| What argument do you find to be the most beautiful piece of philosophy? How does this argument resonate with your understanding of truth, meaning, or the nature of existence? In what ways does it challenge or affirm your beliefs about human nature and our place in the universe? Considering this argument, how do you see its implications for understanding concepts like freedom, responsibility, or happiness? Are there particular philosophical traditions or thinkers that resonate with this idea, and how do they enrich its meaning for you? Finally, what personal reflections or transformative moments have you experienced in relation to this argument, and how do you think it shapes your vision for a more compassionate or enlightened future? |
Mao said: If you have to shit, shit! If you have to fart, fart!  |
| I know that I don't know and I don't know that I know. |
| It is be what it is be. If it is then it is and if it isn't than it isn't. |
 |
| The most beautiful I dare not speak of in a public space, but one that has really stuck out to me for a while is the Platonist formulation of the transposition of our personal unity and worldly unity via the One, i.e. "God". Best encapsulated in Olympiodorus' commentary on Plato's First Alcibiades, the basic point is that our sense of self is (naturally) unitary and that this is a holographic refraction of the unity that the world itself possesses: your perception is phenomenologically the most "real" thing you have, you can affirm it in every moment, and it informs something which is greater than the sum of its parts - it seems to flow and be stationary all the same, it can affirm itself by contemplating itself dialectically ("reversion"), until the line between subject and object blurs into that which is merely and abstractly "one". You do not just appear as discrete, but seem to fundamentally exist discretely, at least as far as you are concerned. We are granted this through the ontological emanation of reality itself, like surfaces in a kaleidoscopic network we all "participate" in the larger "one-ness" that the entire world possesses, itself ultimately reverting and contemplating its components also. The "solar seed", the aspect of divinity, that each conscious thing has is this ability to experience a sense of unity; initially through self-reference and affirmation, and eventually the affirmation of the entire world. This is the most general thing that could be said about any one thing and also about all things at once: that it is one. It is a difficult argument to lay out without an understanding of the larger Platonic answer to the problem of universals. I doubt I did a satisfactory job and probably raised more questions than I answered. The implication of this argument is that we are makers of our experience of reality insofar as we accord ourselves with the universal law which grants us this ability: unity itself. We succeed when we master the cycles of nature until we can condense them; what was once rushing to and fro becomes stationary to us. An aberration of an aspect of our experience suddenly comes into harmony with all else we feel, and that part of life becomes complete, it becomes one. |
 |
| I only rarely look outside the club I'm part of, and the last time I did I said this on a thread someone started about whether morality is objective: auroraloose said: Lol, we may be anime fans, but who would eat from this trash can? There is no universe or system in which doing so isn't sad, thus the transcendental argument for morality from anime trash has apodictic certainty. So I was about to say something of a similar "My dude, this is MAL" variety, but—then somebody actually had something real and competent to say about Plato's Dialogues? And I'm really only a hack who read a bunch of postmodernism. So I walked over to my bookshelves, looked over the philosophy bits, and concluded I had to go with this: And yet, and yet the whole earthly form he presents is a new creation on the strength of the absurd. He resigned everything infinitely, and then took everything back on the strength of the absurd. He is continually making the movement of infinity, but he makes it with such accuracy and poise that he is continually getting finitude out of it, and not for a second would one suspect anything else. It is said that the dancer's hardest task is to leap straight into a definite position, so that not for a second does he have to catch at the position but stands there in it in the leap itself. Perhaps no dancer can do it—but that knight does it. The mass of humans live disheartened lives of earthly sorrow and joy, these are the sitters-out who will not join in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers too and they have elevation. They make the upward movement and fall down again, and this too is no unhappy pastime, nor ungracious to behold. But when they come down they cannot assume the position straightaway, they waver an instant and the wavering shows they are nevertheless strangers in the world. This may be more or less evident, depending on their skill, but even the most skilled of these knights cannot hide the vacillation. One doesn't need to see them in the air, one only has to see them the moment they come and have come to earth to recognize them. But to be