Amor Fati: What is that?

Well then, there will be little action for you in here.
This is the Philosophy subforum. If you're not prepared to engage in philosophical discussion, then feel free to not post in here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Just get scientists and philosophers to agree and "boom" there ya go a level of peace that has not existed since Aristotle's day. IM sure it would be some form of art both the act and the completion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Amor fati -

includes a rejection of some transcendent referee, even in oneself. There is no stepping to the sidelines and crying 'foul' about some event/behavior (effectively that is; everyone tries anyway)

is a step beyond stoicism with its gritted teeth and dignity. You are supposed to say 'yes', embrace. Thank you sir, may I have another - giving N's idea the maturity, ultimately of the marines and frat initiations.

is family related to New Age ideas - as pointed out by Signal - but with a difference in practical terms. New Agers tend to view less pleasant events as lessons. This give them an immediate post traumatic stress process - they mull over what they must have learned. IOW they run up into their heads to find the silver lining. Amor fati would be less mental, more about the transformation involved in the embracing attitude, as if whatever does not kill one makes one stronger. Not that it does. But it sounds dionysian, rather than the overly mental, afraid of passion New Age version. There is no mulling, no hermeneutics of the event that was unpleasant. We react, it effects us. We go with this transformative process whole heartedly - in theory. It's really just part of the heart.

I smell, like Parmalee, a resistence to dualism in Amor Fati - no supposed to be opposed to is. No outside arbritration. Also no split self - one part reacting/transforming and the other one objecting objectively. He is trying to unifiy himself/us. Give 'it' a full, unified reaction. If you say yes, you are fuller. Though sadly split, see below. And not fuller, especially over time, as one erodes saying yes where no is the natural response.

It ties in, like a bargain, with N's rebellion against guilt. Just as I cannot be judged, so the outer cannot be judged. I need not feel guilty - as so many norms will try to make me feel and more importantly constrain myself because of - and I in turn do not hold the universe up to be judged. I am/it is. Period.

And in forcing back guilt and being consistent N creates an idea that generates shame. It has within it the same splits as religions produce. Oddly it also reifies language (into what it refers to) or dematerializes the act of speaking. nay-saying is shameful, as if nay-saying were not a part of what is - in N himself, in us. So the little fascist in the mind who tries to adhere to Amor fati, must tame so many reactions 'in here' in the name of accepting, no embracing what is 'out there.'

No, no, say yes to everything.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. How to be an excuse for a human, with no virtues and no principles, and still feel good about yourself.

2. There is a metaphysical "there" that people generally feel they should go to, even if it is not clear what this "there" is, as it seems it could be many things. Amor fati is an attitude of not going "there", but remaining on the surface, convinced "this is just as good".

 

in the platform sutra, shen-hsiu, the learned and literate monk, presents the following verse:

the body is the bodhi tree,
the mind is like a clear mirror.
at all times we must strive to polish it,
and must not let the dust collect.

hung-jen, the master, deems this inadequate and suggestive of an incomplete understanding. and so, hui-neng, the illiterate wood-cutter, presents the following:

bodhi originally has no tree,
the mirror(-like mind) has no stand.
buddha-nature (emptiness/oneness) is always clean and pure;
where is there room for dust (to alight)?

buddhist literature typically construes the former as advocating a gradual awakening, whereas the latter emphasizes the sudden and immediate. i see the former as "reflective" of our hermeneutical and semiological inclinations, whereas the latter stresses the pre-reflective. for most, avoiding and averting the former is an exercise in futility.

hence my initial alarm, when invert nexus wrote this:

c'mon, derived solely?! heidegger made this mistake (ever forgetful of the jewgreek), as do certain strains of the "scientifically minded," but few can make such a claim with a straight face--lest one was raised by wolves. i'll refrain from commenting on "what he really means."

likewise, we are all irrepressibly teleologically inclined. some more than others. i'm reminded of the way some folks on this forum (and elsewhere) employ phrases like "paradigm shift": i have to wonder if they are even reading the same kuhn, or popper, that i am? (if i were really trying to be objective, i would extend my criticism and dismay to the more anarcho-primitivist sorts, or--to borrow j. zerzan's phrase--the "bohemian schiz-fluxers.")

with regards to dualisms and western metaphysics, i think nietzsche rather schizophrenic. though i also think his conception of will has been muddied by careless readers, from frank herbert to herman hesse to (fer chris'sake) ayn rand. and, one cannot overlook how many still consider masochism a "perversion."

exactly. i cringe whenever i encounter someone describing nietzsche as a nihilist without qualification--that is, without distinguishing the variety of nihilism which nietzsche does embrace (active or positive nihilism), from the sense which he does not--and yet, at times nietzsche's destructive impulse (even in the form of "affirmations") seems merely reactionary, or just plain destructive. whether this is symptomatic of his "forgetfulness of being," or a shallow insight into human psychology, or his own curious temperament (or even simply a reaction to schopenhauer's pessimism and pitiful interpretation of buddhism) is anyone's guess; but for me, this oversight weakens his endeavor, which even the most skillful exegetes/revisionists have failed to ameliorate.

 

very well put.

Oh how all encompassing nothingness is(= a oneness with Brahman %0 is a state of mind. No truly great man provides true criticism without true understanding. I'm glad a good connection to Buddah can be made for that was Neitzsche's true/hidden meaning.

 

In context though, the kind of mulling involved in the New Age, let's find the lesson in the 'seemingly' unpleasant experience, is hardlly Buddhist. While each - the Buddhist, the New Ager - could be said to be striving to return to a state of calm and acceptance, the latter is engaging in precisely the kinds of mental gymnastics that inhibit even gradual Buddhist work strives for. In fact it is simply a kind of reverse image of depressive thinking where the negative is sought out in everything. It is a kind of self-convincing and rationalizing.

