Life Exp. Vs Stotic Philosophy

[Mr_Paper]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Argh. Language games*. Mr Paper - what's your definition of Existentialism, then?

SCC

*"Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language."

Language games? That's why I labelled them very complex. ^^ A professor of mine once joked that the ultimate goal of philosophy wasn't truely understanding but rather to confuse the masses into believing we know what we're talking about.

I would say Existentialism is best represented by a combination of the views of Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre, namely, humans suffer a deep anxiety because they cannot be certain of anything, of any meaning. Adding to this, not only is there no logic to existence, but the truly strong person rises and masters the absurdity of life. Or as Sartre said: an attempt to live logically in a universe that is ultimately absurd.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by Mr_Paper

I would say Existentialism is best represented by a combination of the views of Søren Kierkegaard, Friedrich Nietzsche and Jean-Paul Sartre, namely, humans suffer a deep anxiety because they cannot be certain of anything, of any meaning. Adding to this, not only is there no logic to existence, but the truly strong person rises and masters the absurdity of life. Or as Sartre said: an attempt to live logically in a universe that is ultimately absurd.

One of the pages you linked to has Sartre himself saying that Existentialism only exists as "a footnote to Marxism" and that he thought it was largely political rather than personal. Isn't Existentialism supposed to be something particularly, uh, more to do with the individual?

SCC

[Mr_Paper]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

One of the pages you linked to has Sartre himself saying that Existentialism only exists as "a footnote to Marxism" and that he thought it was largely political rather than personal. Isn't Existentialism supposed to be something particularly, uh, more to do with the individual?

SCC

Many Existentialist geared their interpetations of it to what appealled to them. Sartre was a devoted marxist and as such many of his post war works on Existentialism are geared towards that end. Many, if not the vast majority of his works, are focused more on politics than philosophy. However, he was most likely not mistaken, entirely atleast, in his claim.

One of the key points of existentialism is that life consists of numerous, almost sufficating, decisions. One lives by making decision after decision and it is unfortunate but every decision results in some suffering by one's self and for others. As such Existentialists, most anyways, desire systems in which they need make the fewest decisions possible, not only to prevent their own suffering but the suffering of others that comes from their decisions. Under pure, theoretical communism and marxism the decisions needing made are few which results in the least suffering by all parties. While I cannot fault his reasoning, I find it escapist by nature. For an Existentialist, rather (possibly) the founder of modern existentialism, that believed one must persue and live life, that life was these decisions that brought us pain and suffering, to claim that one must now persue a course opposite to those beliefs by escaping the decisions that define life is a view of his that I cannot agree with.

His opinion on the matter is highly questionable from the start, beginning with his outright denouncing of Marxism and Communism to his sudden flop and change of opinion in embracing them after the war. Throughout his career as both a political figure and a philosopher he argues for one side then suddenly switches and embraces that which he was arguing against. While his works were important to existentialism, he did bring it into public view, his later efforts of asscosiating it with marxism and communism then declaring it nothing more than an 'ideology' probably did it more harm than good (truth be told he is also acreditted with the death of Existentialism). His works before the end of World War Two were his best, while he was still an Existentialist. >.>

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by Mr_Paper

Also, after rereading Inuzuka's posts I think they're interested in finding out whether people believe it is better to simply live one's life or live in comtemplation of life. I may be wrong, but their replies after my initial post seem to indicate this.

Ultimately,that was the question,but like many have said,the question itself is extremely loose,thus no real 'on topic' progressive discussion can be truly made.On the other hand,why does it matter?
As i have stated,because the core topic of this thread is too 'loose', it is very free to a multitude of various perspectives on this matter.(*What ever you think it to be*)Thus,the debate between Mr_Paper and stonecoldcrazy has pretty much elevated this thread beyond my muddied 'goals' for it,and i find myself humbled.But no big surprise there though,there's only that much my 13 year old brain can take,and that sadly isn't alot

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by dreamless

Also "Stoic - A member of an originally Greek school of philosophy, founded by Zeno about 308 B.C., believing that God determined everything for the best and that virtue is sufficient for happiness. Its later Roman form advocated the calm acceptance of all occurrences as the unavoidable result of divine will or of the natural order"? is far different from "practical wisdom; calmness of temper and judgment; equanimity; fortitude"...

It's not far different, but I can understand if you find it somewhat different.