able to land in just that way, and in the same second to look as though one was up and walking, to transform the leap in life to a gait, to express the sublime in the pedestrian absolutely—that is something only the knight of faith can do—and it is the one and only marvel. —Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling I feel compelled to add several more paragraphs for clarification, but I'll spoiler it: Kierkegaard was one of the first major existentialists. and because of that these days popular Christian theology tends to disparage him as some kind of relativist whiner. Such an attitude does not understand the doctrine of sin, and definitely has never experienced real despair. But to move on to other existentialists, Nietzsche was not a nihilist; he saw that (whatever one believes is actually true) as a civilizational ordering God was indeed dead, and he strove to come up with something that could prevent humanity from succumbing to the kind of meaninglessness Dostoyevsky described in his novels. And thus it was the absurd, the ubermensch, Sisyphus happy—an ordering, or at least a conception, of the world not rationally possible, beyond human—that they had faith in. Lol, what have I done: In my bookshelf scan I forgot about my copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because I had it set elsewhere: These are not arguments for finding meaning in whatever you like, in the Lovecraftian "holocaust of ecstasy and freedom"; Kierkegaard urged man not to be slaves to simple passions, and Nietzsche similarly despised the Last Men who, believing the world to be meaningless, seek power in practical and technical control of others. I still choose Kierkegaard's knight of faith as my most beautiful piece of philosophy (for the purposes of this thread; I don't dare claim philosophical definitiveness for my choice). Fear and Trembling isn't as easily quotable as Nietzsche and so seems much more dry here, but it's definitely not if you read the whole book. Anyway, as for relevance, I present Exhibit A:  It is Kierkegaard that is the key to Gurren Lagann. This is why BestGuyEver is dangerously wrong in his interpretation of the ending, ultimately shackling the absurd to a sad compromise that would have Simon fail even to be one of Kierkegaard's knights of infinite resignation. And then there is Exhibit B:  Kyoko was not more mature than Sayaka. She is, in Kierkegaard's formulation, the slave, who couldn't hold on to justice seeing its difficulty. Sayaka is the knight of infinite resignation, knowing she is going to suffer—and This makes even Homura inferior to Sayaka; even though she drove herself crazy suffering, Homura couldn't make the movement of resignation, actually giving up. Of course, Madoka is the knight of faith, but as Kierkegaard says, who can make that movement? Homura we can understand, Sayaka was truly heroic; though in the end a slave, Kyoko we can also understand and respect, as who wants to suffer trying to do something impossible? But to say that something's impossible, do it knowing full well it's impossible, and to do it anyway because you kick logic to the curb and literally break the universe; Puella Magi Madoka Magica's basically perfect representation of Fear and Trembling is what makes me go back and forth as to whether it or Gurren Lagann is the best anime ever. EDIT: I see I didn't answer the follow-up questions about the argument I chose. I've already gone through a lot, though. Suffice it to say that I am a Christian. ANOTHER EDIT: Just finished Googling PMMM and Kierkegaard together. At least a few people understand that Puella Magi Madoka Magica is not a deconstruction (there's no aporia, duh); nobody understands the Kierkegaard connection. |
auroralooseYesterday, 2:34 PM
| "He who writes for fools always finds a large public. A precondition for reading good books is not reading bad ones: for life is short." —Arthur Schopenhauer |
Reply to auroraloose
I only rarely look outside the club I'm part of, and the last time I did I said this on a thread someone started about whether morality is objective:
So I was about to say something of a similar "My dude, this is MAL" variety, but—then somebody actually had something real and competent to say about Plato's Dialogues? And I'm really only a hack who read a bunch of postmodernism. So I walked over to my bookshelves, looked over the philosophy bits, and concluded I had to go with this:
I feel compelled to add several more paragraphs for clarification, but I'll spoiler it:
Kierkegaard was one of the first major existentialists. and because of that these days popular Christian theology tends to disparage him as some kind of relativist whiner. Such an attitude does not understand the doctrine of sin, and definitely has never experienced real despair. But to move on to other existentialists, Nietzsche was not a nihilist; he saw that (whatever one believes is actually true) as a civilizational ordering God was indeed dead, and he strove to come up with something that could prevent humanity from succumbing to the kind of meaninglessness Dostoyevsky described in his novels. And thus it was the absurd, the ubermensch, Sisyphus happy—an ordering, or at least a conception, of the world not rationally possible, beyond human—that they had faith in.