Well, you know when dogs meet and there is the 'I get to smell your ass, but you don't get to smell mine' game that sometimes is an early dominance feel out? I think he was shifting out of the way with perhaps a little too much fervor while dominance moves were being made around him. Call it hyperbole.

I read N a long time ago and I have no idea how much my memory has distorted him or even if my original readings were particularly good or if I could do a good job now. When I read Walter A. Kauffman's book on N and saw that he said N was really Apollonian and not Dionysian, I thought, heck, if the people who get paid to analyze this stuff can be loopy, I can relax. And as far as N I have ever since.

It does seem to me that he was in a stage and he was exploring activities and attitudes in reaction to the long dominance of some in Europe. Could he really have understood the consequences of his own ideas on a human, especially another human?

I think a lot of final answers are taken when it seems like 'this' -whatever it is - must be the final answer or there is none. This is conveniently not notices. Another approach is some version of stiff upper lip - smile sometimes obligatory, sometimes not, depending on the prophet or philosopher.

 

If everything is fated to be, this includes our reactions. If one truly has amor fati, then one would embrace not having it in oneself and in others. One would accept all of one's own reactions, including those that say NO, refuse to embrace, judge, complain, reject, naysay and so on.

Unless there is a strange dualism.

he has a formula for greatness. If one wants nothing...etc. this is greatness or one is great.

So it is better to be like that.

It seems to me N is having trouble loving those who cannot do this and those parts of himself that cannot do this.

His amor fati goal is interfering with his amor fati.

or something is transcending something and we have a dualism.

 

All for nothing is all for nothing - regardless whether it is "cheerfully all for nothing", or "sadly all for nothing".

 

Yes. "Amor fati" does appear not to withstand reflexive criticism.

So much for Philosophieren mit dem Hammer.

 

no you just have to say yes to everything. He spoke of the fate and ego of himself when he wrote. He knew his fate was to em-part wisdom. he did not have the mind capable for a full translation.

"Dreams- on the rare occasions when our dreams succeed and achieve perfection- most are bungled- they are symbolic chains of scenes and images in place of a narrative poetic language;"Neitzsche

when was the last time you remembered your perfect dream? and could actually explain it to someone.

"we use up too much artsy in our dreams- and therefore are impoverished during the day"Neitzsche

what about day dreams? what are those made out of?

 

It seems like you are saying no to something.

 

I think this is the most accurate interpretation of what Nietzsche is saying using this term in his works. I think from reading Nietzsche and interpretations of him by people like Robert C Solomon, the point he is trying to make is we have to accept our life. One of the reasons Nietzsche railed so powerfully against Christianity and religion generally in his works is so many people hate this life and this world and devise nihilisms in the form of religion to escape via the delusion we can transcend the human condition through forms of asceticism and self-denial. It should be remembered Nietzsche was strongly influenced by religious beliefs and philosophical systems which seemed to evaluate humanity and the world in very bleak terms (being brought up a Lutheran and also having a brief affair with Schopenhauer's pessimistic philosophical system in his youth).

Nietzsche is not always crystal clear on the manner since he uses very powerful rhetoric and use of paradox to shatter straitjacketed modes of thinking (he was after all a Professor of Philology at age 24). But I think he did want people to not just settle for mediocrity, but become great. One key underlying theme of the Birth of Tragedy for example, is his admiration for the Greeks who had the courage to face up to life and suffering in a meaningless and chaotic universe, in spite of whatever the universe threw at them. The best of Greek courage was apparent in the works of great Greek art, but the worst in attempts by philosophers like Plato to transcend the world via metaphysical speculation.

His message in my view to the person who reads his work is you need to consider your life and be willing to take all the pain and failure (which we all have) along with the good. He posed a thought experiment in which the reader is asked by a Demon whether if you were offered immortality in the form of eternal recurrence (i.e. living your life over and over again indefinitely) you would joyfully accept it or scream in rage because you hated your life. If you could joyfully accept living your life over and over again indefinitely, you had it 'right' - if you hated your life, then you were trapped in nihilism.

The message seems relevant today when the majority of thinking people in the West don't seem to believe in any sort of world beyond this one, don't accept the idea the world has a creator or some sort of ultimate transcendental 'ground', and believe value and meaning are created by people rather than determined by a creator or some ultimate ground in nature (i.e. a natural law of morality and justice).

 

saying no to a negative? thats a double negative which pushes farther the boundaries in my world...


I think Parmenides has the main idea(=

 

What is labeled negative. But these so called negative reactions are just as full as any other.

It's good to have the boundaries of one's world pushed further sometimes.

 

I can accept the life in me that says no on occasion, or I can use self-denial to force myself to accept certain things 'out there' in the name of an idea.

Weren't N's writings coming out of dissatisfaction with the way certain things were? My goodness they seem that way.

 

every time has its dissatisfactions... its not like we live in a perfect world...

we always argue over religion or religiously praise someone's work.

but we often fail to see flaws in their logic which is the way it really ought to be.

Point out the obvious to an individual and they can always take it the wrong way. damn leaned emotions people of this day have.

 

For someone promoting acceptance he was awfully rebellious and unacceptant!

 

I suppose we can use his

against some of the simple rules for living be forwarded here.

 

Yes, because eating like porks, screwing like pigeons, killing like hyenas and sleeping like bears really is the tops of what existence has to offer to humans! And to deny that to ourselves is really really bad.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!