If you look up terms that derived from a philosophical school of thought in the dictionary, what you will find is not it's actual historical meaning, like what the Stoics did and thought, but what the respective English word has come to mean. These are two different things. For example, the English word "cynical", came from the Cynicals, but this does not mean that their whole ideology consisted in the lack of faith in human nature. As a matter of fact, I remember reading somewhere that the English word "epicurian" means something very different from what that of the philosophy and beliefs of the Epicurians. This is why we actually need to read up on the Stoics, and I read some of Mr. Paper's sites, which I found quite informative.
Thank you for the links, Mr. Paper.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

As a matter of fact, I remember reading somewhere that the English word "epicurian" means something very different from what that of the philosophy and beliefs of the Epicurians. This is why we actually need to read up on the Stoics, and I read some of Mr. Paper's sites, which I found quite informative.
Thank you for the links, Mr. Paper.

Epicureanism was a type of philosophy based around the ideas of Epicurus who, I believe, said that the prime good was pleasure, ie avoidance of suffering, so a pursuit of pleasure, including materialism, was a healthy way to live your life. Epicureanism isn't supposed to a headonistic worship of Dionysus, merely an embracing of what's good in life. His materialistic attitude was also a rejection of superstition, so I suppose some of his ideas of enjoyment came from freeing yourself from worrying about God/gods - focus on pleasing yourself first.

The English language definition of the word Epicurean means "Devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, especially to the enjoyment of good food and comfort."

SCC

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Epicureanism was a type of philosophy based around the ideas of Epicurus who, I believe, said that the prime good was pleasure, ie avoidance of suffering, so a pursuit of pleasure, including materialism, was a healthy way to live your life. Epicureanism isn't supposed to a headonistic worship of Dionysus, merely an embracing of what's good in life. His materialistic attitude was also a rejection of superstition, so I suppose some of his ideas of enjoyment came from freeing yourself from worrying about God/gods - focus on pleasing yourself first.

SCC

The ends make sense, it's just that the motivations behind the core goal of the school of thinking is queer, imo.
Yes, because ultimately everything in your life boils down to you one way or another, you should focus on yourself. But living in materialism is only a momentary indulgence, a kind of escape from reality, (Quite different from religious worship kind of escapism though*) and with accordance to life exp, you can't get wise/smart/learn of the best way to live according to your personal preferences, without having life experience!

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Epicureanism was a type of philosophy based around the ideas of Epicurus who, I believe, said that the prime good was pleasure, ie avoidance of suffering, so a pursuit of pleasure, including materialism, was a healthy way to live your life. Epicureanism isn't supposed to a headonistic worship of Dionysus, merely an embracing of what's good in life. His materialistic attitude was also a rejection of superstition, so I suppose some of his ideas of enjoyment came from freeing yourself from worrying about God/gods - focus on pleasing yourself first.

The English language definition of the word Epicurean means "Devoted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, especially to the enjoyment of good food and comfort."

SCC

Well, the phrase I was refering to is: "unlike 'epicurean', the sense of the English adjective 'stoical' is not utterly misleading with regard to its philosophical origins." Since all I ever read about Epicureans was from Sophie's World, I won't even go into that. >.>

As for the Stoics, I'm not so convinced that they chose to disregard life experience for their own idealism. I'm still at odds with what the title in this thread proposes. The Stoics believed in reason as the basis for all essential things, including God, morality, and virtue. They shunned all human passions, for they viewed them as essentially irrational. They also allowed room for no middle ground; a person was either wholly virtuous, or wholly evil. Similarly, virtue alone was good, and vice along was evil; everything else was indifferent. Poverty, disease, pain, richness, pleasure, all these were neither good nor bad. Later on the Stoics apparently modified the lines of their beliefs and made it less cynical, though at the risk of inconsistency. They became more lenient in the acceptance of human passions, acknowledged that some individuals were virtuous at different levels, and that things outside of the circle of virtue/vice were not wholly unimportant at equal degrees.

