The Red Zones Of Philosophy (Philosophical Dangers)
Quoting Jack Cummins
Nihilism
[quote=Wikipedia]Nihilism (/?na?(h)?l?z?m, ?ni?-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, expressing negation towards general aspects of life that are widely accepted within humanity as objectively real, such as knowledge, existence, and the meaning of life.[/quote]
Absurdism and the related Existential Crisis
[quote=Wikipedia]In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life, and the human inability to find these with any certainty[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Existential crisis, also known as existential dread, are moments when individuals question whether their lives have meaning, purpose, or value, and are negatively impacted by the contemplation. It may be commonly, but not necessarily, tied to depression or inevitably negative speculations on purpose in life such as the futility of all effort (e.g., "if one day I will be forgotten, what is the point of all of my work?")[/quote]
As you can see, there are certain areas in philosophy (Nihilism, Absurdism) that have known negative effects on our mental well-being and that, in my humble opinion, if not counteracted with an opposing positive force, this force either itself another philosophical perspective or, as in most cases, Prozac, could lead to matters spiralling out of control until the inevitable happens...suicide.
That said, a Google search of philosophers, Deaths Of Philosophers, who took their own lives doesn't seem to reveal any correlation between philosophy and suicide. Perhaps someone more informed than me can shed some light on this.
I'm basically inquiring into the possibility of red zones (a region that is dangerous or forbidden) in philosophy where either no philosopher or layman may enter because of the high risks involved, risks to one's general well-being or even one's life. If not that then, at the very least, restricted areas in philosophy where only experienced and qualified philosophers are allowed access because of the inherent dangers (severe depression, suicide, etc.)
It's worth mentioning here that there are some "philosophies" e.g. Mahayana Buddhism in which some teachings are reserved only for those who are deemed fit to receive them because there's a chance, no matter how slim, that the pupil's mind won't be able to handle them and in the process become insane or worse.
To summarize, in the simplest sense, should books on philosophy carry a statutory warning like cigarette packets do: [s]SMOKING[/s] PHILOSOPHY KILLS? :chin:
I began using the term philosophical danger during discussion with you on one of your threads and I think that you saw it like a movie, often with a girl going somewhere she should not go. You also spoke of cats' 9 lives and wondering if you had used yours. I wonder how many lives we have on the forum and whether there are threads where we should not go. I also see dangers as being related to untying philosophical knots, and like being in a Celtic maze or labyrinth.
Nihilism
[quote=Wikipedia]Nihilism (/?na?(h)?l?z?m, ?ni?-/; from Latin nihil 'nothing') is a philosophy, or family of views within philosophy, expressing negation towards general aspects of life that are widely accepted within humanity as objectively real, such as knowledge, existence, and the meaning of life.[/quote]
Absurdism and the related Existential Crisis
[quote=Wikipedia]In philosophy, "the Absurd" refers to the conflict between the human tendency to seek inherent value and meaning in life, and the human inability to find these with any certainty[/quote]
[quote=Wikipedia]Existential crisis, also known as existential dread, are moments when individuals question whether their lives have meaning, purpose, or value, and are negatively impacted by the contemplation. It may be commonly, but not necessarily, tied to depression or inevitably negative speculations on purpose in life such as the futility of all effort (e.g., "if one day I will be forgotten, what is the point of all of my work?")[/quote]
As you can see, there are certain areas in philosophy (Nihilism, Absurdism) that have known negative effects on our mental well-being and that, in my humble opinion, if not counteracted with an opposing positive force, this force either itself another philosophical perspective or, as in most cases, Prozac, could lead to matters spiralling out of control until the inevitable happens...suicide.
That said, a Google search of philosophers, Deaths Of Philosophers, who took their own lives doesn't seem to reveal any correlation between philosophy and suicide. Perhaps someone more informed than me can shed some light on this.
I'm basically inquiring into the possibility of red zones (a region that is dangerous or forbidden) in philosophy where either no philosopher or layman may enter because of the high risks involved, risks to one's general well-being or even one's life. If not that then, at the very least, restricted areas in philosophy where only experienced and qualified philosophers are allowed access because of the inherent dangers (severe depression, suicide, etc.)
