'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 | 
 

 Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4153
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:27 pm

Pezer wrote:
Well, if America is not Europe, I will be goddamned. If the god that wounded me yesterday was not Jupiter himself, I will be hot diggity danged. I will be fucked sideways if I did not encounter the Nordic gods of fire and deep woods in Vermont, if the Chirst that tyrannized and tyrannizes us is not the same that pillaged the pillagers.

I will be knocked down and beat to a pulp if EUROPA does not mean simply what the word conveys. If we are not west of the west.

But yes, time will tell.

This is how self-valuing works; As soon as I close the door of the part I know to be my world, the other part my world knocks on that door. Leaps of faith are often leaps inside.

Unexpected fortune is the quality of life under philosophy; drawing life directly from the void as water directly from the well, undiluted with expectations of an ocean or a whole, only concerned with its own emerging, the original bliss, physis, which is indestructible simply because no one wants to destroy it.

If the Americas share themselves willingly under that name, the mission is at last half completed. It is an honor, and would be to any European. There is no xenophobia versus the Americas here, only cultural admiration an dependency, which renders political differences irrelevant. Canada is the Netherlands main emigration destiny.

Hence, I can not include it in my terms. It's not mine to include, that would be colonialism.

Quote :
Politics, as I understand it, at the head of the barbarian invasion, is first to breathe, as people breathe now, as I know as I breathe with them. It is to let philosophy breathe, understand itself clearly, and then understand what it needs to understand to overthrow the decepticons, embrace Europe as her son, Babilon as her nephews and the rest as her brothers.

A line in the sand?

Phah! Time laughs at such lines.

And love? What of love? It is here, in the coarce yell of a half black, half indian, half roman and half arab maid, laughing at the troubles that rain brings.

Yes, let Germany close doors.

WHEN IT HAS BREATHED.

Then breathe into it.  
(It needs CPR)

 

___________
" 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
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4153
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:33 pm

Pezer wrote:
We mean the same thing.

It just happens that magic is inescapably local.

Exactly.


Magicians on the other hand are not...

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:53 pm

No, you can't colonize what you already colonized. America's independence wars I have become convinced were over that very thing.

Europenans tend to think that for America to be Europe, it must again be a colony. This is absurd to the point of comical; we're just a Cataluna or an Ireland that was succesful.

Hell, the Emperor of the Portuguese Empire ruled from Brazil.

West of the west. There were people here before, and the freshness of them ultraeuropisized us.

Anyway, this is all between scholars. Silly americans will complain still about being colonized by... themselves?

It doesn't need CPR. It's breathing in gulps! As best it can. The decepticons will have to have their way for now. Philosophy can't give CPR if it itself needs to breathe.

Communism did at least that at this stage: let people breathe despite themselves. Decepticons decieve, and things are... pretty bad, but not as bad as they seem.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 39
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 1:50 am

Pezer wrote:
Necessity, then philosophy, then politics.

We agree.

But we would not call an architect an investor because a family needs a house.

Philosophy is not political. What if the necessity is the possibility of philosophy?

Philosophy, then necessity, then politics, then philosophy, then new necessity, then new politics, then better philosophy.

They all intermingle, the separation with "then" is anything but pure... But that they mingle doesn't mean they are the same. And this matters, it is at the heart of the present necessity.

From the Circe episode in the Odyssey, I should say the sequence is rather "politics, then philosophy, then political philosophy". But then the cycle would be: "politics, then philosophy, then political philosophy, then philosophy, then political philosophy", etc. But just as philosophy does not usually follow from politics, but only from the political drive of an exceptional man--a potential philosopher--like Odysseus, so the Urpolitik of such a man will already be political philosophy in a sense: his political drive is a drive toward the philosopher or the superman, even if he does not know it adequately; it is a will to the veritable human being, to the man who is terribly natural, the peak of humanity.