Lol, what have I done: In my bookshelf scan I forgot about my copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because I had it set elsewhere:
These are not arguments for finding meaning in whatever you like, in the Lovecraftian "holocaust of ecstasy and freedom"; Kierkegaard urged man not to be slaves to simple passions, and Nietzsche similarly despised the Last Men who, believing the world to be meaningless, seek power in practical and technical control of others. I still choose Kierkegaard's knight of faith as my most beautiful piece of philosophy (for the purposes of this thread; I don't dare claim philosophical definitiveness for my choice). Fear and Trembling isn't as easily quotable as Nietzsche and so seems much more dry here, but it's definitely not if you read the whole book.
Anyway, as for relevance, I present Exhibit A:
It is Kierkegaard that is the key to Gurren Lagann. This is why BestGuyEver is dangerously wrong in his interpretation of the ending, ultimately shackling the absurd to a sad compromise that would have Simon fail even to be one of Kierkegaard's knights of infinite resignation.
And then there is Exhibit B:
Kyoko was not more mature than Sayaka. She is, in Kierkegaard's formulation, the slave, who couldn't hold on to justice seeing its difficulty. Sayaka is the knight of infinite resignation, knowing she is going to suffer—and
This makes even Homura inferior to Sayaka; even though she drove herself crazy suffering, Homura couldn't make the movement of resignation, actually giving up. Of course, Madoka is the knight of faith, but as Kierkegaard says, who can make that movement? Homura we can understand, Sayaka was truly heroic; though in the end a slave, Kyoko we can also understand and respect, as who wants to suffer trying to do something impossible? But to say that something's impossible, do it knowing full well it's impossible, and to do it anyway because you kick logic to the curb and literally break the universe; Puella Magi Madoka Magica's basically perfect representation of Fear and Trembling is what makes me go back and forth as to whether it or Gurren Lagann is the best anime ever.
EDIT: I see I didn't answer the follow-up questions about the argument I chose. I've already gone through a lot, though. Suffice it to say that I am a Christian.
ANOTHER EDIT: Just finished Googling PMMM and Kierkegaard together. At least a few people understand that Puella Magi Madoka Magica is not a deconstruction (there's no aporia, duh); nobody understands the Kierkegaard connection.
auroraloose said:
Lol, we may be anime fans, but who would eat from this trash can? There is no universe or system in which doing so isn't sad, thus the transcendental argument for morality from anime trash has apodictic certainty.
Lol, we may be anime fans, but who would eat from this trash can? There is no universe or system in which doing so isn't sad, thus the transcendental argument for morality from anime trash has apodictic certainty.
So I was about to say something of a similar "My dude, this is MAL" variety, but—then somebody actually had something real and competent to say about Plato's Dialogues? And I'm really only a hack who read a bunch of postmodernism. So I walked over to my bookshelves, looked over the philosophy bits, and concluded I had to go with this:
And yet, and yet the whole earthly form he presents is a new creation on the strength of the absurd. He resigned everything infinitely, and then took everything back on the strength of the absurd. He is continually making the movement of infinity, but he makes it with such accuracy and poise that he is continually getting finitude out of it, and not for a second would one suspect anything else. It is said that the dancer's hardest task is to leap straight into a definite position, so that not for a second does he have to catch at the position but stands there in it in the leap itself. Perhaps no dancer can do it—but that knight does it. The mass of humans live disheartened lives of earthly sorrow and joy, these are the sitters-out who will not join in the dance. The knights of infinity are dancers too and they have elevation. They make the upward movement and fall down again, and this too is no unhappy pastime, nor ungracious to behold. But when they come down they cannot assume the position straightaway, they waver an instant and the wavering shows they are nevertheless strangers in the world. This may be more or less evident, depending on their skill, but even the most skilled of these knights cannot hide the vacillation. One doesn't need to see them in the air, one only has to see them the moment they come and have come to earth to recognize them. But to be able to land in just that way, and in the same second to look as though one was up and walking, to transform the leap in life to a gait, to express the sublime in the pedestrian absolutely—that is something only the knight of faith can do—and it is the one and only marvel.
—Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
—Søren Kierkegaard, Fear and Trembling
I feel compelled to add several more paragraphs for clarification, but I'll spoiler it:
Kierkegaard was one of the first major existentialists. and because of that these days popular Christian theology tends to disparage him as some kind of relativist whiner. Such an attitude does not understand the doctrine of sin, and definitely has never experienced real despair. But to move on to other existentialists, Nietzsche was not a nihilist; he saw that (whatever one believes is actually true) as a civilizational ordering God was indeed dead, and he strove to come up with something that could prevent humanity from succumbing to the kind of meaninglessness Dostoyevsky described in his novels. And thus it was the absurd, the ubermensch, Sisyphus happy—an ordering, or at least a conception, of the world not rationally possible, beyond human—that they had faith in.
Lol, what have I done: In my bookshelf scan I forgot about my copy of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, because I had it set elsewhere:
These are not arguments for finding meaning in whatever you like, in the Lovecraftian "holocaust of ecstasy and freedom"; Kierkegaard urged man not to be slaves to simple passions, and Nietzsche similarly despised the Last Men who, believing the world to be meaningless, seek power in practical and technical control of others. I still choose Kierkegaard's knight of faith as my most beautiful piece of philosophy (for the purposes of this thread; I don't dare claim philosophical definitiveness for my choice). Fear and Trembling isn't as easily quotable as Nietzsche and so seems much more dry here, but it's definitely not if you read the whole book.
Anyway, as for relevance, I present Exhibit A:
It is Kierkegaard that is the key to Gurren Lagann. This is why BestGuyEver is dangerously wrong in his interpretation of the ending, ultimately shackling the absurd to a sad compromise that would have Simon fail even to be one of Kierkegaard's knights of infinite resignation.
And then there is Exhibit B:
Kyoko was not more mature than Sayaka. She is, in Kierkegaard's formulation, the slave, who couldn't hold on to justice seeing its difficulty. Sayaka is the knight of infinite resignation, knowing she is going to suffer—and
This makes even Homura inferior to Sayaka; even though she drove herself crazy suffering, Homura couldn't make the movement of resignation, actually giving up. Of course, Madoka is the knight of faith, but as Kierkegaard says, who can make that movement? Homura we can understand, Sayaka was truly heroic; though in the end a slave, Kyoko we can also understand and respect, as who wants to suffer trying to do something impossible? But to say that something's impossible, do it knowing full well it's impossible, and to do it anyway because you kick logic to the curb and literally break the universe; Puella Magi Madoka Magica's basically perfect representation of Fear and Trembling is what makes me go back and forth as to whether it or Gurren Lagann is the best anime ever.
EDIT: I see I didn't answer the follow-up questions about the argument I chose. I've already gone through a lot, though. Suffice it to say that I am a Christian.
ANOTHER EDIT: Just finished Googling PMMM and Kierkegaard together. At least a few people understand that Puella Magi Madoka Magica is not a deconstruction (there's no aporia, duh); nobody understands the Kierkegaard connection.
| @auroraloose I have not read Kierkegaard, so I can't say much about him and his relation to PMMM. But, about Kyoko... |
JustOscarYesterday, 7:21 AM
More topics from this board
Poll: » How many romantic/intimate relationships have you been in? ( 1 2 )Ejrodiew - Oct 9 |
97 |
by alexswrld
»»
46 minutes ago |
|
» Does MAL actually have users?Timeline_man - Oct 29 |
45 |
by Zarutaku
»»
52 minutes ago |
|
» 2024–25 NBA season ( 1 2 )deg - Jun 26 |
88 |
by deg
»»
1 hour ago |
|
Poll: » Have you ever cut a family member out of your life or had a family member cut you out of theirs?bucciest - 8 hours ago |
11 |
by Kirika_Madeleine
»»
2 hours ago |
|
» Why are women wearing leggings at the gym?Zakatsuki_ - 11 hours ago |
23 |
by Zarutaku
»»
2 hours ago |