Leapfrog's Journal: Thoughts from Thoreau

"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation."

Once, a while ago, I looked at this quote and figured out what Thoreau really meant here: "Everyone else lives their life of desperation quietly, yet you complain about it all the time. Shut up, loser!"

I need to learn to stop complaining, and instead just bury my desperation deep inside. There it can fester and burn and calcify, until there is nothing left of me but a bitter, hollow, angry, disappointed old man. Yes, that's what I should do.

Hello again Leapfrog

[pyrrho]

> "Everyone else lives their life of desperation quietly, yet you complain about it all the time. Shut up, loser!"

I don't think so. But I don't know his work very well. Still, I think he was saying, "Go kick some ass!"

But then I get what you are saying. Nietzsche has a very good approach to this. He was nauseated by what he saw around him. He knows the progressives are nauseated, the reformers, all nauseous at what they see, and rightfully so.

But then, who feels sick in that case? The source of the problem? No, you!!! One has to learn how to face life without feeling nauseous, because otherwise the world is making one sick, and you are the one that's dying from it, not the worlds ills.

So yeah, let's just face the fact that the world is flawed and enjoy it for what it is... interesting.

Philosophy 330

[Leapfrog]

Okay, I suffered through a semester of Existentialism, so I'll remind you that Nietzsche, the "ubermensch", the next step of human evolution (so he thought) died weeping in his mother's arms.

I realized some time ago that by denying all absolutes you place Nihilism as the absolute-- requiring that you deny Nihilism? C.S. Lewis claims that at the very least, if all else is removed, every healthy person has some notion that some actions are acceptable and others are not, regardless of whether or not the person performs those actions. That moral sense cannot be denied through conscious will (says Kierkegaard, and by extension, Lewis)--it can only be disregarded-- and therefore does not come from culture (as Nietzsche assumed) or genetics (as Sartre assumed) but rather is compulsory evidence that there is something greater than man. Lewis goes on to name that something greater as God. (As do I, but that seems inconsequential to this discussion.)

So, here I'll turn to the ever-pragmatic Viktor Frankl, who tells us that a man will allow his suffering, no matter how great or small, to 'fill entirely his soul'. The only way to excise that suffering (according to Leapfrog) is to accept its existence, focus on the positives of life (Frankl also tells us that even in a Nazi death camp, there was levity, humour, and joy -- there must be something worth celebrating) and move on. Although my mind knows this, the "feeling center" (Rev. Joseph Freeman) refuses to accept it. Again, change can only be implemented by exterior influence.(C.S. Lewis)

But, to go back to Thoreau: Yes, I took his quote severely out of context. Then, I misinterpreted it to suit my own emotional context, and unleashed an irrational defense mechanism instead of dealing with the emotional issues at hand. If I had to guess, that fault is historically the number one reason why regular readers of my journals have ceased to be readers. Either that or the fact that occasionally months pass between scribblings. In any case, it gave me some comfort to write such absurd things, even while knowing at some level of their absurdity. And now I've forced myself to look at those thoughts critically (see meta-journal) and deconstructed the original notion. Thoreau didn't mean that, and I don't really think I should mean it either. Thus is the danger of snapshotting the mind of Leapfrog!

Re:Philosophy 330

[pyrrho]

I don't snapshot. I average.

I believe that Nietzsche was neither existentialist or nihilist. Nihilism is what happens if you discard all your values, Nietzsche advocate re-evaluating our values, which is quite different, and in my own reading actually warned of a coming cultural nihilism.

Really, a nihilistic-like state is a midpoint on reevaluating values.

But we will no doubt continue to disagree as I find a fundamental difference in that I do believe that moral sense is a program/perspective of the human mind that can be arranged in a wide variety ways, some total anathema to anything you would want to call moral.

For example, slavery was once considered moral. Not just acceptable, but moral. It was considered Good to be a conqueror and the spoils of war were not ill gotten but direct rewards of accomplishment.

Re:Philosophy 330

[Leapfrog]

Yes, but my journals have always been snapshots.

Also, a friend of mine once said that philosophy is arguing over things that no one can prove or refute. I could make a pretty strong case that the flat world sits balanced perilously on an infinite stack of turtles, and I wouldn't have to go any farther than Descartes and sensory doubt. One man's absolute is another man's folly.

Nietzsche appears to have believed that a) an individual must take responsibility for his acts of free will and b) there is no absolute Good or Evil. To me, these are the hallmarks of existentialism. Your mileage, of course, will vary. I mention this not in the spirit of argument, but to give explanation for my own opinion. The term "existentialism" itself has been beaten beyond recognition. Nihilism, too. For a long time I thought that being a nihilist meant buying a cricket bat, keeping a ferret, and wearing black spandex clothing all day. (Thanks to The Big Lebowski.)

I've gone far enough down that dusty road to know that it doesn't go anywhere I want to go. After spending that much time questioning everything, I figured that determining the nature of existance was not a useful persuit for me. But one thing more bears comment: your claims about slavery and the spoils of war don't line up with my understanding. They were not necessarily Good but rather Justified. I don't think Nietzsche (or Charlemagne) thought that there was a difference.

For my next trick, I will prove that black is white and get myself killed at the next zebra crossing. Philosophy is tiring.

Re:Philosophy 330

[pyrrho]

While there is some truth in the idea that "philosophy is arguing over things that no one can prove or refute" it can't be a fair assesment because in fact there are achievments of philosophy... examples? Philosophers invented formal logic. This is something useful. And as for mythological ideas... I don't think they can be defended by Cartesian Doubt, and I point to the counter example that modern physics is a direct decendant of Natural Philosophy. Philosophy does have tools to find truth, evidently, though I'll wisely stop there and not mention which tools these are, though logic is one.

"Existentialism" is an abused and confused term. Nihilism, however, is "nothingism" and it's the idea that nothing can be believed.

Nietzsche didn't seem to think that the individual was nec. responsible for their own free will in that he talks alot about suspicious that free will is an illusion of some sort. But you might be right in that he does imply there certainly is no one else to hold responsible for your actions.

Now I'm a bit guilty here, as you've mentioned you may not enjoy time on the dusty roads of philosophical insight, but since your comments are interesting to me, I reply. Don't feel you have to reciprocate, I won't mind.

However, regarding the morality of war and plunder. If you are right and I wrong, why is Ceasar remembered as Great? What great thing did he do besides conquer?