 

___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 5:26 am

Politics is the realm of the externalizations of several different impulses and needs, for instance the organization of social and economic forces submitted to that "organizing" whereby one desire or possibility encounters and regulates or changes another. This whole scheme gets immensely complicated especially when administered by humans who are inevitably governed by selfish, short-sighted and insane motives. All "utility" in a political sense falls under an umbrella of psychology, because it is psychological law that determines the administration of political means and ends, we have "campaigns", "elections", "media", "misinformation", we have every kind of cronyism you can think of and plenty you can't think of; politics is simply a necessary evil born from the fact that humans are yet too small in consciousness to manage their own affairs because the scope of those affairs, given the pathologically ignorant elements of 99% of people's personalities, is much too big in a practical sense to ever fall under control of any one group rationale.

Politics is only the social-utility expression of the opposite pole as philosophy: human madness, ignorance, and smallness all come together to unleash a "desire", to control based on this or that overpowering symbol, ideology, or singularized utilitarian hyper-rationality. None of it had anything to do with philosophy or with truth - the human world is largely governed by untruth, politics of course not an exception but a prime example of this. You might as well think you can change "human nature" let alone change the nature of the sociopathic power groups that gain their benefit from running political games from behind the scenes, as think you can make a "political philosophy".

When philosophy becomes able to be socially liveable and influential in the administration and guidance of a society, economy, technology, then politics will no longer be needed to exist. But realistically is that going to happen any time soon? Of course not. It may never happen as far as we can tell.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:06 am

Essentially there exists a huge scope of irreconcilable forces, social needs, desires, all of these "compete" for a limited amount of space of political expression/"power"; what we call peace is the relative balance of these forces with each other, where any more individual imbalances are unable to over-code the system as a whole, conversely what we call war is the larger imbalance of forces.

Since politics is invariably rooted in human pathology and insanity, it often happens that one small number of relatively small "wills" or ideas gain a surprising ability to co-opt a large portion of the system in a short period of time. These situations are products of "historical necessity" as much as social convenience and the arbitrary nature of those wills, and in so far as both individual will and social forces are also historically produced.

At least we can say that humanity is required to live out all its errors and madness, which translates to the fact that politics "evolves" over time, ever so slowly attempting to approach philosophy. In other words politics today is "better" that it was in the past, speaking generally and in terms of politics's ability to, if not respond to, then at least passively reflect some small measure of truth.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 39
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 10:52 am


Political philosophy is not the philosophization of politics, but the politicization of philosophy.

In Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra--which we might also call the Zoroastrey (which alerts me, by the way, to the similarity between Odysseia and Politeia--Plato's "Republic")--, we also find the sequence "politics, then philosophy, then political philosophy": first the superman (Part I), then the will to power (Part II), then the eternal recurrence (Part III).

 

___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:16 pm

Yes, however I am making an argument that this is not the case, my argument is that politics is inherently different from philosophy and that "political philosophy" means specifically that something of philosophy has impressed itself into the political, albeit only partially and to the detriment of those philosophical ideas themselves. See my more recent post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

You say it is about the politicization of philosophy, to me that makes no sense. Philosophy cannot become "politicized" except to simply stop being philosophy. In that other post I link you to above I am attempting to create definitions for these ideas, I would appreciate you either arguing directly against my ideas here or instead if you can elaborate on exactly what is meant by "politicization of philosophy". Your outline of taking parts 1, 2 and 3 as some kind of sequence leading to a "political philosophy" (eternal recurrence) makes no sense to me except perhaps to illustrate my point by pointing to how Nietzsche lost himself in the madness of 'eternal recurrence', his strange and ultimately failed attempt to unify the vastness of his thought and achieve something moral thereby. Your progression Superman -> Will to Poer -> ER is interesting to me but I will need you to elaborate more about the rationale behind this move of yours, in order for me to better understand what you are attempting to say. Did Nietzsche make this statement about how the parts of TSZ are organized analogously as you say to those primary ideas? I've not seen that before. And in any case we need further evidence that this can be called a 'political' movement and process.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 39
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 2:14 pm

Capable wrote:
Yes, however I am making an argument that this is not the case, my argument is that politics is inherently different from philosophy and that "political philosophy" means specifically that something of philosophy has impressed itself into the political, albeit only partially and to the detriment of those philosophical ideas themselves. See my more recent post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