It's worth mentioning here that there are some "philosophies" e.g. Mahayana Buddhism in which some teachings are reserved only for those who are deemed fit to receive them because there's a chance, no matter how slim, that the pupil's mind won't be able to handle them and in the process become insane or worse.
To summarize, in the simplest sense, should books on philosophy carry a statutory warning like cigarette packets do: [s]SMOKING[/s] PHILOSOPHY KILLS? :chin:
Comments (52)
I have sort of developed a philosophy that says that solipsism is a perfectly viable way to explain our sensed lives, but it is not the only viable way. One other way, among I guess many ways, is to say that the reality we experience is the reality that is actual.
Who is to say which is more likely from our vantage? They are equally likely.
So the position I take is that I admit they are equally likely, but I choose to believe (believe, and not know) that my experiences that I sense are in the real world are indeed in the real world.
The whole thing boils down to one maxim:
"Many know, manier don't, that to believe is stronger than to know."
I can't see the truth in that, and I can't prove it false.
I am interested to see that you are developing the idea of philosophical dangers and related phenomena. I also found it interesting that you bring in the philosophy of nihilism. I can remember engaging with someone on the topic of nihilism a few months ago on this forum, and felt it was such a dead end of thought that on the next day I didn't wish to get out of bed. I just lay there feeling so miserable. However, I was aware that the person who was communicating with me did not feel that the philosophers of nihilism was a source for potential depression.
I am sure that many people see balance between philosophies of nothingness and those of flights into exhilaration as the most ideal. However, it is may not be that simple. We live in a Prozac culture, in which if we experience feelings of emptiness and flatness, and even suicidal despair, we may go to our GPs, possibly with no one else to turn to. Within minutes a prescription may be written out for Prozac, or one of the newer, potentially more powerful antidepressants, like Mirtazapine. We may even be given contact numbers for crisis lines, go home and take pills.
But, does this swallowing of pills really address the philosophy quest? Is it our views of the world which are leading us down what The Nine Inch Nails album, 'The Downward Spiral'. We live in the aftermath of the existentialism of Nietzsche, the broken down sense of meaning of postmodernism. We may sit at home, with or without pills to make us feel more cheerful, not knowing how to make life more bearable, reading philosophy books, and it is possible that we may still only find ones which make us feel even less significant in the grand scheme of life. I think that the danger zone of philosophy is probably that which ends up saying that we count for absolutely nothing.
And reverse psychology might inadvertantly "brand" philosophy as cool, even transgressive, which certainly won't deter (non-ADHD) thrill-seekers and other ("bulletproof") optimists.
:mask:
The human mind expects M O R E from the world than the world has to offer. (e.g. Zapffe, Cioran, Camus, Rosset, Murray, Brassier) How does a mind cope with this congenital – radical – dissatisfaction, frustration, misery?
Optimism is the true killer (suicidal or homicidal, it doesn't seem to matter).
Quoting god must be atheist
:up: No stance is more optimistic than that onanistic mindfuck.
I can't speak for another philosophers perspective but I feel it is nessesary to study the foundations of yourself first above all other philosophies.
Because if one of the foundations of what you know maybe flawed before you took up philosophy it can create a philosophy based on flawed logic.
To put it simply: A reflective study of self is needed for all philosophers.
There is more to my view on philosophy here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/11008/my-approach-to-a-philosophy-in-philosophy-and-learning
Morals are simply: The most destructive and villainous thing in our reality is valuing a social construct or object over the lives or well-beings of other living things. (self included)
So considering that philosophers can be influenced by immoral acts as much as a criminals, it goes to show what a lack of reflective study can do to a philosophers perspective.
Quoting Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’
I think part of dealing with these ‘philosophical dangers’ is understanding that philosophical ‘isms’ do not define us.
