Philosophy discussion

Clint Eastwood as Soren Kierkegaard

That’s sort of a giant leap, is it not? Perhaps this will lead to an edifying discourse among us Goodreaders.

terrible thread

C. wrote: "terrible thread"

How much activity does this group ever see?

Frank wrote: "That’s sort of a giant leap, is it not?"

One man is the spitting image of the other, at least in this painting. I'm sure in real life, Soren was much less charismatic. There's probably quite a lot of exaggeration going on --after all, it's just the always-bogus internet.

Frank wrote: "Perhaps this will lead to an edifying discourse among us Goodreaders."

Can't really expect too much from this Goodreads group. Not that it's so very much worse than any other; just that most such klatches everywhere are rather weak.

Can this group stand a discussion of Kierkegaard? I doubt it. No one's fault; but I very much doubt that anyone has a strong enough motive.

Besides this not even being an era where people are concerned much with faith. Or reading at all, for that matter. Reading has been replaced by surfing.

Eh, not exempting myself from blame. I couldn't contribute much to a Soren K chat; I haven't read this thinker since age twelve.

Is this like those memes that use a few similarities in various portraits and photographs to prove Keanu Reeves is a vampire?

Or that, "birds aren't real"? Naw. I haven't got any such engine driving me. No message to promulgate.

This was all mere idle rumination. If it riled anyone, well I sure do beg their pardon.

Does anyone still believe in anything really? Or does everyone just click click click to keep something entertaining flowing through their brains?

It's funny how, now that the world has been been given universally accessible / cheap communication tools; all communication has been rendered worthless.

We wallow in exactly the drivel and chit-chat our forefathers strove to transcend.

Feliks wrote: "We wallow in exactly the drivel and chit-chat our forefathers strove to transcend."

That statement holds one of the most dangerous ideas in the history of humanity. The Perfectability of Man has filled mass graves the world over. Those who would install an enlightened government with the power to enforce the Greater Good have a penchant for guillotines and firing squads.

It seems to me, the best outcomes have come when people with real jobs bring the thesis and antithesis together and muddle through to a workable synthesis. As an example consider the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It was called to fix the myriad issues of the Articles of Confederation (thesis). But Jefferson and company planned to end the Articles, and replace it with what they called the Virginia Plan (antithesis). After months of muddling debate, both gave way to our current constitution (synthesis).

Compare that to the high ideals of the French Revolution and the Terror which followed. Or the Russian intellectuals who strove to bring a better tomorrow to proletariat, but only made new kinds of fear and suffering.

So for me, struggling Stoic and occasional Epicurean, I'm happy to watch the undulating drivel. I try to ask interesting questions and cite annoying sources. Sometimes, I think it mattered in a single person's day. Maybe it will lead someone to a more nuanced perspective on the nature of life.

If not, there are cooking threads and videos of axe wielding would-be vikings launching themselves with catapults.
https://youtube.com/shorts/smB6VWeV5I...

J. wrote: "That statement holds one of the most dangerous ideas in the history of humanity..."

Frankly, a bizarre response.

The history of practically every field of endeavor ----sciences as well as arts --always shows that man is at his very best when moving forward. With his fellows; for his fellows.

Blake argued with Reynolds --yet, Blake still painted and wrote; for the sake of his generation.

Aristotle argued with Plato --yet, Aristotle still lectured and wrote for the sake of his generation.

Whatever their views were, they provided a footing for the next man to step off from.

What did Newton say? "We stand on the shoulders of giants"

And Newton is right. Name me a single philosopher who advocated never doing anything for his fellow men?
Such a man --if he ever in fact, existed --was never a philosopher at all, I'd say.

Rather call him just some drab, curmudgeon crouched in some crabby backwater; some narrow corner of nihilism. He was no friend to Man.

Every artist, every statesman, every jurist, every scientist, every spiritual leader; aspires. Really, even any mother or father, any brother, or sister --we hold our hand out to help the youngest when they stumble.

Or else, what purpose is there in anyone's life? What boon is anyone to anyone else, if they serve only their own belly?

Selfishness is the most dangerous idea, not selflessness.

Can we afford to do without the likes of Madison, Jefferson, Lincoln, Jesus, Pericles, Buddha, or Schweitzer? Why? Because we fear men like Nietschze? Pah.

The man who wishes to loaf in the public square; the man who lives only live for himself? Let such cowards retreat to caves or climb atop a columns like Simon.

Medieval gravesites brim with such bodies, forgotten men from the Dark Ages who contributed nothing. Hanging alone is far worse than hanging together.

The best in human nature abhors vacuum; stagnation; futility; sloth; standing still. Making one's mark in life --what else is there?

Eating, drinking? This is all there is to be proud of, according to you? Sheeesh.

Please don't bother to reply; I've no interest in hearing any further such atavism.

I leave you with this, instead:

"To seek,
to strive,
to find
and not to yield ..." [Tennyson]

How dreary those moral philosophers must seem to you as they slow us from our bright future.

How many graves have been filled by Karl Marx's love of our fellow man? He strove to unshackle the proletariat. His invalid assumptions, narcissism, and a little bit of charm led to uncounted deaths. We are always so sure of ourselves, as we weave our own shrouds.

Should we work towards a better future? Yes.

Should we ever assume to know what is best for everyone? No.

As for those anonymous medieval corpses: How many of them are in the line of ten thousand dead men which traces from you back to the first of us? You disdain them. But without their petty little lives, you would not be.