for it to be 'impossible to defend against' an argument, (there's always another side,) perhaps in this case you are right. It is impossible to argue against something founded on illogical foundations such as Buddhism, which surmise out of thin air, no matter how subtly that we need to be delivered from meaninglessness- achieve a greater conciousness.
Lest I experience a miracle, I continue to believe in logic and evidence

[Faust]

I am excited about the parallels between Buddhism and Stoicism!