That's wrong. People don't go nuts from reading philosophy. A normal person reading Kierkegaard or Sartre will say "Pfft!" and move on. Why is the general public view of philosophy so negative? Because to most people, philosophy is simply "much to do about nothing".
People's interest in a particular philosophy is aligned with their preexisting tendencies. It's not that reading, say, Camus would make one adopt an absurdist view. Rather, it's already having an absurdist view that will make one interested in what others had to say about it.
I would tend to agree with this.
Good question. I suppose because thinking is difficult and thinking about thinking is counter-intuitive.
I missed this one. Is the view negative? I think many people are suspicious of intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals (not always unreasonably so). Philosophy is often depicted as a rarified intellectual pursuit and it doesn't exactly recommend itself with dynamic results and user friendliness.
Indeed! The implications of solipsisim hasn't really sunk in for me. My experience with it has been more as a disinterested observer than anything that I might consider a realization Perhaps I should clarify this a bit more. What's the difference between comprehension and realization? To my reckoning, the latter is an experience imbued as it were with emotion - it almost feels like an orgasm if you ask me. Comprehension, on the other hand can be achieved sans feelings. Is this the philosophers' dirty little secret? Is Sophia (wisdom) the ultimate sex goddess? :chin:
Anyway, as I was saying, I haven't been able to connect with solipisism at an emotional level and my view is that until that happens, I won't realize what it really is. @Wayfarer once, in another thread, mentioned about how we can talk about nirvana but never get to know what nirvana really is (by just talking about it) and my hunch is that boils down to the difference between comprehension and realization. I went off on a tangent there, had to get this off my chest. Please ignore the digression.
Quoting Jack Cummins
[quote=Dr. Lanning (I, Robot)]That, my friend, is the right question[/quote]
I know this is philosophical heresy and I may be guilty of a hasty generalization but makes you wanna ask, "is philosophy a disease that needs to be cured?" Some, especially scientists, have accused philosophy of being a total waste of scarce state resources but could it be, brace yourself o philosopher , worse than that?
Quoting 180 Proof
:rofl:
Quoting 180 Proof
I can't help but agree. Speaking for myself, I've always been somewhat troubled by one recurring thought, "there's something that I'm missing here" which in more familiar language would be "there's more to reality than meets the eye."
You know, like,
[quote=Hamlet]There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.[/quote]
but of late I'm beginning to doubt my instincts in this regard. I haven't yet changed my mind - old habits die hard - but I am beginning to lean towards a position that can be summed up in the statement,
[quote=Ethel Barrymore]That's all there is, there isn't any M O R E[/quote]
Quoting 180 Proof
Much tears have been shed, lives lost, on its watch.
Quoting Tiberiusmoon
[quote=Socrates]The unexamined life is not worth living[/quote]
Philosophy is a journey into the self in tandem with an attempt to understand our place in the world as we know it. These two goals don't seem to be as mutually compatible with each other as we would've liked - our hopes seem to be exceed reality's ability to make them come true in any satisfactory sense.
Quoting baker
True! Philosophy, no matter what effect it has on our mood and no matter what it might lead to, whether you might end up laughing like Democritus or constantly weeping like Heraclitus, might be a voyage of self-discovery but that would mean there's no objectivity to it.
It is worth considering whether the question of nihilism is a position or a journey through, and I think that can vary. What I wrote the post I was thinking about some discussions I had on this site in January. One of these people was clearly coming from the standpoint of defending nihilism as a philosophical position. However, he saw it as not being a source for feeling miserable but as a foundation from which to build a creative life. I did feel that this took me on a little journey into that dimension rather than leading me to the point where I would say I actually felt that I saw it as my own position.
But, I do think that this all depends on how we view out searching, and possibly how concretely we take the ideas which we are thinking about. I do find that it is very easy to get very caught up in a particular point of view where it can almost feel like it is a reality. Fortunately, I do shift around in my thinking, and this prevents me getting too locked into any one. However, I do believe that can happen because I have seen people who really do get drawn into a view where it can become so strong.
I think that the original context of me using the phrase 'psychology danger' in discussions with @Madfool a couple of days ago was about thinking error, but, then, we revisited it and expanded it a bit yesterday, and, here, in this thread he has expressed it mainly as the psychological danger of how people can come to harm or peril through engagement with ideas. I do believe that it is possible for people to become absorbed in certain philosophies, such as nihilism, where this could happen. But, this would probably depend on other factors in a person's life. It would probably be easier for someone to be joyful in embracing nihilism if their social and material conditions are comfortable rather than if someone was struggling financially and lacking in social support.
Oximoron. It's either copulation or handplay.
The only people who can do both at the same time ar those who reach in though... never mind.
:starstruck:
This may apply to me what with my theory of what constitutes morality. I still have to hear someone who agrees with the thoughts expressed therein. The strongest viable criticism was so far a discredulity of the claim that people risk quite a bit, even their lives, to save their progeny from certain death. It is an empirically decided question, and while I insist that most people would do this, there are also the examples of people drowning their children to get the love of a man. (Was a case about 20-30 years ago, a woman drove her kids in her car into a lake and told police that some visible minority people stole her car. She was eventually charged and convicted, given 20 times the life sentence. She was / perhaps still is / gorgeous.) But then again, we see cats and dogs and chimpanzees save their offspring at great personal risk from certain death.
Maybe that bit with the woman drowning her children can be explained by a yet different mutation or suppression of the morality gene. I dunno.
If you look at my thread on What Are We, I have just written a post a few minutes ago about how far people go in personal morality in relation to the authenticity.
But, in relation to the topic of getting in danger due to ideas I do see it as a real danger. I do take my reading and exploration of ideas very seriously, so I try to steer clear of philosophical dangers, and I wonder how many other people on this site, or in life generally, that this issue applies to as well.
How did you determine philosophy of any kind leads to suicide? How have you determined that any philosophy leads to spiralling out of control?
Quoting TheMadFool
No, because there is no evidence that philosophy kills. At all.
If you want to lay some instances of mental illness at the feet of philosophy you have to be able to show how you can tell the difference between the philosophical cause and a pre-existing mental illness. How would you be able to tell when it was the philosophy doing it?
I dunno... Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza, Marx, Buddha... all dead. That is evidence you can count on.
Right and breathing kills because every dead person did breathing.
Buddha obviously had some sort of eating disorder I bet that’s what killed him.
Not so. You find that in Tantrism, of which there are Buddhist and non-Buddhist forms. In tantric religion, there are indeed practises reserved for the initiates, but mainstream Mah?y?na has no such restrictions. (See https://g.co/kgs/qNVuP8)
He was a reformed anorexic. Most likely had hormone replacement therapy, too, except the pharmacist mixed up the recipe and gave him heavy doses of estrogen. He had the best set of tits his side of the Euphrates river.
:lol:
The contemporary Anarchist interpretation of Nihilism is somewhat dangerous. In Blessed is the Flame, Serafinski highlights a poignant poverty to resistance in concentration camps so as to offer a futile revolution predicated upon vengeance, quite literally, I might add, wherein acts of terror are undertaken à la l'art pour l'art. It's basically just a form of political suicide.
Nihilist interpretations of the human condition can also be somewhat insidious. They can have kind of a pessimistic assessment of human nature that approximates in The Will to Power.
Existentialists refer to all sorts of things as being indicative of "nihilism", some of which are and some of which are not, but its contemporary manifestation within the Anarchist movement is indicative of an incapacity to cope with the human condition. I'm pretty sure that The Conspiracy of Fire Nuclei also happen to be somewhat Nihilist.
I'd bet that The World as Will and Representation has a larger body count than The Myth of Sisyphus, though.
Do you mind explaining that? Thanks.
Quoting Wikipedia, ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’
:clap: So, what's the status of nihilism vis-à-vis humans? Is its "departure" imminent or has it already taken place? If it's still with us, how is humanity coping with it? What's the most promising philosophical idea in re a solution to nihilism?
Quoting Tom Storm
Quoting baker
Quoting 180 Proof
Assuming you're all right that people have a dim view of philosophy, Plato's warning (vide infra) should resonate with all philosophers worth their salt.
Plato's Allegory Of The Cave
[quote=Wikipedia]Return to the cave
Plato continues, saying that the freed prisoner would think that the world outside the cave was superior to the world he experienced in the cave and attempt to share this with the prisoners remaining in the cave attempting to bring them onto the journey he had just endured; "he would bless himself for the change, and pity [the other prisoners]" and would want to bring his fellow cave dwellers out of the cave and into the sunlight (516c).[2]
The returning prisoner, whose eyes have become accustomed to the sunlight, would be blind when he re-enters the cave, just as he was when he was first exposed to the sun (516e).[2] The prisoners, according to Plato, would infer from the returning man's blindness that the journey out of the cave had harmed him and that they should not undertake a similar journey. Plato concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave (517a).[/quote]
Quoting Jack Cummins
:clap: He wishes to make a stepping stone (a meaningful life) out of a stumbling block (nihilism)! Did he succeed?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Excelente Señora! The dangers are, if you really look at it, psychological and this opens up a new front in this discussion viz. the relationship, if any, between psychology and philosophy. Is, for instance, philosophy driven by psychological forces such as insecurity, or any one or more of the large list of complexes psychologists have identified?
Quoting DingoJones
My own impressions on the link between philosophy and so-called mental illness (depression, suicide, or worse) is that it (the connection between the two) is, inter alia, about how emotionally invested we are in a particular philosophy. At a minimum, becoming involved at the level of feelings with a certain philosophical theory/hypothesis makes one susceptible to all kinds of mental ailments from anger & frustration towards those who hold an opposing view (e.g. theists vs atheists) to total insanity/inanity.
However, more importantly, many people, including philosophers themselves, don't seem to realize the full import of philosophical positions, even those they themselves either directly or indirectly, established. To do that one needs to feel the idea whatever that idea is and this seems to rarely occur; probably because to comprehened a philosophical standpoint one needs to become an ideal observer and that, according to some, is only possible if one is dispassionate.
To illustrate, the difference between someone who comprehends (say) nihilism and someone who realizes it:
1. Comprehends nihilism: :meh: [unfeeling]
2. Realizes nihilism: :sad: [feeling]
Quoting thewonder
Such people have then realized as opposed to comprehended.
I'm in your debt. Thanks
I try not to be too condescending towards Nihilists, but that is what Existentialism is. They'll bring up Renzo Novatore or some other obscure, probably Anarchist, philosopher, but what doing that actually is just Existentialism.
Quoting TheMadFool
From Narodnaya Volya to Emil Cioran, I think that most of these people know what Nihilism is. They are not coping well with the sentiment their understanding of the world has evoked, but they are not somehow lacking in abstract comprehension.
I will say that there are probably a grand total of, like, seven actual Nihilists in the world and that it is somewhat absurd for Existentialists to have characterized the Postmodern condition as being plagued by "nihilism". It'd be more accurate to talk about philosophical pessimism.
I think that the link between philosophical positions and mental illness probably goes beyond the scope of the dangers of specific red zones of philosophy. Having worked in mental health care, I have seen that people's belief systems come into play in connection with mental health problems, but it involves many factors.
I am also a bit wary of discussion about mental illness on this site, because I am sure that it is probably experienced by certain members of the forum. I have also noticed that in a number of posts in recent weeks that people have made comments, telling people that they were mentally ill purely on the basis of something that they had written. I made no comment because it was in the context of specific interactions, but I was thinking that people should not be throwing labels around in such a way. Mental health problems involve careful diagnosis and, even though the antipsychiatry movement is out of date, I believe that the way people are diagnosed is an area which involves critical interpretation.
Leaving that aside, I think that the relationship between mental health and philosophy involves the link between how our ideas affect our intimately. I am sure that there is research on the topic but, based on my experience of working in mental health, part of the problem of that, as people, we view ourselves in frameworks of ideas connected to our experiences. In times of heightened stress, these ideas may become exacerbated in the struggle to make sense of life. Also, the quest for finding ideas which make sense can involve a lot of stress.