So, what of life experience? Is everyone thinking of life experience in strictly physical terms? Because I think that any life that you feel you ought to pursue, if one is following what he/she believes to be their purpose in the universe, this is undergoing their life experience process. If you decide that you must spend a certain number of years in seclusion from society, living in a hut doing nothing but thinking and philosophizing, I'll gladly accept this as experiencing your life. If contemplating life is what you feel you must do, then live this way; I see no reason to discard it as life experience. It seems that most people consider life experience as limited to social interactions, complying with societal institutions, or living an active life, perhaps. What I don't consider to be "life experience", is a situation where the person lives in total and complete oblivion to life, as in their place in the world - without thinking ever thinking about it. Maybe these are people without goals, or who just don't care, or lack any wisdom to care. But I don't think that the Stoics chose not to live their lives; it's just that they were indifferent to everything except what they thought was important, and this is how they chose to go about living.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

Well, the phrase I was refering to is: "unlike 'epicurean', the sense of the English adjective 'stoical' is not utterly misleading with regard to its philosophical origins." Since all I ever read about Epicureans was from Sophie's World, I won't even go into that. >.>

Yeah, sorry about that, I went off on a bit of a tangent and didn't quite follow the flow of that conversation thread.

As for what life experience is, I have no idea, really. It's not something I could define in strict terms.

SCC

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

As for the Stoics, I'm not so convinced that they chose to disregard life experience for their own idealism. I'm still at odds with what the title in this thread proposes. The Stoics believed in reason as the basis for all essential things, including God, morality, and virtue. They shunned all human passions, for they viewed them as essentially irrational. They also allowed room for no middle ground; a person was either wholly virtuous, or wholly evil. Similarly, virtue alone was good, and vice along was evil; everything else was indifferent. Poverty, disease, pain, richness, pleasure, all these were neither good nor bad. Later on the Stoics apparently modified the lines of their beliefs and made it less cynical, though at the risk of inconsistency. They became more lenient in the acceptance of human passions, acknowledged that some individuals were virtuous at different levels, and that things outside of the circle of virtue/vice were not wholly unimportant at equal degrees.

So, what of life experience? Is everyone thinking of life experience in strictly physical terms? Because I think that any life that you feel you ought to pursue, if one is following what he/she believes to be their purpose in the universe, this is undergoing their life experience process. If you decide that you must spend a certain number of years in seclusion from society, living in a hut doing nothing but thinking and philosophizing, I'll gladly accept this as experiencing your life. If contemplating life is what you feel you must do, then live this way; I see no reason to discard it as life experience. It seems that most people consider life experience as limited to social interactions, complying with societal institutions, or living an active life, perhaps. What I don't consider to be "life experience", is a situation where the person lives in total and complete oblivion to life, as in their place in the world - without thinking ever thinking about it. Maybe these are people without goals, or who just don't care, or lack any wisdom to care. But I don't think that the Stoics chose not to live their lives; it's just that they were indifferent to everything except what they thought was important, and this is how they chose to go about living.

So ultimately the question cannot be answered, with reference to your post (Or was your post the result of my inability to clarify the meaning behind the question posed in the first post) It all depends on how you live ultimately, how you choose to live, what you think is right, and what you think is conducive for yourself. Different studying methods ar suitable for different people, the same goes for philosophy. You are the one who judges what is correct and what isn't. The choice is yours ultimately.

Regarding the meaning behind the question in the first post. 'Life experience' means 'wisdom/philosophy you can gain only by experiencing things'. And 'stotic philosophy' dosen't refer to stoticism. (terribly sorry, my ignorance in such matters caused you guys such confusion) It merely refers to 'contemplating about life progressivly from a third person view'.
In other words, would you be able to find a more suitable philosophy for living your life from looking at it from a third person perspective, or would you be better able to do it from experiencing it in first-person.

Ironcically, because of my blunder, the various schools of philosophy i was exposed to does provided wonderful insight for myself

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

So ultimately the question cannot be answered, with reference to your post (Or was your post the result of my inability to clarify the meaning behind the question posed in the first post) It all depends on how you live ultimately, how you choose to live, what you think is right, and what you think is conducive for yourself. Different studying methods ar suitable for different people, the same goes for philosophy. You are the one who judges what is correct and what isn't. The choice is yours ultimately.

This is your interpretation of what that followed from my post, not bad, but not quite my point. I believe in a definition of "life experience", as well as the idea of being dead while alive. But what within that question pertains to this conversation - which I was explaining - is the fact that I don't believe life experience should be regarded strictly in terms of social interactions, physical developments and activities, or co-existence. Therefore, I was pointing out that Stoicism/living in contemplation of life, was also a legitimate form of life experience, at least from the perspective of its philosophical origins.