You say it is about the politicization of philosophy, to me that makes no sense. Philosophy cannot become "politicized" except to simply stop being philosophy. In that other post I link you to above I am attempting to create definitions for these ideas, I would appreciate you either arguing directly against my ideas here or instead if you can elaborate on exactly what is meant by "politicization of philosophy". Your outline of taking parts 1, 2 and 3 as some kind of sequence leading to a "political philosophy" (eternal recurrence) makes no sense to me except perhaps to illustrate my point by pointing to how Nietzsche lost himself in the madness of 'eternal recurrence', his strange and ultimately failed attempt to unify the vastness of his thought and achieve something moral thereby. Your progression Superman -> Will to Poer -> ER is interesting to me but I will need you to elaborate more about the rationale behind this move of yours, in order for me to better understand what you are attempting to say. Did Nietzsche make this statement about how the parts of TSZ are organized analogously as you say to those primary ideas? I've not seen that before. And in any case we need further evidence that this can be called a 'political' movement and process.

I'm not saying political philosophy is about the politicization of philosophy, I'm saying it is the politicization of philosophy. This in contrast to what Pezer suggested, that it be the philosophization of politics. Bear with me while I quote an important passage:

On pp. 167-68 of _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, Laurence Lampert wrote:
Society's element is, unalterably, opinion, and philosophy attempts to dissolve the element in which society breathes, thus endangering society. From these two premises Strauss drew the conclusion that philosophy must preserve itself and society by exoteric allegiance to society's false opinions while esoterically pursuing its betrayal of them, and that it must do so always and do so in the old ways. Nietzsche denied the timeless necessity of this conclusion drawn from his timelessly true premises, and he did so for one primary reason: modern opinion necessitates what it also makes possible, the attempt to bring society's opinions into accord with philosophy's character, not by making society wise but by making its opinions reflect rather than contradict the truth.

Straussian political philosophy--which was also the political philosophy from Plato to at least Descartes--is the philosopher's exoteric allegiance to society's false opinions. Nietzschean political philosophy is the philosopher's attempt to make society's opinions reflect rather than contradict the truth. Note: in neither case is the philosopher trying to make society wise, i.e. to philosophize politics. Political philosophy is just the philosopher's becoming political--and, at least in the former case, politic!--for the sake of philosophy. (In fact, the word "philosopher" was itself a politic alternative to "sophist"--"wise man".)

How do you know Nietzsche's attempt ultimately failed? Has his influence already come to an end?

You can read one good Sauwelian take on the connection between Zarathustra's three teachings here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In the meantime, I'll meditate on another.

 

___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4153
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 6:04 pm

Don't let it distract, but this old post, from a time where I was able to do more at once than I am now, pertains in general to the conflict we have here between two views of philosophy, and offers something of a synthesis-by-regression.  

Fixed Cross wrote:
Capable wrote:
changing as it changes.
This principle is learned by Shamans. Death-rebirth, the consciousness of flux-depth-power, vortexes of identity around which a society gravitates. Shamans are the "black holes" of the galaxies in which men live - meaning "centers too intense to perceive"*. We circle around what we can not stare in the eye. The terrible in strength is what gives life its structure. (This is why America exists as it does, and why the power of the state must remain a terrifying and disruptive factor until all human life has organized itself around the core of the death-rebirth machinery, the magical power of the invisible center/)

Quote :
"What I amount to" as "that I give it, as itself, to itself":
A Heideggerian giving, as opposed to serving a Platonic "given-ness". Our things flow from us, we are centers of their revolving-existing - existing is revolving, losing meaning is collapsing into the source is disintegrating. A thing becomes junk, attribute to nothingness, when it loses its capacity to revolve by the "gravity" of value to the core.

Quote :
this formulation of identity (human - but also not only human?) as a phenomenon which is a giving of the very given itself, that by which given is given or known/asserted in its givenness. Are we only an "amounts to something" in the sense that we take, are able to take ourselves,
Interesting, yes I like this - we are given as soon as we are taken - and there is no one to take us but ourself. We can be taken by others but this means disintegration when it is not serving our own taking-our-givenness. Consuming being. This adds a 'hedonistic' aspect to the ethics that may follow from value ontology. That would help to make it accessible as therapy. Modern therapy is in part hedonistic, indulging. We consume our psyche.

Quote :
this amounts to, as given, as a givenness-as-such which is also a givingness? Could this be why/how we give the given of the given/s around us, or at least construe otherness essentially ("correctly" or otherwise) under an image of a being-given?
And so also a being-there-to-take.
This is how "good karma" can be seen - if one has a tendency to give, to 'create the world' if one "bestows", the world attains a nature of being-to-take. That means that one is a master of ones fate. If one takes what happens to be given one steals it, and it transforms. This is why pure political initiatives get corrupted by followers, why politics only work to constructive aims where there are conspiracies, and never when there is dictatorship of the vote.

Quote :
We are philosophical beings, humans, all of us engaged with/in processes of cross-territorial re/interpretation and re/incorporation -- integration and extagration. That by which this takes place (i.e. the "world") might be said to be our being. This "takes place" itself might be said to be our identity. The being of this "takes place" itself might be said to be, perhaps, givenness-as-such. Or at least it is possible that thus far this is the only/best way for us to understand/conceptualize this being.    
Can we identify this in corporeal terms? A universe of symbolism mapping given-ness, the world as a web of threats originating in subjects - a fabric of histories, with crossings of perspectives as wars and cultures -- this "monster of energy" - yes, the dragon thou shalt is made of a great number of potential "I wills" and at root made possible by "I am".
The transformation of the spirit of Zarathustrian man is a collapsing inward of the self-valuing. Courage is needed to move beyond the skin of the dragon and to embody its will. To become part of the dragons inner world means to dissolve the dragon in ones own world. To become invisible in ones workings, to become "deep" - to command, to become an enigma.

Quote :
Quote :
Arrangement of potentiality --
life is largely strategy, being is observingness, intelligence, rising to the occasion, seizing opportunity - it is not an objective fact - it is the bold activity of which only the very few are capable of embodying entirely. These are the agents of evolution - in every species these arise.

Being then as potentiality and thus that which conditions this potentiality as the being of this being. What is that by which this conditionality, abstracted from its embedded situatedness, is conditioned? We might understand this as givenness, as the very possibility for and of being from within being itself.
A not-yet-givenness, a potential, a void even - void as space.
In any form a givenness may arise around a void, like a castle is built around a room.
the "hearth" at the center of this room is that which has been called by the most loving and admiring names, which I will not utter, as they are not my words - - but this hearth is the completion of the given-ness of the room, the crown on the work of which the wall-building was the physical part and the room-conceiving the 'philosophical' part, the thinking-building serving 'dwelling', the being itself.

Men gather around fires. Words can also be fires, around which walls are built to contain the words in spaces where men dwell. Men will no be guided where no fires are made. Good philosophy is a torch. It creates the will-to-dwell, which is the will to think and build. Religion is a damp torch emitting only smoke, and the will to sleep. Myth has been a healthy torch in many cultures but we have moved beyond the possibility of myth - myth points to the past, (our) philosophy points to the future. For the rest they are in a sense the same; they make of man a given-to-take. They make man possible to himself, as man, as Dasein.

Quote :
This becomes feasible in the sense that this being reciprocally participates in its own existence-creating: through the simplest fact of its existence (as a being, as being) is another being or perhaps another "level of this already being" called also into existence, the existence of which hinges upon - and ONLY upon (?) - the simple fact of its "parent" "being's" being existing. What might this reciprocality, reflexivity, relatedness-as-such (abstracted out from its embedded situatednesses) be understood as, other than as a givenness which is also then and therefore a givingness?
Intention. We can only recognize the 'eternal parent' of this givenness as something real, present in us. On this level we have to abandon the abstract and create 'occult experience' - knowledge beyond language, 'it-ness'. We can approach this asymptotically, and become wiser and more powerful along this line and feel more justification, more certainty than one would ever imagine passible  when certainty is understood as logical truth, instead of knowing by being.

"God" is the measure in which this certainty is recorded by 'prophets'. The divinity can always grow, become greater, stand farther from the populace. It is never 'already there'. It is the measure in which consciousness attains to its root, and this measure depends on the quality of the consciousness aside from its inward attaining as well as on the penetratingness of its inner gaze. So sacredness exists in two axes - worldly quality and the drive pertaining/attaining to what Nietzsche called the ascetic ideal. We can not formulate a definition, we can only point to the means to attain a greater depth of knowing/being. For this is the purpose, the telos - to enable, increase, potentiate -

Quote :
Here we come face-to-face with identity [id-entity], with the unifying "principle" (frame, ground) of experiencing (which also then serves as a principle of differentiation from within experience/s). Interesting how this identity itself has its own being, and yet this being is to some extent irrelevant from the perspective of that which is experientially forged through and by the existence of this identity! In this 'to some extent irrelevant' we see the function of givenness, being given. And in the relatedness of this being to (the being/s of) what it experiences - deeper more genuine contact, powerful consciousness, imagination, creation, envisioning, knowing - we can see how this relatedness/experiencing occurs more essentially as under a form of a givenness, of a giving of that which is already itself a being-given to/for/by itself alone (even if only "by us" is this realized/known or "made real"/attaining to a relevancy).  
Whatever we identify as given, is separate from our identifying it. Only when the identifying becomes inseparable from the given-ness do we attain clarity. An overwhelming beauty is the result.

Quote :
Further questioning then: to what extent are the differences here, between the implications arising from either being itself as a being-given or those arising from a being-given as only a being of certain beings (us) which structurally attain certain configurations of relatednesses and embedded situatednesses, meaningful, relevant? What are the various utilities to positing either ex ante or ex post facto here? Maybe more importantly, can we yet effect a possible synthesis even here, on this now higher level? (Edit: answer: yes, through the use of value-ontology we seem able to formulate these principles and elements conceptually-logically).]
We can use it as a grid. This is the greatest problem here - what we have unearthed so far is still invisible to those who do not think as deeply, and will remain so wherever we do not fill it in with 'flesh' - which means, world-implication. The 'key' to this task I see now is that there is a great fulfillment in coupling concepts to their value-root, to their primordial emerging. It is not a 'dry' subject, but a feast of iconoclasm and archaic mythmaking, and when we see how the archaic myths are populated, by what sort of creatures, we can see the value that philosophizing will have to man when he truly sets to shape his world, when fires are ignited around which new thinking-dwelling emerges. We have built the walls, we need to ignite the fire. In this we do not stand separate, absent, but give 'acte de présence' as Lord - this is the only way in which culture grows: by example.

To give act-of-presence means to stand within given-ness as its signifier. It means to give the world to man anew. This can happen on every scale - for the philosopher it is different from a football-player, but the principle is the same. Philosophy is not simply labor, it is also identity. And to make identity felt one requires character, and let this be the very thing that the traditional conception of truth does not allow. All philosophers, in their proclamations about what is universal, have been poseurs, without knowing it they made statues of themselves, testaments to existence. But what type of existence did they testify to? It was, most of the time, rather hollow. No wonder that most of these philosophers were recluses and fools, that no exemplary philosopher has lived since the idea of Truth is Out There came to rule, by hands of Plato, the last thinker who was also a ruler.





*or: realities too significant to be identified.

To be clear: I just dug out the plant to show its black roots to Odysseus, for him to consider the plant whole; its roots drawn into itself are dark, its leaves drawn to the sun are of a very different quality. And yet it grew from the same seed.

Tentatively we might consider the two apparent natures, or rather the two natural appearances, of the moly, as the two sides of the cleaved principle. It would suggest a path along which we identify the self-valuing of Philosophy here; it would seem to be perfectly required that it has two sides working by different laws.

Roots and leaves are rooted in seed, law and will are rooted in principle.