However, based on my observations, I have seen people getting unwell, and I am speaking of their experience not diagnosis, when their ideas become incredibly overwhelming, especially if they lack other people to discuss the worries which they have. But, I have known people experience this on account of their engagement with religious philosophies or other ones, including but not specifically nihilism.
I also would say that mental health problems is likely involve many factors, including genetics, but it does seem that philosophy comes into the picture in the way people interpret their own mental states. But, this is such a big area beyond the scope of this thread, especially in considering the way people interpret aspects of psychotic experiences.
Nihilism is born out of extreme social alienation and it is tragic that it is, but I fear that you give it too much ground by highlighting the poignancy to the pathology.
Serafinski has deliberately situated their work within the concentration camp so as consign their readers to abject despair. They don't want to be liberated from what they have identified as the human condition. They want to produce a situation to where they will be let to go on a manic ride, what they call jouissance, as adventurist terrorists on a killing spree. These people aren't troubled teenagers anymore. They're clever and cruel. It's tragic that they ended up the way that they did, but people are just going to have to let them go the way they're going to go and keep everyone else from getting involved. Hopefully, it's like I think and they won't do anything at all.
You are right that most Nihilists are neurodivergent people in their twenties, though. We can feel sorry for them, I guess.
I have only done very limited reading on the topic of nihilism. The context of me mentioning it was because I had a fair amount of discussion about the topic with a forum member, who I believe had read a lot in the area, and embraced nihilism. I won't name the user as I am not sure if he is still using the forum or not, because I have not seen posts by him.
I was really speaking of how on the basis of discussion on the topic I had was a trigger for low mood. I did not tell the person who I was interacting with that I felt that way, and I would still engage with him further, and on that topic because I do think highly of his ideas and writing. Also, I have to admit that it probably would not have taken too much for me to get low because the discussion was in the height of lockdown However, I probably won't rush to read books on nihilism, although I don't specifically wish to avoid them.
I just deliberately put what out there I thought could alleviate the recent plight of Nihilism within the Anarchist movement and didn't want for it not to do that. It's nothing that you did or anything.
Most Nihilists tend to be neurodivergent and afflicted by a certain degree of social alienation by that account. They're really not all that bad. The circles that Serafinski runs in, however, are fairly nefarious. By allying themselves with Individualists Tending toward the Wild, they're tacitly threatening to kill their political opponents. They have also done kind of a lot of manipulative things otherwise.
It's concerning, but only so much so, as, as I said before, most Nihilists are just only coping with what they've come to understand about the world so well. It'd be a purely philosophical difference without things like this going on.
The one final comment which I would say is that from the conversation I had with the person who discussed his philosophy of nihilism with me, he was not saddened by this way of seeing life at all. The idea of a happy nihilist is interesting. If he is still using the forum, I wonder if he will read this, and what he might add.
As I am not saying anything against him, and do have respect for him and his philosophy of egoism, I have decided to include his name, so that he may get a notification. It would be interesting to have him partake in the discussion.
I figured that it was Gus. Gus seems like a certain character depiction of mine, but I think is probably pretty alright. I'd doubt that he's in league with any of the political adversaries that I just can't seem to leave behind. Gus kind of gives me some perspective in that way.
I'll probably just tell him that that's how you could interpret Thus Spoke Zarathustra and we'll probably both conclude that Albert Camus both was and was not a Nihilist, but I'll leave him the floor for now.
I'm sure this has been discussed before but is it actually possible to be a nihilist other than in a posturing sense? Can any person be totally without values and transcend even psychopathy's amoral outlook? If you say 'I am a nihilist', presumably you are affirming a value system and ruling out the fact you are a nihilist... or am I just paradox struck at the moment?
Have tired to read TSZ again this past fortnight. I don't know how people can read this, it is so dull and arch.
It's so very like how it is, but it does have it's moments.
