'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Ethics and the Eternal

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
AuthorMessage
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4213
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Þrúðheimr

PostSubject: Ethics and the Eternal   Sat May 06, 2017 5:20 pm

From the The Philosophers thread at ILP, I thought I'd bring this over.

Jakob wrote:
Quote :
Sauwelios wrote:
So which kind of Unity would you propose if you would want to destroy in this age?

Well, I don't think along these lines. I think it goes in steps, so it isn't as if there is the notion of a True World in one moment, and in the next moment, whoosh! it's gone. In Platonism, the four causes discerned by Aristotle were divided in two and absolutised: the eidos/telos was conceived as the True World, and the material/efficient cause was conceived as the Apparent World.

Right. And I have a distinct loathing for Aristotle. It started as a mere boredom, now I properly can't stand the fellow and his systems. It has everything to do with his distinctions tearing up what I have come to see as a subtle unity: I do not see effcient and material causes as separate of Eidos or Telos - I am rather "Japanese" in this.

The sword that wooshes through the air and hacks off a limb is the "beginning of all thing" - if executed properly!

This is how I replace value-neutral metaphysics - I contend that only the Good, i.e. the strong and swift, grace out of strength, is Eidos, True -- only clean action is ground, as it emerges out of certainty: certainty of self-valuing, of power - of possibility of a straight line.

This is my happiness - the straight line, and the certainty that it is the only truth, the only true path - and, since all is in motion, there is no absolute stillness, no 0 degrees Kelvin, no "atom-ness" -  there is nothing besides a path. So Machiavelli is a bit closer to my tastes.

Quote :
Then Machiavellianism conceived the latter cause(s) as the effectual truth and the former as imagination.

And how did he value imagination?
Did he see that the imagination itself is an effectual cause?
This is my problem with the distinction. Men act in the presence of a sense of Eidos and Telos  ("God" to the pious) and this effectively governs their material goings-about, and then, it is fed by the results of these material goings-about -- it is thus effectively their standard, i.e. their self-valuing.

Quote :
Today's nihilism is really the total lack of imagination ("the Nothing" from The Never Ending Story!), man's wretched contentment with being man, his not being spurred on by a superhuman ideal. Yet still he believes in "progress", i.e. the furtherance of his contentment,

Terrible, yes. How can this exist? A "party" nowadays.... have there been duller, drabber things? How does one survive such ... feebleness of spirit?

Quote :
and taking this away may enable him to be content and more than content, not just with the present but also with the past, when life was brutish and short... This possibility then becomes the new superhuman ideal--the cycle of man's sprouting, flowering, seeding and withering.

Id like to make an observation here: In archaic and classical Greece, life was anything but brutish, and generally quite as long as it is today. Mans pathetic lifespans of 30 years belong in the Dark Ages, and possibly, these were actually darkened by volcanic clouds, making health impossible... that's a theory. Fact is that the poets and Philosophers of Greece lived longer and more vigorously than those of the 20th century.

And to me this is the "Ideal" - Greece - and myself. I don't care to return man to brutish and short life - to me that is a thing of Medieval Christianity, of feeble spirit - Health is what I relate to a vigorous and mature Oak or Ash, and to all humans made of "hard and supple wood".

Where are these humans now? They are around, among the weak. And this is all I want. To gather the strong, the oak-like and ash-like to find each other, and to create their own sovereignty, take over this or that state to that end - and let the rest wither perish as they must according to their natures.

The only possible politics for a 'value ontologist' is conquest. As philosophical-shamanic conquest starts with seducing the human spirit to itself, it is a rather slow process. But the results of value-standard-raising are the opposite of transient - this is existence, and as existence is eternal, this Ethos is eternity itself.

 

___________
" The strong do what they can do and the weak accept what they have to accept. "
- Thucydides
Back to top Go down
View user profile
 
Ethics and the Eternal
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Ethics-
Jump to: