Vintage, Feel, Fun, Age. What day is it?
>Very few of Diogenes' disciples had the physical and mental stamina to become cynics. One in particular left the circle, but not before entreating Diogenes to give him one of his books. "You really are a silly fellow," said Diogenes. "Surely you wouldn't have painted figs instead of real ones. And yet you pass over the genuine practice of wisdom and would be satisfied with what is merely written."<
Or merely thought?
Nero's preceding reawakening of philosophical considerations have roused my carpenter's hands to take up and hold thought court once more.
The Kantian and Nietzschean Death Spiral
Buried in Nero's comments I left a link to a discussion on another blogspot regarding these two philosopher's relationship to advancements in psychology. It boils down to preoccupations of the mind: vidi amici...
The argument hinges upon assessments of human mental facilities and the (subjective) operation of self-reflective thought. Kant is assigned one direction and Nietzsche the opposing: the resulting debate a deceptively simplistic straw-man.
Kant's corner: That man maintains the ability, through self reflection, to rationally estime the moral/abstract quality of a given thought predicament: objectively. Thereby he's capable of leveling objective judgment and reasoning his choices.
Neitzsche's side: Indeed man might reflect, but the contents/quality of any judgment is limited to the subjective equipment of the individual. I.e. My "moral" estimation of the previous night's activities are bound in near chance- as what disciplines and lenses I choose to impose are intrinsically non-exhaustive: a grab bag of what considerations and emphases have been embraced/imprinted on self.
We receive a narrative. One philosopher is undermined by the advancing psychology, where as another is justified. Thought castles built on sand sink into the sea, in quick eventuallys- the narrative companion song.
>A disciple asked Diogenes, "What is the main reason for wearing a cynics robe and the begging bowl?"
"So as not to deceive oneself." <
Complications, Advancing Hard Skepticism
(or the Slick Slope of Perpetuating/Self-Reinforcing Language and Thought)
Argu-point through analogy:
What is the material difference between these conceptual societies?
1: Monotheistic theocratic town. Regimented belief system, with corresponding code of behavior and corresponding scale of punishment for deviation. In this conceptual world, a deity power presides from a deistic distance- outside of the material sphere. The start and limits of maintaining and enforcing belief rests only on human inhabitants.
2:Monotheistic theocratic town. Regimented belief system, with corresponding code of behavior and corresponding scale of punishment for deviation. In this conceptual world, a deity power does not exist. Again, the start and limits of maintaining and enforcing belief rests only on human inhabitants.
Long winded? Yes. Distracting analogy distances point from argument? Of course. Exhaustive example? Impossible. Poor example? Perhaps.
Vidi, what material difference is there between the above scenarios 1 & 2?
Public shame or execution produce the same material consequences in either case. Factors of deity or abstract "ordering" are irrelevant in material execution. Rather, the "Regimented belief system", its enactment and expression in the minds of these "Monotheistic theocratic town"s modifies, frames and defines the material world. Whether a town worships god, whether that god is real, whether codes are just- are all irrelevant considerations. Conceptual belief and enactment of those beliefs produce material results.
Wittgensteins, some other, etc.etc.- Conception of "reality" and according actions, make Reality.
Unoriginal it may be, this postulate is on the road to my greater point- forgive my wind Diogenes...
The Cock Which Crows Loudest, Crows Rightest
The Neitzschean model, embracing the individual's subjective imperfections, is a self-reinforcing thought system. (Oh ho ho, the skeptic man sayeth- how convenient a faith in a solely subjective reality, all one's work is already done. The belief reinforces the assertion.)
Will and its implicit power are tools for the competitive assertion of subjective realities- to the end of their becoming communal realities. The complication for Neitzschean assertions/penetrations of will, however is their embracing of the subjective basis.
Concept shapes reality. When one internalizes the limitations and shape of thoughts, thoughts tend to conform to the measures of those limits. The solipsist circuit: if my knowledge can only extend to the internal world, then-- no shit, my thoughts won't extend further than the internal.
The Back Door to Expression
However, the implications of philosophy extend further than realms of abstraction-- if one takes seriously the idea of a malleable reality shaped by our conception of it.
Embracing the loop of subjectivity doffs the yoke of responsibility, and thereby accountability. When my perspective is inherently limited, how can I be blamed for my choices? How could I do otherwise, how could I subjugate my reality to an objective over-coating? I think as I think and so I think!
I remember as a little boy sitting in a church pew. I was young, but had already started disbelieving in the organization's theology. However, the thought plagued me- paraphrased of course-- no reward no punishment, yes, but if the material reality resulting from belief and enactment is preferable to that of disbelief-- does one choose to believe? Can one? Must one?
Though created through the perspective of an objective reality, if the material the consequences of a Kantian perspective reality proved materially preferable to that of the Neitzschean subjective-- can one assume the affected Kantian mental pose and reap the reward of reality? Put on the clothes of an objective world and live in an immediate relationship to objects?
>Some strangers to Athens once asked Diogenes if he would point out to them the great philosopher [meaning Plato]. Diogenes looked around and then led them to the most deserted part of the city and, gesturing to the empty air as one would in formal introduction, said, "May I present to you the great philosopher Plato.<
Follow. Words and thoughts mean nothing unless they work for you. If Nietzschean thought produces a cruel anarchic material reality- conceive another. Old Germans, like Santa Claus, hold sway only so long as you believe in them.
A Psychologist only knows what they can study. And their patterns of behavior are applicable only so long as we abide and follow them.