Regarding the meaning behind the question in the first post. 'Life experience' means 'wisdom/philosophy you can gain only by experiencing things'. And 'stotic philosophy' dosen't refer to stoticism. (terribly sorry, my ignorance in such matters caused you guys such confusion) It merely refers to 'contemplating about life progressivly from a third person view'.
In other words, would you be able to find a more suitable philosophy for living your life from looking at it from a third person perspective, or would you be better able to do it from experiencing it in first-person.

There seems to be a logical contradiction in the way you phrased the question. But I appreciate the attempt to perpetuate the discussion
Even if you look at your life from a third person perspective, you can't stop yourself from experiencing-those things which you are viewing in the third person- in first person. They are intertwined.*

I humbly suggest to rephrase it as "viewing your life from your own perspective,(not taking into account the third-person absolute) , or from a third person view, (wholly objective and nonsusceptible to your prejudices and passions)?" (to simplify it -> your perspective v. a neutral perspective instead of your life experience versus a third person perspective)
I believe it would be better to acknowledge your own first person view, but then adopt a third person perspective (as in, a neutral and objective viewpoint) when taking measures and balancing rights and wrongs. This allows for one to act based on reason and morality, instead of irrational passions (frustration, anger, jealousy, etc).

*Assuming someone can contemplate their lives - or life in general - from a third-person view, this should not hinder them from incorporating their own natural perception and judgment into it. Not viewing your life from your own perspective is a merely abstract concept, which is, in a practical sense, seemingly impossible. Can you stop yourself from feeling the impact of others and their actions? How can you stop yourself from passing your own judgment into the world around you, and even the smallest incidents? In order to not look at the world according to your own view (first person view), it would be necessary to extinguish all your sense of morality, values, impressions, judgements, past experience, etc. I can see this being possible in a theoretical sense, however. Ultimately it boils down to the question I presented as stated above, I think.

[Inuzuka]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

There seems to be a logical contradiction in the way you phrased the question. But I appreciate the attempt to perpetuate the discussion
Even if you look at your life from a third person perspective, you can't stop yourself from experiencing-those things which you are viewing in the third person- in first person. They are intertwined.*

Gah! >_<;!!

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by Inuzuka

Ironcically, because of my blunder, the various schools of philosophy i was exposed to does provided wonderful insight for myself

I think you're underestimating your ability to be interesting and contribute to the discussion. You might think you were wrong on some points but I think you've asked some good questions and made some interesting suggestions. In doing so you've contributed both from yourself, but also in drawing things out of other people. Discussion is an important part of philosophy and it's how a lot of ideas develop and get field tested. In my opinion, no philosopher can work alone.

SCC

[JOJOS'STAR]

Phillosophy? no hillosophic people. yeah right, "yawn"

Am I therfore I post? meh.. I guess so, as any other manifest of intellect is proof of a soul.. I'm not sure I believe that. Its too easy.

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

I think you're underestimating your ability to be interesting and contribute to the discussion. You might think you were wrong on some points but I think you've asked some good questions and made some interesting suggestions. In doing so you've contributed both from yourself, but also in drawing things out of other people. Discussion is an important part of philosophy and it's how a lot of ideas develop and get field tested. In my opinion, no philosopher can work alone.

SCC

I agree. Especially considering this kid is only 13. When I was that age, I don't think I even knew what philosophy was.

I just wish more people would post here, though. Where are all the other AnimeSuki thinkers?


and SCC, I didn't mean my rep comment in a bad way I just meant, no need to apologize, as in "no prob"

Originally Posted by JOJOS'STAR

Phillosophy? no hillosophic people. yeah right, "yawn"

Am I therfore I post? meh.. I guess so, as any other manifest of intellect is proof of a soul.. I'm not sure I believe that. Its too easy.

...You post mindless ramblings in a philosophy thread, therefore you are o_O?