Perhaps the superman is simply the man who inspires the philosopher to philosophize. Wagner as Nietzsches initial superman? At least the artist tyrant.  The birth of tragedy from music; Nietzsche initially sought to infuse politics with the same spirit. Is this what we are doing? Are we a band of minstrels in the land of Christ?

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:01 pm

Truth is undeniable, I won't deny the truth of this.

But some flesh:

What if Odiseus had lived in a world that understands progression of possibilities of possibilities (or potential of potential, no difference in this case) as much as ours? Might he not have said "I will let them be pigs a while longer, while I learn of other things?" Realistically speaking, we have no wife and son waiting on an island kingdom for us.

All this giving... Why light the torch just yet? Why the hurry?

So far, man has made the fire haphazardly, as it could. Why not let it live by the light of Circe a while longer while we learn to make better fires?

I hint at it but don't say it because it can scarcely be taken as truth: but I have fucking been there, with the match in my hand... The gravity field can be wiedened consciously, and then "awakening" might be the thing hope of glory hopes it will be. At present, it would sourly disappoint.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 7:39 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Capable wrote:
Yes, however I am making an argument that this is not the case, my argument is that politics is inherently different from philosophy and that "political philosophy" means specifically that something of philosophy has impressed itself into the political, albeit only partially and to the detriment of those philosophical ideas themselves. See my more recent post [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

You say it is about the politicization of philosophy, to me that makes no sense. Philosophy cannot become "politicized" except to simply stop being philosophy. In that other post I link you to above I am attempting to create definitions for these ideas, I would appreciate you either arguing directly against my ideas here or instead if you can elaborate on exactly what is meant by "politicization of philosophy". Your outline of taking parts 1, 2 and 3 as some kind of sequence leading to a "political philosophy" (eternal recurrence) makes no sense to me except perhaps to illustrate my point by pointing to how Nietzsche lost himself in the madness of 'eternal recurrence', his strange and ultimately failed attempt to unify the vastness of his thought and achieve something moral thereby. Your progression Superman -> Will to Poer -> ER is interesting to me but I will need you to elaborate more about the rationale behind this move of yours, in order for me to better understand what you are attempting to say. Did Nietzsche make this statement about how the parts of TSZ are organized analogously as you say to those primary ideas? I've not seen that before. And in any case we need further evidence that this can be called a 'political' movement and process.

I'm not saying political philosophy is about the politicization of philosophy, I'm saying it is the politicization of philosophy. This in contrast to what Pezer suggested, that it be the philosophization of politics. Bear with me while I quote an important passage:

On pp. 167-68 of _Leo Strauss and Nietzsche_, Laurence Lampert wrote:
Society's element is, unalterably, opinion, and philosophy attempts to dissolve the element in which society breathes, thus endangering society. From these two premises Strauss drew the conclusion that philosophy must preserve itself and society by exoteric allegiance to society's false opinions while esoterically pursuing its betrayal of them, and that it must do so always and do so in the old ways. Nietzsche denied the timeless necessity of this conclusion drawn from his timelessly true premises, and he did so for one primary reason: modern opinion necessitates what it also makes possible, the attempt to bring society's opinions into accord with philosophy's character, not by making society wise but by making its opinions reflect rather than contradict the truth.

Straussian political philosophy--which was also the political philosophy from Plato to at least Descartes--is the philosopher's exoteric allegiance to society's false opinions. Nietzschean political philosophy is the philosopher's attempt to make society's opinions reflect rather than contradict the truth. Note: in neither case is the philosopher trying to make society wise, i.e. to philosophize politics. Political philosophy is just the philosopher's becoming political--and, at least in the former case, politic!--for the sake of philosophy. (In fact, the word "philosopher" was itself a politic alternative to "sophist"--"wise man".)

How do you know Nietzsche's attempt ultimately failed? Has his influence already come to an end?

You can read one good Sauwelian take on the connection between Zarathustra's three teachings here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. In the meantime, I'll meditate on another.

Quick reply since I don't have much time/focus right now.

My argument is that philosophy itself cannot become "political" even if it engages in rhetoric or adopts "exoteric" beliefs and thereby lending a (false, dishonest) support to any given political party or position in a society-- that isn't philosophy. That's my whole point.

