3 ms·

Skimmed the piece but it reminds me: it seems there is a thin line between a psychotic and a mystic. But yes, once you expose yourself to a certain level of cra

by 50 6y ago

Skimmed the piece but it reminds me: it seems there is a thin line between a psychotic and a mystic. But yes, once you expose yourself to a certain level of crazy and/or you come to see how everything appears insane and/or you see the mirage of necessity of it all, the rest of life feels like a gentle breeze. From here on out: detachment, joy, and peace. Nothing hinders you. Even more so: Your capacity to ground yourself in what-you-are - meaning, the unconditioned you, as gooey as that may sound - is proportional to the capacity that you can play life with lightness and humor. Although, that's not to say you won't suffer, you certainly will. But your conceptualization of suffering will be reconfigured and be understood as a sort of "good" thing - a necessary process for the evolution of your consciousness, if you will. As naive as all the above may sound.

AmericanChopper 6y ago
I’ve found a good mix of Markus Aurelius and Soren Kierkegaard has equipped me quite well for most of what life could throw at me. I’m never particularly bothered by things beyond my control, and I’m typically quite happy with being in charge of those things I can control.
- 50 6y ago
  I can see how those two philosophers can well-equip you with a good metaphysical framework for life. I haven't read Aurelius's Meditations but it's lying around somewhere - in due time, I suppose. I failed an existentialism course not too long ago and it partly focused on Kierkegaard. The particular books I like from him are Works of Love and Fear and Trembling. If you are interested in more of his thinking, you might like the Danish drama film entitled Ordet (1955). Also, if you want to know more about his personal life, I liked this read: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regine-olsen-soren-kierkegaard/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regin...
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    Thanks, I’ll give that movie a watch. Personally I think Either/Or is more significant than Fear and Trembling, but Fear and Trembling was ultimately more influential. Personally I see stoicism and leap-of-faith style absurdism as being quite complimentary. I find the leap of faith to be the most appealing resolution to the absurd, but I don’t think the existentialists were particularly successful in addressing anguish. The stoics on the other hand, excelled in this regard.
    - 50 6y ago
      One of the questions I was thinking about when I took that course on existentialism is why might religious existentialism be superior, for lack of a better word, than vanilla existentialism. Research on that question led me to an essay titled "The Other Side of Despair" by Thomas Merton [1]. It's a really good read that I think you'll like. I like the reference and analysis of Kierkegaard's idea of "leveling" - a process "by which the individual person loses himself in the vast emptiness of a public mind" - which is a lot like "alienation" in modern day. Which also reminds me, I should check out Kierkegaard's The Present Age. [1]: https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday-reading-the-other-side-of-despair-by-thomas-merton/ https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday...
      - AmericanChopper 6y ago
        I’ve always thought it was because living a life with meaning requires faith in one way or another, and the Christian existentialists were simply more comfortable with the concept. The involvement of Christian theology really just muddies the waters imo, because the broader topic is really just about faith, and any effort to impart your own meaning (whether religious or otherwise) to your own life is naturally an act of faith. Kierkegaard was a Christian, but his philosophy revolves primarily around the concept of faith (believing something you can’t prove). Nietzsche was an atheist, but his Death of God was a rejection of faith in general as the basis for providing any meaning to life. The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.

by 50 6y ago

AmericanChopper 6y ago

I’ve found a good mix of Markus Aurelius and Soren Kierkegaard has equipped me quite well for most of what life could throw at me. I’m never particularly bothered by things beyond my control, and I’m typically quite happy with being in charge of those things I can control.

50 6y ago
I can see how those two philosophers can well-equip you with a good metaphysical framework for life. I haven't read Aurelius's Meditations but it's lying around somewhere - in due time, I suppose. I failed an existentialism course not too long ago and it partly focused on Kierkegaard. The particular books I like from him are Works of Love and Fear and Trembling. If you are interested in more of his thinking, you might like the Danish drama film entitled Ordet (1955). Also, if you want to know more about his personal life, I liked this read: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regine-olsen-soren-kierkegaard/ https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/keeper-loves-flame-regin...
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Thanks, I’ll give that movie a watch. Personally I think Either/Or is more significant than Fear and Trembling, but Fear and Trembling was ultimately more influential. Personally I see stoicism and leap-of-faith style absurdism as being quite complimentary. I find the leap of faith to be the most appealing resolution to the absurd, but I don’t think the existentialists were particularly successful in addressing anguish. The stoics on the other hand, excelled in this regard.
  - 50 6y ago
    One of the questions I was thinking about when I took that course on existentialism is why might religious existentialism be superior, for lack of a better word, than vanilla existentialism. Research on that question led me to an essay titled "The Other Side of Despair" by Thomas Merton [1]. It's a really good read that I think you'll like. I like the reference and analysis of Kierkegaard's idea of "leveling" - a process "by which the individual person loses himself in the vast emptiness of a public mind" - which is a lot like "alienation" in modern day. Which also reminds me, I should check out Kierkegaard's The Present Age. [1]: https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday-reading-the-other-side-of-despair-by-thomas-merton/ https://thevalueofsparrows.wordpress.com/2014/03/29/saturday...
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      I’ve always thought it was because living a life with meaning requires faith in one way or another, and the Christian existentialists were simply more comfortable with the concept. The involvement of Christian theology really just muddies the waters imo, because the broader topic is really just about faith, and any effort to impart your own meaning (whether religious or otherwise) to your own life is naturally an act of faith. Kierkegaard was a Christian, but his philosophy revolves primarily around the concept of faith (believing something you can’t prove). Nietzsche was an atheist, but his Death of God was a rejection of faith in general as the basis for providing any meaning to life. The leap of faith as a philosophical concept is not about religion. It’s the concept that a person can provide their own life with meaning, without any rational proof to support such a conclusion. If you find the work of Christian existentialists to be superior, it’s likely because you find the leap of faith to be the superior response to the absurd.