I have met many posturing nihilists but I think that this is probably different to genuine nihilism. So, it will be interesting to see if Gus or anyone else who subscribes to that philosophy responds. However, I wonder how we really differentiate between the posturing and the genuine, especially in the context of the movement of romanticism and angry young men. If when I was thinking about nihilism in January I had gone out and got into some discussion about nihilism, I am sure that I may have been seen as posturing. I am also asking myself whether I was a posturer myself when I used to read and talk about Nietzsche.
Sure, just not for long.
:joke:
I'm sure there are psychologists/psychiatrists who believe just that.
I also once read something peculiar in an essay about the meaning of life by a philosophy professor at the local university (not in English). Namely, he addressed some aspect of the meaning of life problem, and said that such and such was just "a sign of low self-esteem".
Or conversely, how much of a philosophical dilettante one is. By this I mean that only a philosophical
dilettante would allow themselves to be affected by philosophizing.
Back in college, I had classmates who majored in philosophy. It always struck me as odd that they seemed so completely unaffected by their study of philosophy, so completely unchanged by it. In hindsight, it seems that was actually the whole point: to not let it (ie. philosophy) get to one.
Someone once said that the difference between a religious man and a philosopher is that the religious man puts his life on the line for his beliefs, while the philosopher deals in expendable theories.
Quoting 180 Proof
Our sophistries still trump our philosophies, no? Like religions still do ...
There are three parts to this, as described in The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit is Zarathustra. When what was once a cultures source of strength becomes its weakness then it must reject those values. But if this is not in turn overcome, if negation of the old is not replaced with new affirmative values which will be a new source of strength, then there no new "yes" only "no, that is, nihilism.
This cycle repeats whenever existing values are no longer life affirming.
That would be appropriate only if it's truly possible to die of laughter.
That doesn’t answer my question. How are you able to tell the difference between philosophy as a cause of those things (anger and frustration to insanity) and other pre-existing conditions (like certain personality types/traits for example) that cause those things?
You have a theory about philosophy as a cause but you haven’t at all demonstrated that it is.
I'm curious why you use the term 'optimism' rather than denial, short-sightedness, or the like.
While I agree with you about nihilism, Absurdism is not so much a cause of negative mental well-being as it is a response to it; it's sort of a response to nihilism as well. The Absurdist thesis is that in light of the conflict between the human craving for "meaning" as in cosmic significance and the apparent lack thereof in the actual world, there are three possible responses: nihilism therefore suicide; irrational hope in blind faith of some kind; or, basically, saying "fuck it" and heroically carrying on with life anyways despite whatever terrifying meaningless void there might seem to be. Absurdism advocates the last of those.
That, I think, strikes an important note on this broader topic of "red zones": it's better to highlight ways out of them than to bar entry into them. Really, in a sense, I'd say that that's what all of philosophy is about: examining all of the ways that our common-sense understanding of the world can get flipped around on their heads and lead us into absurd conclusions, and then the ways that those are wrong, so that we end up back in a common-sense kind of worldview at the end, but are then more securely grounded there, knowing why to stay there and why not to be lead off into those "red zones".
Thanks for defending Absurdism. Camus gets a bad rep, partially because of Sartre, because he postulated that philosophical pessimism was just simply the case, whereas Sartre thought things had only become as such. I think that Sartre was right, but Camus didn't think that people should accept such a state of affairs, and, so, was not the "Nihilist" he was claimed to be.
The Postmodern condition clearly differs from that leading up to and during the Second World War, as well as in its aftermath, and, so, I could see how Camus came to his conclusions, but he did become somewhat unfairly isolated from the French intelligensia because of them.
I did, but looking again I notice the other topic title.
I think that I am in agreement with you that it is best to venture into the red zones of philosophy rather than steer clear of them. I am not speaking specifically of nihilism though. Of course, on a personal level, we may find that there are aspects of philosophy and life which are too much to think about at all. It may be that on an intuitive level, people may realise that topics and areas are best avoided. However, sometimes if there are red zones it is a sign that they are not completely avoidable but are acute, and will have to be explored at some point.