Philosophers corner........Debate 2

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Neither I (nor the author of the article) denies this.

But what exactly did you mean by "postmodern emancipation from the enlightenment"?

LH

Emancipation from philosophy from the enlightenment, ie cartesian dualism.

Originally posted by Serendipity
Emancipation from philosophy from the enlightenment, ie cartesian dualism.

And how, exactly, did Nietzsche do that??

Originally posted by lucifershammer
And how, exactly, did Nietzsche do that??

You're killing me................ 🙂

Originally posted by Serendipity
You're killing me................ 🙂

No, seriously.

What was Nietzsche's take on Cartesian dualism? Did he believe mind and body were of the same substance? What was his metaphysical standpoint?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
No, seriously.

What was Nietzsche's take on Cartesian dualism? Did he believe mind and body were of the same substance? What was his metaphysical standpoint?

Cartesian dualism goes on tangents that diverge from mind and body, it affected academic theories and dialectics and a hundred other areas. Call it the trap of soley utilising dualistic principles if you like.

Nietzsche's works were the seeds of cultural relativism (Ruth Benedict the American anthropologist, (amongst others) instigated that within her book 'patterns of culture' 1934 I think) and post modernism, Michel Foucault, the most famous of post modernist philosophers self proclaims himself as a Nietzschean genealogist.

This field is vast..please read

The Foucault reader by Paul Rabinow

Ecce Homo by Nietzsche

Postmodernism and the environmental crisis by Arran E. Gare

I'm sure their help your admirable curiousity

Originally posted by frogstomp
I still maintain "I think, therefore , I think I am." is more precise.
Although I guess maybe , "I am, therefore, I am I think." Sounds ok too.

How about, "I think, therefore maybe I am, I guess."

What I wrote was a kind of Zen koan—although, I should not have said “your mind,” as that might be confusing (e.g., what is the “you” that knows “your” mind?).

Is there a thinker behind the thinking? If not, is there just thinking, thinking “I am?”

A koan is not a simple word-play: what, if anything, lies behind the words? What “I”? When the Zen master offers words, they are like a map—but the map is not the territory…

Originally posted by Serendipity
Cartesian dualism goes on tangents that diverge from mind and body, it affected academic theories and dialectics and a hundred other areas. Call it the trap of soley utilising dualistic principles if you like.

Nietzsche's works were the seeds of cultural relativism (Ruth Benedict the American anthropologist, (amongst others) instigated that within he ...[text shortened]... and the environmental crisis by Arran E. Gare

I'm sure their help your admirable curiousity

Might not Nietzsche’s perspectivism and “multiplicity of the soul” come into play here? I don’t think the “I” for Nietzsche had the character of any core essence, nor was it tied to rational thought.

Originally posted by vistesd
What I wrote was a kind of Zen koan—although, I should not have said “your mind,” as that might be confusing (e.g., what is the “you” that knows “your” mind?).

Is there a thinker behind the thinking? If not, is there just thinking, thinking “I am?”

A koan is not a simple word-play: what, if anything, lies behind the words? What “I”? When the Zen master offers words, they are like a map—but the map is not the territory…

Words lead to interference , just know that all things are simply wavings of space. The space I write of is not confined to Minkowski space. Seek therefore a quiet mind and the all will come to you, or you to it.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Words lead to interference , just know that all things are simply wavings of space. The space I write of is not confined to Minkowski space. Seek therefore a quiet mind and the all will come to you, or you to it.

...in no-time... 😉

What is the Spirituality here?

Originally posted by vistesd
Is there a thinker behind the thinking? If not, is there just thinking, thinking “I am?”

Thinking assumes a thinker. "I am" assumes an "I".

Originally posted by Serendipity
But isn't Descartes implying that you have to be consciously aware of your being to be?

i think therefore I am

I dont think therefore I am not 😕

Actually, you are all wrong.

It translates as: I drink therefore I am.

Cheers.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
What is the Spirituality here?

Spirituality--as in "concern with things of the spirit"?

Nietszche saw the death of God as bringing spiritual freedom. In his view, focusing on error (errors like "I think, therefore I am"--a purely linguistic conundrum) was more fruitful than seeking objective truth. He could be considered an honorary ancestor of the human potential movement...His notion of multiple selves has been mentioned: the "I" as social construct, mask. This concept is regarded by many as liberating.

I find Nietszche compatible with Zen, not least in his use of humour.

I'm told that Nietszche is not regarded as a philosopher by many philosophy departments. At the same time, no other modern philosopher has had as much literary influence (I don't know about the other arts).

What about Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception? It's an interesting reflection on why we can never truly know ourselves.

Originally posted by Palynka
What about Kant's Transcendental Unity of Apperception? It's an interesting reflection on why we can never truly know ourselves.

Can you offer a Kantian perspective on cogito ergo sum?

Kant: profound philosopher, appallingly bad writer. That's why I've never finished one of his books...He doesn't seduce me.