Pezer is right that philosophy infusing itself into politics, politics becoming more philosophical is the only possible meaning here, but I stress what I already said about politics and philosophy being quite opposite each other and that the reason for this is two-fold: that politics is very young and sill based largely on non-philosophical psychology as well as necessarily in extra-philosophical pragmatic concerns of social administration, and also that for philosophy, which means thought and our ideas, to manifest itself and "realize" an act in the world requires necessarily that that thought-ideation arrest itself qua process and thereby become passive, a frozen form. There is no other way to act in the world practically-speaking than for the ontology of the act itself to be a largely frozen object, it cannot be a constant self-questioning exploration of pure thought and unbounded reason when the end is to externalize a meaningful effect in the society. At best the act can be as much as possible inspired by a philosophy (think the communist revolutions), which is probably what Pezer was correctly pointing to.

Such instances are not even examples of philosophy realizing itself as politics, more like philosophy becoming bastardized and affronted by a non-philosophical impulse and being unable to stop that impulse's takeover; philosophy is inherently impotent in this way, it cannot stop the world from "taking over" that which philosophy might like to secure and command. Which is why I see any attempts to create an "uberman" society or politics as misguided.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 3599
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:04 pm

Another example of this idea is Deleuze's insight that ethics, in particular considering law, crime and moral blameworthiness, is always a kind of falsification of something that would be a more proper and extended ethical investigation; we can't assign blame to a person for their crime without, speaking in terms of a proper philosophical look here, exhausting the full context of the person and their action, at least attempting this as much as possible. Every action needs to be treated as absolutely individual and no larger one size fits all approach can be applied and still remain philosophically significant; but of course that is totally impractical and a society can't operate a judicial system like that.

 

___________
"Since the old God has abdicated, I shall rule the world from now on." --Nietzsche

"It would be wise to exercise caution with one's wishes." --Penny Royal AI

Odinwar <---[truth]---> Jeraz

Peace. War. Love. Wordz


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Wed Sep 16, 2015 8:16 pm

The Athenians tried.

Goddamn they were cool.

But that was then. It required a very small polity, and was doomed for reasons Capable pointed out about politics as conniving given enough time... Or even more probably, considering Socrates' considerations of justice, from the get-go.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sauwelios
Saturnian
Saturnian
avatar

Posts : 109
Join date : 2011-12-15
Age : 39
Location : Amsterdam

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:19 am

Capable wrote:
Quick reply since I don't have much time/focus right now.

My argument is that philosophy itself cannot become "political" even if it engages in rhetoric or adopts "exoteric" beliefs and thereby lending a (false, dishonest) support to any given political party or position in a society-- that isn't philosophy. That's my whole point.

Pezer is right that philosophy infusing itself into politics, politics becoming more philosophical is the only possible meaning here, but I stress what I already said about politics and philosophy being quite opposite each other and that the reason for this is two-fold: that politics is very young and sill based largely on non-philosophical psychology as well as necessarily in extra-philosophical pragmatic concerns of social administration, and also that for philosophy, which means thought and our ideas, to manifest itself and "realize" an act in the world requires necessarily that that thought-ideation arrest itself qua process and thereby become passive, a frozen form. There is no other way to act in the world practically-speaking than for the ontology of the act itself to be a largely frozen object, it cannot be a constant self-questioning exploration of pure thought and unbounded reason when the end is to externalize a meaningful effect in the society. At best the act can be as much as possible inspired by a philosophy (think the communist revolutions), which is probably what Pezer was correctly pointing to.

Such instances are not even examples of philosophy realizing itself as politics, more like philosophy becoming bastardized and affronted by a non-philosophical impulse and being unable to stop that impulse's takeover; philosophy is inherently impotent in this way, it cannot stop the world from "taking over" that which philosophy might like to secure and command. Which is why I see any attempts to create an "uberman" society or politics as misguided.

Even though will to power is just "a weak and attenuating metaphor" (BGE 22), philosophy is will to power rather than an "exploration of pure thought and unbounded reason". As such, the difference between philosophy and political philosophy is simply that the former is an imaginary imposition on all existence, whereas the latter is an actual imposition on a particular society through the mind.