[devilzabuza]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

"viewing your life from your own perspective,(not taking into account the third-person absolute) , or from a third person view, (wholly objective and nonsusceptible to your prejudices and passions)?"

wierdly enough my father said that seeing things in a neutral manner without any prejudices was one of the "requirements"(the way he explained is as if it was merely a "side effect")to gain enlightenment and become a buddha.




ok inuzuka i posted already stop irritating me on MSN bout this thread>.<

[Tzurial]

I will attempt to join the discussion because I feel life experience has such a bigger role than contemplation or stoic observation or neutral perspectives or whatever is being argued (wow, Im really lost). The past is something so sensuous to me that my frustration is almost unbearable when people mindlessly echo false apothegms like "the past is past" and what not

But! I think the "stoic" or third person view ultimately prevails over life experience and that's because personal experience can too easily be mistaken for fact. Just last week me and my roommate were talking about ducks..(If you dont mind me using ducks as a shallow analogy of my point -_- ) She said she hated ducks because she was bitten by one when she was little. While I have also been bitten by ducks, I have been able to step back from my experience, realize not all ducks are mean biters and wholly admit I love them. Sooo..I dont know where Im going with this, I just really like ducks

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by PriestessKikyo

...and SCC, I didn't mean my rep comment in a bad way I just meant, no need to apologize, as in "no prob"

I know what you meant, don't worry about it I was just being silly, but I guess, uh, it didn't work again. I thought it was very kind of you to mention that, actually.

SCC

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

I will attempt to join the discussion because I feel life experience has such a bigger role than contemplation or stoic observation or neutral perspectives or whatever is being argued (wow, Im really lost). The past is something so sensuous to me that my frustration is almost unbearable when people mindlessly echo false apothegms like "the past is past" and what not

But! I think the "stoic" or third person view ultimately prevails over life experience and that's because personal experience can too easily be mistaken for fact. Just last week me and my roommate were talking about ducks..(If you dont mind me using ducks as a shallow analogy of my point -_- ) She said she hated ducks because she was bitten by one when she was little. While I have also been bitten by ducks, I have been able to step back from my experience, realize not all ducks are mean biters and wholly admit I love them. Sooo..I dont know where Im going with this, I just really like ducks

I think personal experience, as well as possibly being mistaken for fact as you say (God, I can't stand people who label things as 'weird' because they lie outside or are different to their own personal experiences of life), can also lead to bias. I'll freely admit that certain things that've happened to me have probably shaped my views and my philosophies. For example, how people have treated me and reacted to me as a child, what my childhood was like, things that personally make me happy or frustrate me. Such things tie deeply into my interests and passions for philosophy. I tend to see philosophy as a sort of uber-intellectual therapy, perhaps not too different to the way Wittgenstein sometimes said he did, a way we can work to solve our problems, our own ones, as well as the world's.

Philosophy means a lot to me because of this. I find a lot of philosophy very heartening and even inspiring, from the sensible, pragmatic thinking of the Greeks, who were way ahead of their time, to the gall of the Scholastic philosophers who had the nerve to speak out against their faith and the church for how it behaved and its hypocritical attitudes to religion and God (if only we taught what they were teaching 1000 years ago in schools today...), to the moral and ethical dilemmas that carry on to this day. It seems, to me anyway, that philosophers wrestling with ethical issues have worked far longer and harder than priests who have repeated passages out of books.

And then there's the fact that the struggle for communication and understanding matters to me anyway, and so this naturally leads me to be interested in someone like Wittgenstein.

So, uh, yeah, returning to your point, I think that is relevant. What happens to us and how we feel affects us all the time. Conciously and unconciously. We should try to be as concious as possible.

SCC

[MikoKikyo]

Originally Posted by Tzurial

But! I think the "stoic" or third person view ultimately prevails over life experience and that's because personal experience can too easily be mistaken for fact. Just last week me and my roommate were talking about ducks..(If you dont mind me using ducks as a shallow analogy of my point -_- ) She said she hated ducks because she was bitten by one when she was little. While I have also been bitten by ducks, I have been able to step back from my experience, realize not all ducks are mean biters and wholly admit I love them. Sooo..I dont know where Im going with this, I just really like ducks

Life experience in itself means little. It all depends on how you receive it, on what you make of it. That's what your example tells me. Two people can undergo the same exact experience; one be traumatized, the other may let it go. How you interpret the events and how you let life exp. impact you is all dependent on your psyche and personality; and perhaps adopting a third person view, is a wise way of dealing with that. It is a way of controlling life, rather than letting the events in your life dictate how you'll react to them.

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

I know what you meant, don't worry about it I was just being silly, but I guess, uh, it didn't work again. I thought it was very kind of you to mention that, actually.

Ok, just checking. (I think it was the "hmpf" that threw me off XD)