 

___________
FIAT·IVSTITIA·ET·PEREAT·MVNDVS
RECVRRAT·NATVRA·ET·EXPELLATVR·FVRCA


Last edited by Sauwelios on Sun Jun 26, 2016 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:19 am

So, still in the same place, still all in agreement in our own ways, rather from our own angles.

The question that started all this, and do translate it to your own words, even before the pentad, was: how do we bring the philosopher water?

This question has not been answered. Except that BTL already does some of this. I agree. That a physical structure needs to exist. We have been fantazicing about that one for years now.

What is the straight line at this point?

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4153
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:23 pm

Pezer wrote:
So, still in the same place, still all in agreement in our own ways, rather from our own angles.

The question that started all this, and do translate it to your own words, even before the pentad, was: how do we bring the philosopher water?

This question has not been answered. Except that BTL already does some of this. I agree. That a physical structure needs to exist. We have been fantazicing about that one for years now.

What is the straight line at this point?

Just from my own angle I was getting plenty of water the past days.

As you all know I relish contradicting perspectives as long as they are forged in intelligence and, indeed, passion - and if they are noble, solid, truthful enough to look one another in the eye. There is no higher politics than this; from this politics that we sort of having going, which is a lot more than we could say 2 years ago, ripples are sent out.

What I've been through these years, so close to death, and the position I find myself in now, I am not really the one to ask 'I like this water, but where is more water?' Forgive my my modesty.

I do not necessarily think there is more to be found than this; I know there is more to be established than this, but only by continuing to look the others in the eyes.

In order for the step from 'men above time' to 'man against time' to be made, it must be realized that the question of water is political. Politics is as old as the animal kingdom, older even. It is the organization of perspectives around necessity.

At any time two different perspectives find each other constructive, politics is being conducted. Philosophy was possible only very much later and indeed it originally was kind of antithesis to politics in the sense of negating perspectivism - philosophy was the quest after universals.

The politicization of philosophy therefore could (but by no means has to) be seen as the returning of philosophy to earth. Naturally, it needs to be absolutely resistant to the sort of compromises politics usually demand; in this way, the politicization of philosophy would simply result in the philosophizing of politics, of man, of 'world'.

So, even if philosophy is seen as fundamentally incompatible with politics, this position exerts a political influence. It is thus possible for our purists to uncompromisingly reject politics while still partaking in the shaping of a politics that does them justice.

Money is not the most problematic issue. I can get it if I commit myself to that. If we continue on this course, there is no question that commitment will solidify into an acting will.

In order that we may grow an Academy around ourselves (I see politics as the act of centralizing ourselves to a world that can will come into being only by that means) we need to continue disagreeing and explicating our grounds. This is the 'strategy' that gave birth to the Academy; we've all read enough of Plato to know that agreement does not factor into his power much.

 

___________
" 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
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:44 pm

I thought I was looking for any way forward. Picking away until the future feels like it really belongs to us.

I will reflect on this.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 2:53 pm

By the way, I agree with academia scholars, and perhaps THIS is politics: there is really no such thing as money.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fixed Cross
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 4153
Join date : 2011-11-09
Location : Will to Power

PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   Thu Sep 17, 2015 3:13 pm

Pezer wrote:
I thought I was looking for any way forward. Picking away until the future feels like it really belongs to us.

Im just saying don't throw out the water with the baby. I am picking away as well, but because the future feels like it really belongs to us.

But it has felt like this forever. I am only starting to discern some of the terms under which the conquest is to take place.

Even if our efforts here end up splintering this group and causing regret and setback, none of us will be truly free of the kingly destiny of philosophy.

And this is the only way philosophy can be political, as tyrant; It can simply not compromise itself, therefore it is ultimately ideally fit to politics, more fit than anything else; only philosophy does not corrupt in power.

 

___________
" 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
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism   

Back to top Go down
 
Sawelios, Weltanschauungsphilosophie, and Automorphism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2

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